Commons Sitting of 4 April 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For the County of Meath, v. Michael Davitt, who,

659
having been adjudged guilty of felony and sentenced to penal servitude for fifteen years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Order 167, appointed and nominated.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

  STANDING ORDER 167.
  Select Committee appointed to consider and report whether Standing Order 167, prohibiting the payment of interest or dividend on calls during the construction of a Railway, shall be retained or modified:—Mr. BAXTER, Mr. H. R. BRAND, Mr. SHAW, Mr. SALT, and Colonel WALROND nominated Members of the Committee.
  Ordered, That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records; Three to be the quorum.

  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Ordered, That Standing Orders 129 and 39 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Monday the 17th instant.
QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will consider the propriety of saving time in the conveyance of passengers from England to the United States, by discontinuing the practice of calling for the mails at Queenstown, especially as the causes which led to the practice have been wholly superseded by the almost daily mails to the United States, and since the delay is a great inconvenience and discomfort to passengers and a hindrance to the transaction of business?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the advantage of the packets calling at Queenstown for mails to the United States is, that it gives a later despatch by 24 hours from London than if the mails were embarked at Liverpool; while it gives even greater advantage to correspondence posted in Ireland. I do not think, therefore, it would be desirable to make the change suggested by my hon. Friend. I may add that mails are only sent by three out of the several lines of steamers to America; and I cannot help thinking
  660
  that it is a convenience to passengers, and especially to passengers from Ireland, to have the opportunity of embarking from Queenstown.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOHN HEALY.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any reply has been returned to the application of Mr. John Healy, suspect in Limerick Gaol, to be allowed out on parole to enable him to take steps to collect his debts?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)(in the absence of Mr. W. E. FORSTER), in reply, said, that His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant had been pleased to order the release of this man.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JAMES HOLDEN.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mr. James Holden, of Shanborgh, near New Ross, who has undergone over five months imprisonment in Naas Gaol, was arrested at the same time and on a similar warrant as Mr. Hugh Mahon, who has long since been released; and, whether, considering that the district around New Ross is in a peaceable condition, he thinks it necessary to detain Mr. Holden longer?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that Mr. James Holden had been imprisoned in Naas Gaol. During this period Mr. Hugh Mahon, who was arrested at the same time, was discharged because it represented that his life was in danger. Mr. Holden's case had been recently considered by the Lord Lieutenant, who found that he could not at present recommend his release.
MR. REDMONDinquired whether the district of New Ross was not in a perfectly peaceable condition at present?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, he could not give any information on that point; but it did not follow that because a district was peaceable after arrests that it would necessarily continue to be so if the prisoners were released.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. GANNON AND JOHN RYNOLDS.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Messrs. Gannon and John Rynolds have not been in Monaghan Prison since 30th October last charged with inciting others not to pay rent, and of which charge they declare themselves innocent; whether the district in which they formerly resided is not now perfectly peaceable; and, whether, under all the circumstances, these two suspects should not now be released?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that these men had been arrested, not for inciting others not to pay rent, but on reasonable suspicion of maiming cattle. No such representation as those mentioned in the Question had been made to the Government. The districts where these men were arrested had undoubtedly improved; but the cases were considered last month, and it was found that they could not at present be released.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE "EMERGENCY" MEN—CASE OF JAMES CARSON.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as reported in the "Belfast Morning News" of the 29th March 1882, that James Carson, one of the emergency men who accompanied the expedition from Monaghan to save Captain Boycott's crops, was, at Monaghan Petty Sessions, on the 28th March instant, charged by the police with cursing the Queen, cursing the Pope, and drawing a bayonet from a soldier, and threatening to shoot said soldier with a revolver, for which series of outrages said emergency man was merely fined in forty shillings; and, if he will explain what steps he has taken against the magistrates who heard the ease and inflicted such mild penalties?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, the facts were not correctly stated by the hon. Member. James Carson had been charged with disorderly conduct, with refusing to leave licensed premises, and with having assaulted a soldier. Ser-
662
geant Jones, upon whom the assault was alleged to have been committed, regarded it only as a joke. Carson was fined 30s. and costs for the disorderly conduct, and 10s. and costs for the assault, and it was believed that a summons would be issued against him for having used seditious language. It was not the intention of the Government to take any steps against the magistrates who had adjudicated in the case.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE "EMERGENCY" MEN—ASSAULT AT MANULLA STATION—DECISION OF MAJOR BOND.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it is true, as reported in the "Belfast Morning News" of the 29th March instant, that at Balla Petty Sessions, held on the 28th March 1882, an Emergency man was fined in £10 for presenting a revolver and threatening to shoot a Railway guard, at Manulla Station, on the 18th instant; if the said offence was indictable, for what reason the magistrates acted summarily in a case so grave and serious; and, if the Major Bond, R.M. who presided at the trial is Major Bond, late of Birmingham?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that at Balla Petty Sessions an Emergency man was charged with having presented a revolver at two railway officials. After hearing the case the Bench were unanimous in treating it as one of common assault, and not one that should go to the Superior Courts. They therefore dealt summarily with it, as they were entitled to do. The Major Bond referred to was Major Bond, late of Birmingham.

EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—CASE OF MRS. IRWIN, OF BROOTALLY, CO. ARMAGH.
MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Mrs. Irwin, of Brootally, county Armagh, a widow over 90 years of age, was evicted on the 23rd March by her landlord, Mr. Thomas Hansom, who, it is alleged, broke into her house, smashed her furniture, delf, &c., destroyed her potatoes, hay, and straw, and left her lying on the roadside, although she offered, him the rent, and

663
asked him to wait for two hours until her daughter proceeded to Armagh to consult a solicitor about the sheriff's costs; and, whether it was legal for the landlord, before the two months' "stay" had expired to evict Mrs. Irwin; and, if not, what notice Government propose to take in the matter? The hon. Member said, that portion of the Question had been omitted, and it was this—The County Court Judge had given a stay of execution in the case, and it was before that stay had expired that the eviction took place.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that it was true that Mrs. Irwin had been evicted for non-payment of rent. There was no ground for the statement that her house was broken into and her furniture destroyed. The door was open when the party arrived, and Mrs. Irwin herself stated that no damage was done to her property. She was re-admitted three or four hours after the eviction, having paid her rent in the meantime.

SOUTH AFRICA—CETYWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO ENGLAND.
SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is still proposed to bring the ex-Zulu King, Cetywayo, to England, and by whom the expenses of the journey are to be borne, whether by the ratepayers of the Cape Colony or of this Country?
MR.COURTNEY: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not relinquished the intention of bringing Cetywayo over to this country; but the arrangements are not completed, and no time has yet been fixed for his departure from the Cape. The expenses will be paid by this country.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JOHN O'BRIEN.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, On what grounds John O'Brien, of Clogheen, county Tipperary, now detained as a suspect in Naas Gaol, has not been released, seeing another prisoner, arrested at same time on same charge of intimidation, has been re-
664
leased; whether the district of Clogheen is perfectly peaceable; whether it is true, as reported, that the sub-inspector of the district stated the suspect would be kept in the full term, as he had been arrested in 1866, and should be punished again for the offence committed at that time; and, whether the continued detention of John O'Brien has been influenced by the Report of said sub-inspector?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, the case of this man had been considered, and it was not thought safe to release him at present. He did not think he should state the grounds upon which his further detention was deemed necessary.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLYCARY DISPENSARY DISTRICT AND LARNE WORKHOUSE.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What is the largest number of paupers who have been inmates of Larne Workhouse from the Ballycary Dispensary district during the past year; and, how many persons have received outdoor relief from same district during that time?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, the Returns would be given unopposed.

STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED OUTRAGE IN WEXFORD COUNTY.
MR. REDMOND (for Mr. BARRY)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any report has reached the Government of an outrage committed by the wife of the sub-inspector of police at Taghmon, county Wexford, who, it is alleged, on the 8th instant, fired a revolver at her servant man, whose face was scorched by the discharge, the bullet passing through a window and lodged in the woodwork of a house on the opposite side of the street; and, if the Government will cause inquiry to be made into this case?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, the facts of the case were being inquired into; and if the hon. Member would repeat the Question when the House reassembled, he hoped to be able to give him all information.

POST OFFICE (CONTRACTS)—THE MAILS BETWEEN LONDON AND DUBLIN.
MR. FINDLATERasked the Postmaster General, When the Contract for the Mails between London and Dublin will be renewed; whether he will secure, under the new Contract, such acceleration of the service as will enable persons in the provinces in Ireland to answer letters from London by the same day's mail from Dublin; and, whether the terms of the Contract will be laid before Parliament before their final ratification?
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the contract is still in force, and can be terminated only on 12 months' notice. Such notice has not yet been given, although tenders for the sea service have been called for with a view to the question being considered. While in some parts of Ireland letters from London can already be answered by return of post, it would not, in any circumstances, be possible to secure the same advantage to all parts of Ireland; but the question of acceleration referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Monaghan shall not be lost sight of. As in the case of all contracts for sea service for a term of years, it will be necessary that a new contract for the Irish mail service should be laid before Parliament for ratification.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MESSRS. CULLEN AND LYNOTT.
MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the district of Manorhamilton, county Leitrim, is reported by Mr. Waters, County Court Judge, and by the Rev. Patrick O'Reilly, CC. in "Freeman" of 21st March, to be perfectly peaceable; and, whether, under the circumstances, it is necessary further to imprison Messrs. Cullen and Lynott, more especially as they declare themselves innocent of the charge of intimidation which has been brought against them?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, the cases of all these men were considered last month, and it was decided that they could not be liberated at present.

PREVENTION OF FIRES IN THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS).
MR DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received from the head of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade any Report regarding the condition of the London Theatres, or any of them, with reference to sufficiency of exits and means of prevention of fires; and, if so, whether he will state the nature of that Report, and when he will be prepared to lay it upon the Table of the House?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: In the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend I will answer this Question. The Secretary of State for the Home Department received, a few days ago, a Report of the nature described from the chief officer of the Metropolitan Fire Brigade on certain of the London Theatres. The Secretary of State is in communication with the Lord Chamberlain and the Metropolitan Board of Works on this important and urgent subject; but, pending consideration of such measures as the Report may render necessary, he does not propose to lay it on the Table of the House.

FACTORY ACTS—LEAD POISONING—LEGISLATION.
MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the case of Hannah M'Carthy, who died in the Shoreditch Infirmary, on Thursday last, from lead poisoning; whether he has seen the evidence given at the inquest by Mr. Forbes, medical officer of the Shoreditch Workhouse, who is reported to have said:—
"Cases of lead poisoning, fatal and otherwise, are of frequent occurrence. The deceased worked at a lead factory in Southgate Road, where she had teen engaged for ten months only. The nature of the work was very deadly.… My experience tells me that the workers in lead factories require more looking after. I have had sixteen cases under my care in a few months, and the worst of it is that the married women who work in lead factories absorb the poison, and give it to the suckling child in the milk;"
whether he can compel the owners of lead factories to adopt means to prevent what the jury, in their verdict, characterized as "the wholesale poisoning by lead" which now goes on in these

667
places; and, if he has not now sufficient power, whether he will apply to Parliament for any alteration in the Law, so as to afford protection to the lead workers while following their employment?
MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a report in the "Daily News" of yesterday of an inquest held on the body of Hannah M'Carthy, by the coroner for East Middlesex, who died from the effects of lead poisoning after only ten months employment at the lead works, and to the recommendation of the jury
"the Legislature should at once take steps to compel the proprietors of lead works to provide proper protection to those in their employ;"
whether the present Factory and Workshops' Acts are sufficient to give the necessary protection to the lives of the people engaged in these deadly works; and, if not, whether he is prepared to ask Parliament for increased power in respect to lead works; and, whether he would consider if it would not be advisable to prohibit the employment of women and young persons in lead works?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, this case has already engaged the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, who has called for a special Report thereon from the Chief Inspector of Factories. The recommendations of the jury and the suggestions of the hon. Member will receive due consideration.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—JOHN HOOLIHAN.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that John Hoolihan, of Lacka, Ballyduff, county Kerry, has been imprisoned, on suspicion, since the 16th April 1881; that he emphatically denies having taken any part in the act to which he is accused of having been a party; that two other men from the same district have been discharged, though arrested long after Hoolihan; and, whether, under such circumstances, it is his intention to prolong this man's imprisonment beyond a year?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, that the case of this man had been recently considered by the Lord Lieutenant, who now saw his way to order his discharge.

STATE OF IRELAND—JURIES IN THE KING'S COUNTY.
MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been directed to the failure of justice at the King's County Quarter Sessions just terminated, and whether the Chairman, Mr. Neligan, Q.C., is correctly reported in the Irish newspapers to have said as follows:—
"His Honour said the case was one of the simplest that ever went before a jury, and he expressed his astonishment that they were unable to arrive at a verdict. It was not, he said, this case alone that was at issue, but the system of trial by jury was on its trial; and, if a King's County jury could not agree after such evidence as they had, he could only say that it had been reduced to an absurdity, and, if you cannot come to a decision, I must decline to try any more prisoners, and (addressing the Crown Solicitor) Mr. Mitchell, you need not send any more before me. You may send them to the Assizes;"
and, if report be correct, what steps Her Majesty's Government intend to take to prevent a recurrence of similar failures?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, he had not seen the report in question; but he had no doubt it was correct. The Government would be only too anxious to prevent the recurrence of such a state of facts.
MR. HEALYasked if it was proposed to deal with the question of the Grand Juries in Ireland at the same time?
[No answer was given.]

LAND LEAGUE MEETINGS (ENGLAND).
MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it was by his instructions the police did, on Sunday 2nd instant, order Michael Barrett, White Swan, Old Gravel Lane, Wapping, to refuse to allow a Land League Meeting to be held in his house; and, if not by his instructions, will he give orders that for the time to come the police are not to interfere with peaceable political meetings?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, from inquiry made of the police authorities it appears that such a meeting did take place at the time and place mentioned. The landlord was desirous of having the house cleared; but the police declined to interfere in any way. It therefore appears unnecessary to issue any instructions to the police such as the hon. Member asks for.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—THE MERCERS' COMPANY AND THEIR TENANTS.
MR. LEAMYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a resolution passed at a meeting of the tenants of the Mercers' Company recently held at Kilrea, county Derry, condemning the action of the Company in attempting to force tenants in arrear to sign agreements not to apply to the Court for the purpose of having a fair rent fixed; and, whether the Government intend to take any notice of the statements in the resolution?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, it appeared that the tenants of the Mercers' Company had made certain complaints; but he had not yet had an opportunity of investigating the circumstances. It would be obviously improper on his part to express any opinion on the complaints themselves, and the matter was not one in which Her Majesty's Government ought to interfere.

CHARITY COMMISSION—PAROCHIAL CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
MR. JOHN HOLLONDasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that several of the Boards of Trustees of the Parochial Charities of the City of London have inquired of the Charity Commissioners whether they can sanction the application of the funds of their charities to the purpose of opposing the Public Bill which has been brought into the House dealing with these charities, and promoting the Private Bill brought in for a similar purpose, and that the Charity Commissioners have replied that they consider any such application of charitable funds to be illegal; whether he is aware that, in spite of their reply, certain Boards of Trustees in the City
670
of London are now making contributions out of the charitable funds under their management for the above-mentioned purpose; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will consider the propriety of taking legal steps to have these Boards of Trustees restrained from such a misapplication of trust funds?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Sir, my attention has only been called to the Question this morning; and I have, therefore, had very little opportunity of making inquiry. I understand that application was made to the Charity Commissioners that they would enable certain Trustees to spend money in opposing or promoting certain Bills, and the Charity Commissioners expressed the opinion that the expenditure for such a purpose would be illegal. They have received a communication from the solicitor to one of the Charities to the effect that, in the opinion of eminent counsel, such expenditure would be legal. My own opinion is in accordance with the decision of Lord Eldon in 1826, who decided that the expenditure of Charity funds in promoting Private Bills which are not afterwards passed into law is illegal. If the Charity Commissioners ask my advice, of course the matter shall be fully considered.

CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONDEMNED PRISONER LAMSON.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will lay before Parliament the Despatch sent by the Government of the United States to Her Majesty's Government, or communicated by the Minister of the United States to Her Majesty's Government, relative to the convicted prisoner Lamson, and the answer of Her Majesty's Government there to? The right hon. Gentleman said, perhaps the House would allow him to make a short explanation in regard to the Question. He wished expressly to exclude the Memorial itself and the statement of facts, which the Home Secretary stated yesterday was for himself and not for the House. He also desired to say that he made this inquiry in no spirit of hostility to the Government, but in order to strengthen their hands, and in order that the country might have an assurance that there had been no attempt on

671
the part of any foreign Power to interfere with the administration of our Municipal Laws.
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has made the explanation, for, in the absence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, I was about to say that if the right hon. Gentleman's Question referred to the same Papers as those referred to by the hon. Baronet the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) yesterday, I could only have repeated the reply of my right hon. and learned Friend, that to lay on the Table Papers with respect to the exercise of mercy by the Crown would, in his opinion, make it absolutely impossible that that prerogative should be exercised. If, however, as I suppose, the right hon. Member refers to the formal Correspondence with the United States Minister, I may state that the Foreign Office will have no objection to lay it ultimately before Parliament.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department lay it on the Table himself, or shall I move for it?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: He will lay it on the Table himself, but not immediately.

CIVIL SERVICE (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENT OF MR. CROKER.
MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has conferred the appointment of Poor Law and Grand Jury Auditor on a Mr. Croker, of Ballinagarde, county Limerick; if Mr. Croker has ever held any other office in the Civil Service; if he possesses a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commissioners; if not, what test of qualification and fitness was obtained in his case, what examination he underwent, how many candidates there were for the office, and how many members of the existing staff of the Local Government Board were eligible for and applied for the appointment; and, on what grounds he set aside their applications and selected a person from outside the Civil Service?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, he understood that Mr. Croker had been appointed to this position, although not
672
on the Staff of the Local Government Board. The same was the case with the last three persons appointed; but his appointment was made subject to his obtaining a Civil Service certificate. Mr. Croker was selected from the other candidates, as he was the best qualified, having been a bank clerk of many years' standing, and eminently fitted for the position.

POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT)—THE TELEGRAPH SERVICE IN IRELAND.
MR. CALLAN (for Mr. GRAY)asked the Postmaster General, with reference to the recent appointment of Telegraph Superintendent in Dublin by the transfer to Dublin of the Belfast Telegraph Superintendent, Whether the vacancy thus created in Belfast has been filled by the transfer to Belfast of the late superintendent of the Dublin Telegraph Department; and, if that is not the case, whether the vacancy in Belfast has been filled by the promotion of a Belfast clerk; whether, if it be contemplated to fill the Belfast vacancy by a promotion from the Belfast staff, the nett effect of the change will be to deprive, not by their own fault, the entire Dublin staff of four promotions; whether it is a fact that the assistant superintendent of telegraphs in Dublin has for a considerable period satisfactorily discharged the duties of superintendent, and is an officer of long service and of high character; whether, since it is regarded to be of importance that there should be transfers from office to office, and from one part of the kingdom to another, so that persons in the service of the Post Office in Ireland and Scotland should have an opportunity of being appointed to positions in England, and persons in England should have an opportunity of being transferred to Ireland, he could quote to the House any instances in which such transfers resulted in the promotion of Irish clerks to English or Scotch offices; whether it is a fact that whilst frequently transfers of this kind, involving the loss of promotion to the Dublin telegraph clerks, have been made from England and parts of Ireland to Dublin, or corresponding advantages have been obtained by the Dublin telegraph clerks in transfers to other parts of the kingdom; whether it is a fact that, by the interference with the regular system of promotion, the Dublin tele-

673
graph clerks have within the past year been deprived of no less than ten promotions, notwithstanding the fact that they have been thanked for the manner in which they performed their work; and, whether he will take any steps to secure that the transfer now referred to shall be effected in such a manner as not to deprive the staff of telegraph clerks in Dublin of their legitimate promotion, and to secure that in future such changes shall not militate against their legitimate claims?
MR. FAWCETT: Sir, both at Dublin and at Belfast there has been a recent change of Telegraph Superintendents. The Telegraph Superintendent at Belfast has been removed to Dublin, and the Telegraph Superintendent at Dublin has been removed to Belfast, though no longer in the capacity of Telegraph Superintendent. While officers at Belfast have gained promotion, those at Dublin have not lost any. The Assistant Superintendent at Dublin is an officer of long service and high character, and has discharged his duties satisfactorily; but I thought that on the whole the transfer of the Telegraph Superintendent from Belfast would most conduce to the interests of the Service. With regard to the question of promoting officers from Ireland to England, among other instances I may refer to the fact that two very important offices on the English establishment—namely, those of Provincial Surveyors—are now held by gentlemen who were originally in the Secretary's Office in Dublin. As regards the remainder of the hon. Member's inquiry, I am not aware that the Dublin Office has been unduly deprived of promotion.

PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACT—THE REV. MR. GREEN.
MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on the adjournment of the House for the Easter Festival, he will consider the position of the Rev. Sidney Faithorn Green, now, and for a year past, incarcerated in Lancaster Gaol, under these circumstances: Mr. Green was prosecuted for an alleged infraction of the legal Ritual of the Church of England, and for this offence was visited with the punishment of imprisonment; and, whether, considering that Lord
674
Penzance, who tried him, a Judge created by the Public Worship Regulation Act, and exercising the function of Official Principal, had never completed his qualifications in the usual way, and, considering also the severity of the penalty inflicted for a Ritual irregularity, he will devise some means of terminating Mr. Green's prolonged detention in Lancaster Gaol?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, this Question relates to the case of the Rev. Mr. Green, who is now, and has been for some time, in prison under, I believe, the Public Worship Regulation Act. My right hon. Friend asks me whether we will consider the position of Mr. Green? We have had occasion to consider this case carefully in consequence of various Memorials and representations made to Her Majesty's Government. But my right hon. Friend asks me whether I will devise some means of terminating Mr. Green's prolonged detention in Lancaster Gaol? Well, Sir, what I am advised is that Her Majesty could not, without going beyond the limit of Constitutional practice, which it would be wrong in us to transgress, apply the Prerogative of mercy or any other power which she may possess for the release of Mr. Green by her own order. With respect to devising some means of terminating the imprisonment of Mr. Green—which must mean legislative means—I think that is rather a business belonging to the consideration of the high authorities who devised and who passed the Public Worship Regulation Act than it is for Her Majesty's Government.

INTERNATIONAL LAW—PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—INTERVENTION OF THE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government, by the Government of the United States, relative to the detention in Ireland of suspects of American nationality; and, whether any answers have been received from the United States Government to the representations made to the Government of the United States, as described on the 20th of June 1881 by him, as to the incitements carried on in that country to outrages in England; and, if so,

675
whether such answers can be laid upon the Table?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government by the American Government in relation to certain subjects of the United States now detained in Ireland among the "suspects." Those communications are in progress, and I am not in a position to give any account of their purport or issue at the present moment. In regard to the second part of the Question, I have to say that communications were made last year in respect to a particular description of literature in circulation in the United States; but no answer has been received from the American Government on the subject.
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he could state, for the information of the House, how many of the "suspects" in Ireland claimed American nationality?
MR. GLADSTONE: I have no exact information on this subject, but my impression is that the number is very small indeed. [Mr. HEALY: Four.] I was going to say either four or six.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE LABOURERS.
MR. A. MOOREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the difficulties which beset labourers in endeavouring to avail themselves of the provisions of the Land Act; and, whether the Government will consider during the Recess what steps may be taken to render the Act more accessible to the deserving class?
MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my attention has been called to the subject, particularly by my hon. Friend the Member for County Cork (Mr. Shaw), of the difficulties of the labourers in certain districts of Ireland, and after considering during the Recess what steps could be taken, I have only to say that I have no reason to despair of the subject. It is possible that the Act may be improved; but I am not able to say that we have in our minds any exact plan for that purpose. Any suggestion tendered by my hon. Friend, or any other person acquainted with the position of the labourers, will receive our careful attention.

NAVY—LAUNCH OF H.M.S. "COLOSSUS."
SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Why the workmen who were employed from half-past one and three o'clock in the morning in preparing for the launch of the "Colossus" were not paid overtime in accordance with custom; and, whether the Admiralty considers that an allowance of only the same time as was worked during the nights in question is fair to the men concerned?
MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the time given in lieu of extra time worked at night exceeds the actual time worked by one-third. That is the rule, and it, no doubt, was observed on this occasion; and, if it was not, I will see that it is made up. These details are in the hands of the Admiral Superintendent; but if the matter had been referred to the Admiralty, the Board would not have refused the payment of the work in money instead of in time.

TUNIS—COMPENSATION TO BRITISH SUBJECTS.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any compensation has been awarded by the French Government to Mr. T. L. Smith, a British subject farming at Matu, near Tunis, for injury to his crops and farm in the year 1881; and, whether any Papers on the subject can be laid upon the Table?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris has brought Mr. Smith's case before the French Government with a view to the re-consideration of his claim for compensation, or the reference of it to arbitration. No reply has yet been received; but the Papers will be included in the general Correspondence which will ultimately be laid upon the Table with regard to British claims for losses sustained in Tunis.

IRELAND—MR. PARNELL—REPRESENTATION OF LIVERPOOL.
MR. SEXTONsaid, that in the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he wished to ask the Head of Her Majesty's Government, Whether his attention had been called to a correspondence

677
between Mr. Thomas Evans and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, with reference to the request on the part of some of the electors of Liverpool to visit Kilmainham next Friday or Saturday to present an address to Mr. Parnell with reference to the representation of Liverpool; whether they were not right in appealing to the central Government, and not to the gaolers, to give a direct reply to the appeal?
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he had no knowledge whatever of this subject, nor could he undertake to answer in the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman would, he had no doubt, give full consideration to this matter, and he had no doubt that these gentlemen were entitled to appeal to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and to have the answer of the responsible Government on the subject.

CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT—RECENT APPOINTMENTS—MR. WALPOLE.
MR. O'DONNELLasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, with reference to an alleged necessity of appointing to the post of Secretary of the Customs a person having qualifications outside the ordinary experience of the Customs, Whether Mr. Walpole, the assistant-secretary, has performed most important duties outside the ordinary experience of the Customs; whether Mr. Walpole has represented this Country in three conferences abroad; whether Mr. Walpole's services on those occasions received the marked approval of two successive Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs and of Her Majesty's Government; and, whether it is true that the sugar trade, which was the industry represented at those conferences, signified to Her Majesty's Government their warm acknowledgments of the ability and zeal displayed by Mr. Walpole in those negotiations; also, with reference to the alleged advancement of Mr. Walpole to a salary of £1,000 per annum, in compensation for the introduction of Mr. Herbert Murray into the Secretaryship of the Board of Customs, whether, since Mr. Walpole's salary already figures on the Estimates for the current year at £925, rising to £1,000, the Treasury, in awarding Mr. Walpole the immediate salary of £1,000, together
678
with a gift of about £150, has fairly compensated that gentleman for the loss of the Secretaryship, and the other members of the Secretary's staff for the loss of their promotion?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, this Question is founded on a misapprehension. So far as I know, the duties upon which Mr. Walpole was engaged on various occasions were inside, and not outside, the ordinary duties of his office, though not within the routine of those duties. With regard to his services, and the acknowledgment of them by Secretaries of State, I am not in a position to answer that part of the Question, nor could it be answered without laborious search in the Department. With respect to the approval of his ability and zeal by the members of the sugar trade, it may be so, but I am not able to say. I should not, however, attach very much importance to that, as the trade has been actuated by very peculiar views of these proceedings as to the sugar duties. It is true that Mr. Walpole has taken part in several conferences—three, I think—and that his conduct has been approved by the Treasury. With regard to the latter Question of the hon. Member, it is absolutely necessary that the Government should take their stand on this position, that however desirous they may be to promote from within a Department, the public interests absolutely require that they should retain in their own hands the power of making appointments from the outside.
MR. O'DONNELLasked whether the clerks in the Customs Department had memorialized the Treasury, protesting against the appointment of, a stranger, and whether the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lay a Copy of the Memorial on the Table of the House?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I have received that Memorial, but I am not at all prepared to say I should lay it on the Table. I do not think it would be a good precedent in the working of the Executive Government.
MR. O'DONNELLgave Notice that he would move for the production of the Memorial, and also for Copies of the strong expressions of approval of Mr. Walpole's conduct by his official superiors.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—CLONMEL GAOL.
MR. HEALYwished to know whether the Solicitor General for Ireland could now give any information respecting the outbreak of fever in Clonmel Gaol, and whether it had spread through the cells?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER), in reply, said, he had not all the information on the subject; but he could state that the recent case of fever was a mild one, and the patient had been removed to the fever hospital, out of the prison altogether. An inspection of the prison had been made by competent sanitary authorities, and the cause of the disease had been traced to an obstruction in one of the closets, which was situated in a part of the gaol remote from the place where the prisoners were now confined. Arrangements had been made to prevent any danger arising to the prisoners.
MR. HEALYinquired whether the warders had not caught the infection, and whether, under all the circumstances of the case, the "suspects" are to be detained there?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER)said, there was no case of fever in the prison at present. There had been only three cases, one a "suspect," another an ordinary prisoner, and the third a warder.
MR. HEALY: What is the date of the last case?
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. PORTER): The last case was on the 29th of March, and the patient had been removed to the fever hospital outside the gaol. The report of the Sanitary Inspector was that there was no danger to those inside the prison.

ASIATIC TURKEY—SMYRNA QUAY—THE PAPERS.
In reply to Mr. M'COAN,
SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, the delay in the production of the Papers relating to Smyrna Quay arose from the fact that it was found necessary to make some slight change in the Report. They would be ready not later than Monday, and he would endeavour to send advance copies to the hon. Member and to right hon. Gentlemen opposite.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE EASTER RECESS.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday 17th April.—(Mr. Gladstone.)

  CRIME (IRELAND).—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. GORST, in rising to call attention to the proceedings at the recent Assizes in Ireland, and to the evidence thereby afforded of the increase of agrarian crime and the general collapse in the administration of justice, and to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they proposed to take in relation thereto, said, it was of the utmost importance that the truth about the present state of things in Ireland should be known, not only to the Members of Her Majesty's Government, but to the House and to the country. The facts which he intended to lay before the House were, he ventured to say, new to the great majority of Members, and, at all events, to the majority of the people of this country. The first step towards the inauguration of a better policy in Ireland was to obtain full and accurate information of the state of things in that country, to look at the facts fairly in the face; and if the supporters of Her Majesty's Government had been for the last 18 months living in a "fool's Paradise," the sooner they got out of it the better for themselves and for the country. Now, the facts he was about to adduce rested on the best of all evidence—namely, the statements of the Judges, made not for political purposes, but in the discharge of their regular official duty, and from the sworn testimony of witnesses called in the Courts of Justice during the last Assizes. In County Longford, Lord Justice Deasy found at the late Assizes 98 cases, as against 75 in the preceding year; and of these 98 cases, 3 were cases of firing at the person, 9 of arson, 13 of malicious injury to property, 5 of obtaining forcible possession, and 6 of stealing cattle. The Judge said that in a few cases only was the Crown able to bring forward any evidence. In County Clare, on March 7, Mr. Justice Barry said that there extensively prevailed a spirit of insubordination, and lawless-

  681
  ness manifested itself in crime and outrage. There was an absence, not of crime, but of criminals being made amenable. In that county there were 356 cases of agrarian outrage, as against 127 in the preceding year; but as this latter number represented the crime of four months only, while 356 was the number for eight months, the Judge corrected his statement by saying that the proper comparison would be between 856 and 254 outrages. In Leitrim, Chief Justice May found some signs of improvement; but one of the cases brought before him was that in which Keegan, an old man, had been attacked and half roasted alive. The prisoner pleaded "Not Guilty." The sworn evidence of Michael Keegan, who was described as a feeble-looking old man, was as follows:—
  "I reside near Cloone. I remember the 12th of August last, on which day I was working for Mr. Houston, a land bailiff. About 4 o'clock next morning the door of my house was knocked in, when I heard a voice calling on me to come down. I went down into the kitchen, where I saw 10 or 11 men with both guns and pistols in their hands. They put me on my knees and kicked me several times. The barrel of a pistol was two or three times thrust into my mouth. I then got a blow from a gun on the back, and was knocked down. The party then took the fire out of the fireplace and spread it on the floor. They then pulled me off my knees and put me over the burning coals. My shirt then caught fire. I then received a deep gash across the breast about seven inches long. I also received other wounds. My grandson, while I was over the fire, tried to tear off a portion of my burning garment, when he got a blow from one of the party which rendered him senseless. One of the party then said to him, 'What made you go to cut the meadows?'"
  The Judge said it was a sad state of things that such a crime should be committed in any community. The jury then retired, and after an absence of some hours were discharged, on their stating that there was not the slightest probability of their agreeing to a verdict. In the county of Louth, Mr. Justice Lawson commented on the increase of offences committed with a view to prevent people paying their rents, and observed that no persons were made amenable for those offences. In the great county of Tipperary, Mr. Justice Fitzgibbon observed that in the North Hiding there were 159 agrarian crimes this year, against 75 in the preceding year, an increase of more than double; and that in the South Biding there were
  682
  230 agrarian crimes, against 106 in the preceding year, the proportion being considerably more than double. Therefore, in the whole of the county the total number of agrarian crimes in the present year was 389, against 181 in the previous year. The Judge noticed not only the increase in the actual number of offences, but the alarming character of the increase of the more serious kinds of crime—for instance, the wilful injury, killing, and maiming of cattle, which had grown from 13 in the preceding to 48 in the present year; firing with intent to murder; breaking into dwellings at night, which had increased from 20 last year to 63 in the present year, or more than three-fold; and the Grand Jury, at the close of the Assizes, made a formal presentment to the Court, in which they said—
  "The Grand Jury wish to draw the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the alarming increase of the so-called 'Boycotting' in the South Riding of the County Tipperary, where by men of all classes are affected and obstructed in their legitimate business, isolated, and deprived of the very necessaries of life. The Grand Jury respectfully suggest the necessity of making 'Boycotting' a malicious injury, giving the sufferer the usual claim for compensation, or stamping it out by such other measures as Her Majesty's Government may deem fit. They would further suggest that the cost of the extra police in disturbed districts should be placed on smaller areas than counties, and also that compensation be given for injury to the person."
  He made no comment on these things, because in cases of the kind comment was needless. In the county of Westmeath, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said that there were 86 criminal offences, against 84 in the previous year, and that in the whole 86 evidence was forthcoming only in two cases of a petty character. In the county of Limerick, Baron Dowse said that, leaving out of consideration the Winter Assizes altogether, he found that 315 criminal offences had been specially reported to the police, against 244 in the preceding year; that out of the 315 cases there were 246 in which offenders were not known, and there were some 300 persons who refused to give information to the police or make any deposition. In only 65 out of the 315 eases were there any persons charged. In the county of Kilkenny, Judge Harrison found 50 cases, against 39 in the preceding year. In King's County, Chief' Justice Morris said that there were 184 serious cases, of which 83 were

  683
  threatening letters; and as they had heard a good deal in that House about such letters, perhaps he should be excused if he read the observations of the learned Judge. Chief Justice Morris said—
  "Since the last Summer Assizes no less than 184 serious cases are reported to me on the list furnished to me by your County Inspector, a gentleman with whom I have been long and favourably acquainted. That list contains no less than 83 cases of threatening letters—ranging over every species of business that it is almost possible to conceive—threatening to murder, threats of violence, threats of various kinds connected with the various relations of life that must exist in a large and busy community. Gentlemen, sometimes persons of great courage—one of whom I do not profess to be, having merely ordinary fair courage—persons of great courage sometimes suggest that they do not mind threatening letters at all. Well, possibly, when these threatening letters are not seen to be accompanied by any effects, a person may, to a certain extent, possibly arrive at such a conclusion; but when I find that since the last Assizes no less than seven persons have been fired at with, apparently, intent to murder, at various times and in various places—when two of the persons so fired at are members, if not of your Grand Jury, at least of other Grand Juries—when, in four cases out of seven, the person fired at was more or less wounded—in three cases they escaped altogether—when I add as a commentary upon these threatening letters that there have been 46 cases of burning houses, four of hay and other property, that there have been various cases of other malicious injuries to property, and of firing into houses with intent to intimidate—when all these are remembered, I can only sum up this melancholy list by stating that it amounts to 184 cases."
  In the county of Sligo, Judge Ormsby found 138 agrarian crimes, against 97 in the preceding year. In the county of Cavan, Mr. Justice Fitzgerald found 158 cases, against 125 in the previous year. The offenders in 100 of these cases had not been made amenable. There had been 15 or 16 cases of successfully taking away arms, and hardly any of them had been discovered. In the Queen's County, Judge Fitzgerald found 62 cases, against 21 in the preceding year. There were 26 of threatening letters, 2 of murder, 2 of letters threatening absolutely to murder—letters of a very dangerous character—2 of firing at the person with a view to murder, and 2 of assaulting dwellings at night; and the learned Judge especially called attention to a most atrocious case—the murder of a man named Martin Rogers. He said—
  "The lamentable occurrence took place on the 3rd of December last. It was one charac-
  684
  terized by great audacity. It took place in a populous neighbourhood, between 12 and 1 o'clock on the 3rd of December last, near Rathdowney, on the borders of Kilkenny. The unfortunate murdered man had local knowledge—he bad been clerk to an eminent solicitor—here. He had gone to reside in Dublin to pursue his vocation there till he was induced to come down here on the 2nd of December last to serve four writs in this county, as the local process-servers could not be prevailed upon to do so. This young man came down to serve these writs, which were not ejectments, but were intended simply to enforce the payment of rents. He was a small infirm young man. He had lost the use of the right arm. His very helplessness ought to have been his defence, for he was incapable of defending himself. He was offered the protection of the Constabulary; and his reply was—'I know the county well; I do not need protection.' He went and delivered a copy of the writ at each of the four houses. One of the parties charged is a person named Bergin, who is accused of being active in the murder. His house, I collect from the informations, was the last served—the murder, at all events, took place very near his house. This murder must have been witnessed by a number of individuals in the locality; I daresay any one of them could tell every circumstance connected with it; but one of the lamentable features of the case is, that no one in the vicinity of the occurrence will give the hand of the law the slightest assistance. On the other hand, those who have been examined have obviously endeavoured to mislead justice. I gather from that, that there is not only sympathy with crime, but that there is a disposition to defend the murderers. The evidence to come before you will be that of a man who represents that he was actually passing up at the time of the murder. He says he saw two men coming from the one direction, and three from the other, and that, being alarmed, he concealed himself behind a ditch where he was not seen, and from that position he deposes that he saw the murder perpetrated. He says that the five persons accused were the persons engaged in the murder. He described in a graphic manner what occurred—says that the young man cried for assistance and for mercy, and then he said he heard no more. The body of the murdered young man lay on the roadside. The police came and found his head literally battered to pieces. They found there stones with which the murder had been perpetrated. The medical man made a post mortem examination, and he found several extensive fractures of the head, which had been battered. The unfortunate young man had endeavoured to ward off the blows; but so outrageous was the assault made on him, that they fractured his arm in more than one place, and also the fingers of his hand."
  Perhaps the House would remember a similar case of murder at Lough Mask, which must have been witnessed by several persons, not one of whom came forward to give evidence; and it was not until three weeks after the murder that the place where the bodies were deposited was discovered. Mr. Justice

  685
  Barry found there were 379 agrarian cases reported by the police, a decrease upon the number of the preceding year; but the Judge thought proper to call special attention to two cases which had happened since the list was made out, the details of which, he said, would horrify Christendom. An armed party visited a person suspected of having paid his rent, or committed some other offence against some secret organization. The man was shot dead, his wife had her thigh shot away, and a poor girl who struggled to protect her father was beaten and injured in a most savage manner. It was, said the Judge, a most humiliating thing for an Irishman who loved his country to have to state these occurrences in open Court. Within the last two nights, he continued, another man was shot through the window of his house because he was suspected of having paid his rent. At the same Assizes a very remarkable case was heard, in which a man named Jeremiah Mahony was charged with posting threatening notices. The prisoner was caught, as it were, red-handed. There was not the slightest doubt about the case. The jury returned into Court, and stated that if they were locked up for three days they would not agree; and then one of the jury—Mr. A. E. Herbert—intervening, complained that one of the jurors said if kept for a week he would not agree to a verdict. Since the report of that case, Mr. A. E. Herbert had been murdered, his flocks slaughtered, and at his burial the people would not provide a rope to lower his coffin into the grave; and so violent was the revenge against him, that it was feared his grave would be outraged. In Roscommon, Chief Justice Morris found 84 cases, against 30 in the preceding year, and he called attention to a horrible case of murder, where a man, named Brennan, was shot dead in his own house; and what was his offence? It was that his brother was supposed to have paid his rent. The Judge described this case as frightfully horrible. Another man was assassinated because he was called upon to collect the seed rate. What must be the state of feeling among the lower orders in Ireland when men were assassinated for such things? In the county of Cork, Baron Dowse stated that there were no less than 375 cases reported to the Constabulary, in-
  686
  cluding 45 cases of thretening to murder, 32 cases of arson, and 2 of murder, besides cases of malicious injury, treason-felony, unlawful assembly, and riot. In the West Hiding of Cork there were 372 cases very much of the same class of offences; and out of the whole number of 659 cases in the two Ridings, only 21 were not of an agrarian character. In Donegal, Lord Justice Deasy found 105, against 45 in the preceding year. In almost every case tried, the prisoner was acquitted or the jury discharged without finding a verdict. In Mayo, there was a clear case in connection with cutting off the ears of a man named Nolan. Nolan himself gave evidence, as well as his wife and son; but the prisoners set up an alibi in each case, and they were all acquitted. Prisoners sometimes behaved in an extraordinary manner. There was a case in which Patrick Fahy was indicted for assaulting a process-server heard at the Mayo Assizes. Baron Dowse said there was no doubt the prisoner was guilty, but that if he pleaded guilty he would be allowed to stand out on his own recognizance. After consultation with the solicitor for the prisoner, the counsel for the defence said they would leave the case to the jury. Baron Dowse said that was the first time he ever heard of such an offer being refused. But the jury, without leaving the box, found the prisoner "Not Guilty," and he was discharged. Not only was the disease apparently on the increase in those counties where it had existed before, but it seemed to be spreading, because he found in the county of Londonderry, where the Land League was not very powerful, Baron Fitzgerald found 49 cases, as compared with 15 in the preceding year, and in more than half of these cases, a majority of them being cases of malicious destruction of property, no person had been arrested or made amenable. In Wicklow, the cases were 69, against 40 in the preceding year, and Mr. Justice Harrison called attention to the increase, and said that Wicklow had hitherto been free from the disease. Allusion had been made on a former occasion to the observations of Mr. Neligan, one of the most efficient Criminal Judges in Ireland, who, at a trial in the King's County, finding that the jury would not agree in one of the plainest and simplest cases that had ever come before him, said the system of trial by

  687
  jury was on its trial, and that if a King's County jury could not agree after such evidence, it had been reduced to an absurdity. One of the jurors then said—
  "Your Honour, if I had to sit here until 12 o'clock at night, I would not agree."
  Whereupon Mr. Neligan said—
  "Then trial by jury is reduced to an absurdity. If you cannot come to a decision, I must decline to try any more criminal cases;"
  and, addressing the Crown Solicitor, he directed him to send them to the Assizes. In Galway, Lord Chief Justice May said the number of outrages reported was 360, against 335 for the preceding year, and that in only 30 cases had persons been made amenable to justice. The Lord Chief Justice, furthermore, in his address to the Grand Jury, said—
  "There was no doubt the country was in an unsound and disorganized state; but he trusted the powers of this great Empire would be so exercised as to put a stop to a condition of things that was a disgrace to any civilized community."
  He had strictly confined himself to the statements of the Judges and the evidence of sworn witnesses; but he could not help referring to a recent case, which every Member of the House must have read with horror, as confirming the impression made by the history of the recent Assizes, in which an innocent lady, resident in Dublin, when on a visit to her brother-in-law in Westmeath, was shot dead on Sunday when returning from church. While there could be no doubt as to the deplorable condition of Ireland, there might be a difference of opinion as to how far the evil was due to the policy pursued by the Government. In connection with that question, a speech delivered in that House by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) possessed a peculiar significance. It was delivered, he might say, at the time when the Chief Secretary for Ireland shadowed forth in somewhat ambiguous phrases the policy of mingled coercion and conciliation pursued by the Government for the past 18 months. The hon. Member for Tipperary said—
  "The statement which they had heard from the Chief Secretary for Ireland was a new and remarkable departure from the line of policy pursued by the Government.…He only promised protection to the Irish tenant in the event of circumstances arising which would cause him to introduce a Coercion Act. He said that it was only when there was a prospect of disturbance he would bring in such a mea-
  688
  sure; but he had forgotten that it might be the duty of Irish Members to their constituents to get up such a condition of affairs as would force the right hon. Gentleman to give the other Act which he had promised, even if he had to pass a Coercion Act. Never had such an extraordinary promise been laid before Parliament by a Minister as to say that what he could not do before Parliament rose he would do, if his hands were forced, in Ireland during the Recess.…… What use was there in putting a premium on disturbance?"—[3 Hansard, cclv. 2040.]
  Most people would consider that the policy of coercion and conciliation—coercion neutralized by conciliation, and conciliation neutralized by coercion—had failed. He understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself to admit that it had, at least, partially failed; and the distinction made by the right hon. Gentleman was remarkable. He said the Coercion Act had failed to maintain law and order; but it had been successful in enabling them to destroy the power of Mr. Parnell and his associates, and the government that they had thereby exercised over the Irish people. It was a strange confession that the partial success of the policy of the Government should have been due, not to the Land Act, but to the Coercion Act. Now, if the Chief Secretary for Ireland were in his place, he would probably reply by saying he should be very much obliged if the House would tell him what to do. The Prime Minister took a more accurate view of his duties and responsibilities. He would admit that a private Member had fulfilled his duty in laying the facts of the case before the House. It was no part of his duty to make any suggestions to the Government as to what measures they should adopt to combat an evil which was described by Lord Chief Justice May as a disgrace to civilization. He had no desire to draw the Government into hasty explanations. He did not expect an immediate answer to the question of what policy they were now going to pursue in Ireland. The matter was urgent; but everyone would willingly give the Government the Easter Recess to think over it and mature their plans. He believed, however, that as soon as Parliament re-assembled after the Easter Recess the country would expect from the Government some clear declaration of their Irish policy—some declaration which would not be made in the ambiguous language of the Chief Secretary

  689
  for Ireland when he thought aloud in that House; but in the shape of clear and well-defined measures which the Government would lay on the Table of the House, and to which they would ask the assent of Parliament. Unless the Government pursued some course of that kind, and made some proposal to cope with the terrible state of things in Ireland which he had described, he thought everyone would admit that they had not done their duty either to the House or to the country.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, considering the extreme gravity of the facts cited by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), I cannot express either wonder or surprise at his having brought them under the notice of the House. But I do regret that the warning that this subject was to be brought forward was not given when my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was in his place in this House, so that he could have been present to have given a complete view of the state of Ireland, and not when my right hon. Friend had quitted his place in this House in order to resume his place in Ireland, and to perform his very serious duties there—
  MR. GORST: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I gave the Notice at the Sitting of the House yesterday, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland was present.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I certainly had been under the belief that my right Friend had quitted the House before Notice of the hon. and learned Gentleman's statement was given; but, certainly, my right hon. Friend had framed all his plans for returning to Ireland. In any case, I do not think that so very grave a challenge, winding up with a statement that, in the opinion of the hon. and learned Member, the Government must, at a certain time which he thinks fit, declare their policy and plans for Ireland, I do not think such a proposition was wisely or conveniently brought forward after Notice of less than 24 hours. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland would have been most anxious to have been in his place had it been in his power; and undoubtedly it would have been exceedingly desirable that he should have been here, inasmuch as the hon. and learned Gentleman has made pointed reference,
  690
  not unnaturally, to the declarations made by my right hon. Friend. In the absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it is my duty to give a brief outline or view of the state of facts in Ireland. I think that on certain points I might perhaps say that the hon. and learned Gentleman has coloured them in language that even exaggerates the most grave, nay, the enormous, mischiefs which prevail; as, for example, when he described—if I understood him rightly—the threatening letters as in themselves forming a class of serious offences.
  MR. GORST: I only quoted the language of the learned Judge to whom I referred.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I beg the hon. and learned Member's pardon. If it is the language of the Judge, I must take the liberty of noticing what I think is some error in the language of the Judge. But it has been taken up, adopted, and repeated in the most distinct manner by the hon. and learned Gentleman. This is a very grave matter. Nothing is to be gained by over-colouring it. I have no disposition to reduce this matter below the tone which it merits. Threatening letters are an evil in Ireland; they are undoubtedly the sign of a disturbed state of society, and they are occasionally connected with the actual commission of crime. But I think it is an over-statement on the part of the hon. and learned Member, or on the part of the Judge whose language and sentiments he has adopted, to describe them as falling into the class of serious criminal offences. The hon. and learned Member has likewise laboured under the difficulty, for which I do not blame him, of not being able to draw a correct distinction between the state of agrarian crime and the state of crime which is not agrarian. Therefore, in what I have to say I shall not follow the precise course of the hon. and learned Member in referring to county by county, but state what I believe to be the condition of agrarian crime in Ireland generally. Now, the hon. and learned Member, if he does in some respects draw a darker view than mine, draws in other respects a lighter view of the state of Ireland. My contention is, that the Government of the country has had, since the foundation of the Land League, to deal with a state of things in Ireland entirely different from any that had been known

  691
  there for 50 years, and that when you go back for 50 years what you find is a miniature of the operations which have been going on for the last three or four years—I mean that the resistance to tithe, which completely defeated the Government of that day, with all its means, and the Parliament of that day, was, after all, but a miniature of the resistance to rent which has been the basis of the present movement. It was with the greatest astonishment the other day that, when referring to this subject, and attempting to draw a distinction between a political and a social revolution, I heard an hon. Member opposite say they were the same thing. I cannot imagine the state of mind, the state of political vision, of a person who thinks that a political and a social revolution are the same thing. With a political revolution we have ample strength to cope. There is no reason why our cheeks should grow pale, or why our hearts should sink, at the idea of grappling with a political revolution. The strength of this country is tenfold what is required for such a purpose. But a social revolution is a very different matter; and I am grieved to say that, in my opinion, a large number of hon. Members who sit opposite, and among them the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, obviously have not appreciated the gravity of this social revolution. The hon. and learned Member says it may be a fair subject for difference of opinion whether or how far the present state of things in Ireland is owing or is not owing to the Government; and by all means let the hon. and learned Member accuse the conduct of the present Government on this matter or that; but if he could make good every one of his accusations, he would be far, indeed, from showing that he had measured the gravity of the case, or had comprehended what kind of a movement really has been going on in Ireland. Sir, the seat and source of this movement is not to be found during the time the present Government has been in power. It is to be looked for in the foundation of the Land League. The Land League was founded on the doctrine, not of "no rent," but the arbitrary choice of rent; and the right to dissolve and break contracts was proclaimed. No measures were taken against this League—no measures were
  692
  taken against this doctrine. I am most unwilling to refer in his absence—I do it only historically—to Mr. Parnell; but the plans of that Gentleman were distinctly declared and announced, as far as their principles were concerned, long before this Government came into Office, and Mr. Parnell remained at large. Certain persons were apprehended, but their trials were not prosecuted with the vigour and the expedition that might have been used by the Executive Government. These are facts which cannot be shaken. I do not intend to make them the subject of severe imputation, because I admit that it was difficult to judge. [A laugh.] An hon. Member opposite jeers at that; but the subject is really one too serious for me to be turned aside by the manner in which the hon. Member may think fit to receive observations of very great gravity which I make on my responsibility. This is a far larger question than the conduct of any Government. I do not make it a subject of severe censure that the late Government did not foresee the magnitude to which the Land League was to grow, or how it was to take a hold upon the minds of the people of Ireland over a circle infinitely wider than any which has been touched by any movement for the last 50 years. I admit the difficulty of the case, and I do not wish to reflect upon them for it. But at the time when this Government came into Office the Land League was firmly and well established in the land; it had held 200 meetings for its purposes; and the only instrument which had slipped from our hands, inasmuch as only 10 days were left us for the renewal of the Act, was the Peace Preservation Act. I see the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) smiles. He need not think I am going to make much of this. The only instrument was a Peace Preservation Act, with respect to which I say—that whether it were renewed or whether it were not renewed, was a question infinitely small and insignificant with reference to this great social revolution. The Land League had been founded under the Peace Preservation Act; Mr. Parnell's declarations had been made under the Peace Preservation Act; the Land League had grown and thriven and planted its roots firmly in different quarters of the land under the Peace

  693
  Preservation Act; and to say that the non-renewal of that Act was a great and important fact in connection with this controversy indicates a state of mind which wholly fails to appreciate the gravity of the issues before us. I cannot but think that hon. Gentlemen would have lifted themselves above the level on which they have been content to stand had they clearly appreciated the character of this social revolution, and had they been content to fall back on that remarkable declaration of the Duke of Wellington, which I never quoted in this House last year, because it would then have been mischievous, but which it is right and safe now to quote—that warning which he gave to King George IV.—that if ever the time came when there was a war against rent and tithes, the Government would be reduced to extremities, and would have no resources to bring to bear against such a movement. These, Sir, were the circumstances in which we have made a claim on our political opponents; but on the reply to that claim I will not make any observation whatever, except to say that I gladly acknowledge, and have acknowledged in this House, the character of one speech made by the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) at the commencement of this Session which completely answers, as far as we are concerned, to the demand that we made. As to the doctrine laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) at the close of his speech about our policy of mingled coercion and conciliation and about the responsibility of the present Government for the state of Ireland, I will not at present say anything further; but I will give my view of the state of Ireland. The hon. and learned Member brought forward the dark side of the picture only. He did not bring forward the whole case. Nor can I undertake to state the whole case; but I will give an enumeration of its principal features. The hon. and learned Member might have borne in mind that active resistance to the enforcement of the law—I am now mentioning the more favourable circumstances of the case—has ceased in Ireland. So far as I know, it can hardly be said to exist. The payment of rent in that country has been largely and extensively going on; and it is in the power of those who desire to
  694
  assert their legal claims—if they have no other means of doing it—to enforce them by the law. The action of the Land Act, to which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary of Ireland, in common with myself, looks as constituting our principal reliance, is daily quickening in extent and laying its hold upon a continuously increasing proportion of the people. We have, in fact, for six months been engaged in—there is no mistake about it—a deadly conflict with an adverse power; and considering that the object of that power was to put an end to the payment of rent, and considering the announcements which were made in other days as to the position in which the Government would be placed when once an organization for that purpose was established, I do not think that we have, on the whole, great reason to be dissatisfied with the progress that has been made in confronting and in conflicting with that adverse power; because, as to its main and principal object, putting an end to the payment of rent, in the terms of the "no rent" manifesto, I will not say absolutely that it has failed, but it has certainly not succeeded, and the power of the Executive and of the Law has made considerable way against it. On the other hand, the hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly justified in most of the features of the picture he has drawn. It is true that in regard to agrarian crimes, of which alone I speak, we witness the painful spectacle of disagreeing juries and of the escape of offenders. It is true—and it is a marked feature of the case—that there is a most painful character attaching to the present outrages in relation to the causes for which they are inflicted. They are generally inflicted, not because the persons who are the objects of them exercise their rights, but simply because they perform their duty; and it is hardly possible to conceive anything more grievous than a state of things in which that is the case. It is true that there is, I am afraid, on the whole, an aggravation in some degree in the character of the outrages committed, if we compare them with what they were 18 months ago. It is also true that there is an increase in the quantity of those outrages, according to the standard which the hon. and learned Member has adopted. He has followed the figures,

  695
  I have no doubt, with fidelity, as supplied in the reports of the Assizes. But I do think that those figures fail to convey a full view of the case. We have before us the Reports of Agrarian Offences in the first three months of the present year. One feature of those Reports is the exceedingly large proportion of threatening letters; and, so far as that goes, it is not an aggravation, but a mitigation of their character. But I do not, on the whole, say that the character of the outrages is mitigated. Nor do I think it unnatural that they should become more cruel and severe, guilty as they may be, in proportion to the desperation of those who commit them, and of the persons by whom they may be encouraged. The obvious standard of comparison would be the three first months of last year; but that would not be quite a fair standard, because there can be no doubt that, from whatever cause, at the commencement of last year, there was an almost exceptional reduction of outrages. If we go so far back as last December, and compare that with the previous December, before Parliament met, and the plans of the Government were matured, we find a satisfactory reduction. Since last December the number of outrages has continued without any very great variation, but the case appeared, to be rather worse for a time. Whether or not that was owing to a temporary influence arising from the consideration in the House of the Protection of Person and Property Act I cannot say. Subject to that qualification, I do not at all wish the House to suppose that we are otherwise than deeply impressed with the unsatisfactory state of outrages. There is another point in the outrages to which the hon. and learned Member did not refer, and which appears to me to be by far the gravest subject—the absence of evidence that the outrages in Ireland are not associated with some influence behind them higher than that which belongs to those who commit the outrages. It is not for me to explain that influence; but, undoubtedly, I should be very glad to be assured that the funds of the Land League were not made available for the commission of the outrages. I only know one instance in which the subject has been directly mentioned in this House. It was not long after the commencement of the present Session that
  696
  my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland alluded to a case in which money had been sent down from Dublin to a place where Assizes were held for the purpose of defending one of those who I believe were associated with "Captain Moonlight." My right hon. and learned Friend stated on his own knowledge that the counsel for the prisoner had received a fee of 100 guineas; and he asked in the face of the House whether that 100 guineas was or was not contributed from the funds of the Land League? No answer has ever been made to that question. I hope it will be answered; but when we consider what has taken place in Ireland, the language that has been held, the natural effect of that language upon uninstructed minds, the tendency of every movement of this kind to draw into its own channel and to imbue with its own spirit, that part of the population who are naturally the most restless or the most prone to crime, I cannot but say that I think it is in the power of some Gentlemen who regard themselves as more than any others the Representatives of the Irish people, to repress outrage; but, instead of doing much in that direction, they appear to me to be doing nothing at all. There is quoted in a journal of this morning a letter of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy)—I refer to it in order that it may be denied if not true—in which he says—
  "I look upon the English in Ireland as a gang of brigands, whose rule has degraded, and whose actions have impoverished our country; and the captain of the gang is W. E. Forster—"
  MR. HEALY: The major portion of the quotation is accurate, but what I said about the captain of the gang came on a later part of the speech.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The report has, no doubt, been compressed. But what must be the effect of this sort of language in Ireland—language which holds up to the people in Ireland all the agents of the Government and of the law as being English and as being a gang of brigands? If the Government and the agents of the Government are a gang of brigands, then resistance to the Government is lawful and right, and if that resistance cannot be carried on in the open field then no very great blame would attach to those who carried on the resistance in secret. If the Government are the

  697
  enemies of society, those who resist the Government have, at all events, some title to be considered as the friends of society. If language of this kind does not directly lead people to the commission of crimes as horrible as those quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman, it brings them dangerously near the commission of those crimes. When other passions, perhaps private passions, are all in a state of susceptibility, and when stimulants of this kind are administered, I cannot but say that, in my opinion, that item which the hon. and learned Gentleman has omitted from his case is by far the most formidable feature in it—namely, the sadly strong presumption that behind the commission of these outrages there are influences at work higher than any that belong to those who commit them. I will endeavour to give a fair and rapid view of the state of Ireland, so far as I am able to give it. It is by no means one of an unqualified character. I think that the means and materials for improvement are working powerfully in the country. I think that as regards outrage we can say that the condition of the country is anything but highly satisfactory. The hon. and learned Gentleman says it would be our duty to make proposals in the matter immediately after the Easter Recess. I am much obliged to him for advising the Government as to the time they should select for announcing their proposals on a subject of this character; but it must be obvious to the House that it is the duty of the Government to choose that time for themselves. No man can suppose that, after a measure so exceptional and remarkable as that of last year, we can pass on through the present year, or pass onwards to the time for the expiration of that measure, without bringing the whole matter before the House, and making known to the House what proposals we may thing necessary, or the reasons why such and such proposals are not made; but as to the time for that declaration, we must reserve that to ourselves. We cannot accept from the hon. and learned Gentleman the indication of that time. He is not responsible. We are responsible; and we are sensible of the gravity of that responsibility. I believe it is the gravest that has ever rested on the shoulders of any Government with respect to Ireland
  698
  since the great war of resistance to the tithes. I think it was, to a certain extent, on the shoulders of the late Government, and they were but little conscious of it; although I am not making that a matter of accusation or complaint. We, at any rate, ought to be conscious of it by this time, and we shall act, I hope, as men who are conscious of that responsibility. Most certainly neither the Chief Secretary for Ireland nor myself should he guilty of such dereliction of our duties, and attempt to throw on the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or others, the burden of suggesting what measures, remedial or otherwise, may be necessary for dealing with the state of Ireland. The responsibility belongs to us; we recognize the difficulty, and we must choose our own time and the method of performance. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see that no advantage would be gained by my attempting to anticipate the period at the present moment; but I can assure the House that there is no disposition on our part to undervalue the gravity of the matter, and that as far as our thoughts and energies will carry us, we shall endeavour to apply them to the performance of one of the gravest duties that was ever incumbent upon any Government in this country.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I cannot but think, Sir, that the speech to which we have just listened is not only a disappointing, but, to some extent, an alarming speech. I must say that I think the opening remarks of the Prime Minister, and his comments on the course taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham in bringing this matter before the House, were rather unreasonable. Everybody must have felt that it was not to be expected that Parliament should separate at the present time and under the present circumstances, without some reference being made or some question being addressed to the Government on the condition of Ireland. Even if no Notice had been given, I think it would have been the duty of the Minister chiefly responsible for the government of Ireland to be in his place to answer questions. But the case is a great deal stronger than that, for my hon. and learned Friend gave Notice of his intention to call attention to this matter at a time when the Chief Secretary for Ireland

  699
  was in his place, and I think we have a right to complain that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, unless prevented by very strong reasons, is not here to give some explanations upon a subject which interests, not only this House, but the whole country. Nobody can deny that there is upon this subject a feeling in the country of great anxiety on the one hand, and of great indignation on the other, excited by the reports we have from day to day, and statements made in the most formal and official manner, as to the condition of Ireland, and the insecurity of life and property that prevails in that country. My hon. and learned Friend has, I think, taken a course entirely consistent with his duty as a Member of Parliament in simply calling the attention of the Government in the most temperate manner, and because the most temperate therefore the most telling manner, to the state of things in that country. He says—"I will not endeavour to cast any blame upon the Government, but I will simply ask them this question—Are you prepared to deal with this state of thing? Or will you be prepared to do so when the House re-assembles? Or what will you do?" It is natural that the Government should say that they require the Easter Recess to consider such a question as that, but it was in their power to materially qualify the statements made by my hon. and learned Friend. They have not only not qualified those statements—they have intensified them—they have given them a more serious character than they previously bore. What is the reply they make? It is to a certain extent an attempt to throw upon their Predecessors the blame for the existing state of things. I will not go into that, for I think it is unworthy to endeavour to divert attention from a question of such pressing importance as the existing state of things in Ireland by entering upon the question as to whether or not the Land League should have been prosecuted earlier. If the Government comes to comparisons, I think we could make not a bad case as compared to that of the present Government. But I leave that aspect of the case on one side, because it is blinding the House and the country to the real issue. The question before us is, whether the condition of that country is one compatible with the first
  700
  demands of a civilized Government, and whether the Government will tell us that they are prepared, or when they will be prepared, to make proposals to remedy that state of affairs? I am told that a great deal can be said with regard to the difference between a political and a social revolution, and that if this were merely a political revolution, there would be no difficulty in dealing with it, but as it is a social revolution, the difficulties are great. But the more this case is different from a mere political revolution, the more necessary is it for us to ask ourselves—"What is this revolution that is going on? What is this evil of which we see the signs and concerning which we hear a good deal of vague and general language? How is it to be dealt with?" So far as we can gather from the Prime Minister, it is to be dealt with only by leaving it alone and leaving it to the operation of the Land Act. When we compared the state of crime now with that a year ago, we have always been told we were not making fair comparisons, because crime in former years was due to the state of the law. That has now been altered; there is an Act passed by the Government to meet the case, which, we are told, is working well—and yet, what do we see? Outrages have not only not diminished, but they have increased, and the state of the country is worse than ever. I think we have reason to apprehend from the language we have heard that even now Her Majesty's Government have not made up their minds to face the difficulty. If there is anything to be done they must be prepared to act and to act with vigour, founded upon conviction, without too much regard to the disagreeable taunts or obstacles which they may have to overcome. It cannot be pleasant for the Government—we know it cannot be pleasant for any Government—to have to deal with such a state of things. Still more, we feel how unpleasant it must be, how particularly mortifying it must be, to those who, in former times, have used such language with regard to the condition of Ireland and with regard to the mode in which they were going to deal with all the evils of Ireland to have to confess themselves wrong and to act in this matter. We call upon them—the country calls upon them—to show themselves equal to the emergency. I think the observa-

  701
  tions that have previously been made by the Prime Minister, and to a certain extent again to-day, to the effect that he does not receive the support that he ought to receive from his political opponents, and that he does not receive the support he ought from the landed gentry in Ireland, are beside the question, and are altogether unjustified. We have to thank my hon. and learned Friend for having called attention to this subject, and for the manner in which he has done so; and I must express my great disappointment at the tone and the substance of the answer he has received.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had listened, as no doubt every Member of the House had listened, to the speech of the Prime Minister with the deepest attention. He was in hopes that they might receive from the right hon. Gentleman some idea or suggestion of what might possibly be a new development of his Irish policy. They had not received any such suggestion. He did not expect that the Prime Minister would state to the House the exact way in which he proposed to deal with Ireland. But he did think the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge the utter failure of his coercion policy. His speech contained no suggestion or opinion of that kind. On the contrary, he seemed to be in the same state of mind as heretofore, and he seemed to show that the Government still thought all they had to do was to charge the disturbance in Ireland upon the Leaders of the Land League and their policy, and to ask the House to follow him in enacting any repressive measures which he might introduce. The right hon. Gentleman at the same time made a distinct charge, the most distinct, perhaps, they had yet heard made in the House, against the Leaders of the Land League in connection with outrages in Ireland. He said, in effect, and the words might as well have been spoken frankly, that he believed the outrages in Ireland were associated with some influence behind and higher than those who actually committed them; and he expressed a doubt whether funds collected for the Land League had not been applied in some cases to the encouragement of outrage. Well, he was not a member of the Executive of the Land League. He held no place whatever in its body, except
  702
  that of an ordinary humble member; but those who were administering the affairs of the Land League he knew well. He knew what they did, and what their hopes and ambitions were with regard to Ireland; and he would say that there was not in that House any body of men against whom such a charge could be less justly brought than the Executive Committee of the Land League. They were men not one of whom was capable of having the slightest sympathy or part in the commission of outrage. From the Prime Minister himself down to the obscurest Member of the House, there was no man less likely to be guilty of such acts than every member of the Executive of the Land League in Ireland. That was the only refutation he could give to the charge of the Prime Minister; and from his knowledge of the men—the House might take his knowledge for what it was worth—he could declare that the accusation was not only unjust, but was preposterous. A not very generous use had been made by the right hon. Gentleman of the expressions employed by the hon. Member for Wexford in speaking of a Member of the English Government in Ireland as being something like a king of the brigands. The right hon. Gentleman asked whether stigmatizing a Government in that way did not amount to a declaration that private acts of revenge might be as legitimate as resistance to the Government? The right hon. Gentleman, therefore, charged his hon. Friend with distinctly inciting to crime and assassination. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) would like to put a case to the right hon. Gentleman, and he was only sorry that the Prime Minister was not in his place to give them his fair and impartial judgment upon it. The right hon. Gentleman once denounced the Government of Naples, and stated that open resistance to that Government would have been lawful and just if the people were strong enough. His words undoubtedly bore the interpretation that he would countenance such resistance if it were strong enough to be successful. Did he mean to say that he was thereby making himself responsible for the encouragement of crime and assassination in Naples? If he did not mean to say that, could he with candour or with justice endeavour to connect the hon. Member for Wexford with outrage or crime of any kind?

  703
  The right hon. Gentleman had also spoken of the employment by the Land League of counsel for the defence of a prisoner accused of having committed an outrage. Did he mean to infer that because they employed counsel in a case, they sympathized with the commission of outrage? He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) knew nothing whatever of the transaction; he did not know whether counsel was employed or not; but even if the Land League did pay for counsel, he did not see how that showed their sympathy with the criminal or with the accusation brought against him. Surely the Crown itself would retain counsel to defend prisoners who had no other means of obtaining defence. If that be the only ground upon which the Prime Minister rested the charge against the Land League of complicity with outrage, he should say he was surprised the right hon. Gentleman should have brought so flimsy and foolish an accusation forward in the midst of a discussion so grave and serious He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). Although he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) looked at these matters from a different point of view, yet had the hon. and learned Gentleman introduced some few alterations in his Amendment, he should have been inclined to agree with him. He was ready to admit that there had been an increase in agrarian crime, that the administration of justice and of the affairs of Ireland generally had failed, and also that the case was one of extreme gravity. As regarded the remarks of learned Judges referred to by the hon. and learned Member, he was sorry to say that Judges in Ireland did not hold the same relation to the public as they did in this country. In this country there was no partizanship on the part of the Judges; but in Ireland they exercised functions which almost compelled them to be politicians. Many of them, for instance, were members of the Privy Council, and when they had in that capacity procured the proclamation of a certain district on the ground that outrages were committed there, they were then sent down to the same district to try the persons accused of those offences. Recently they had had the case of a Judge being obliged to re-
  704
  tire from the Bench on the hearing of a political case, because he had committed himself to an opinion concerning it in a previous Charge. All this was hardly compatible with a sound administration of justice, and was not compatible with freedom in the public mind from suspicion of these Judges. Some of these Judges who now bore so hardly on violent speech-making and agitation had been noted in their younger days for their passionate utterances and keen agitation. The speeches and actions of embryo Judges in Ireland were of such a character that it was impossible for the words of an Irish Judge to have the same influence over the Irish people as the words of an English Judge had over the people of this country. He did not in the least dispute the assertion that crime had increased of late in Ireland. A great part of the case he wished to make out consisted in the admission that crimes in Ireland had recently increased, both in numbers and in gravity. But he wanted the House to believe that it was the coercive policy of the Government which had brought about the present state of affairs. In the discussions on the Coercion Bill in that House, one of the strongest arguments which the Irish Party endeavoured to impress upon the Government was that if the Government removed the Leaders of such a movement as the Land League, and prevented its meetings, there must, as a matter of course, be a return to a régime of midnight conspiracy. But that was distinctly what the Government had done in the present case. They had put down the Land League and had restored to their former power the Ribbon and other secret conspiracies. It was the honest, patient, earnest effort of Mr. Davitt and his colleagues to put an end to the era of midnight conspiracy in Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman had prevented politicians from discussing their grievances on public platforms before their countrymen, and had brought back the conspirator to take the place of the agitator. The Government, therefore, could not be surprised at what had since happened. A striking instance of the effect of that policy occurred in the county of Longford. At the time of the discussion on the Coercion Bill he had challenged the Government to show a single instance of agrarian crime from that county. But now, although the

  705
  Land League there had been totally suppressed, the number of such crimes had assumed serious proportions. That was the actual result all over Ireland of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the social revolution which was going on in that country. He was glad that the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the agitation had assumed that character. The right hon. Gentleman had also referred to a remark of the Duke of Wellington. He thought he might as well have quoted from a speech of a later day which was made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. In his speech on the Coercion Act of 1866 or 1867 the right hon. Gentleman declared that the difficulty seemed to be that they were threatened in the future with a strike against rents, and if that came about it would be impossible for a Government to meet it with any success. If the Government were possessed of so much prescience as that, why were they not prepared with some policy which was more fit for the occasion than the clumsy, ineffectual, and miserable Coercion Act which had recently been passed? But he could not discern any signs of change in the mind of the Government from which he could hope for any improvement, and the state of things must grow from bad to worse the longer the Coercion policy continued. The Government had of late been pursuing a policy at once truculent and mean. Sheridan had described the administration of India in the days of the East India Company as the rule of a man who wielded a sabre with one hand and picked a pocket with the other. In the same way the policy of the present Government might be described as that of a man who thrust home a bayonet with one hand and opened a letter with the other. That was a policy which never would bring peace to Ireland, nor win the people of that country to sympathize with the English Government. The practice of arresting young women and convicting them for having publicly uttered a few words, which were not even taken down by the informer, was not calculated to discourage conspiracy or outrage. So far as the Government had gone, they had been the direct cause of the revival of conspiracy
  706
  and midnight outrage; and he warned them that if they persisted in the course they were pursuing, they would find that they had repressed agitation only to create conspiracy.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham; but he was sorry to say that the reply which was made by the Prime Minister, and, to some extent, the answer to him made by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, he could not think had been satisfactory to the House. They heard a tale of crime and outrage in Ireland which was disgraceful to civilization, and they were told by the Prime Minister that against a political revolution he would know how to deal, but that he was entirely ignorant how to deal with a social revolution. He did not believe that any person in the position of Prime Minister of England should acknowledge that there was any danger which could exist in the presence of which his heart should quail or his cheek turn pale. That must be unsatisfactory to the country. One thing that appeared to him to be wanting was courage—and what he thought was necessary was that the present system of administration in Ireland having signally failed, and the remedial legislation which had been tried having been shown to be a failure, the House itself, by its independent Members, should point out in what manner the government of Ireland might be conducted so as not to be a disgrace to Europe and civilization. They had been told that the amount of crime in the month of December was decreasing; but, so far as he could judge, the statement of the Prime Minister was inaccurate. He had the Return for the month of December and the months preceding, and found that in October the number of cases was 511, in November 534, and in December 574—a gradual increase—there being a total of 4,439 crimes committed during the last year. That was a statement of crime which must surely excite the contempt of this country. If it had happened in Bulgaria, or Russia, or Naples, the Prime Minister himself would have called for remonstrances; and one was only surprised that the Great Powers of Europe did not remonstrate with the Government of

  707
  this country for the condition which Ireland was in. About a year ago the Protection of Person and Property Act was passed. The statement that then was made was, that if that Act was passed, if it were given to the Government, the result would be an immediate reduction of the amount of crime in Ireland. It was pointed out by the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Westmeath Act had been passed, and that the result of it was so summary and so expeditious that only 19 outrages were brought to trial since it had been passed. But while the agrarian outrages in 1880, omitting threatening letters, did not amount to more than 1,253, they now had to contemplate, after making a similar omission, more than 4,000 outrages, or treble the number that occurred in the year he had mentioned. The prediction of the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, had not been verified. The Chief Secretary for Ireland also pointed out, as an argument in favour of the Protection of Person and Property Act, that, if it were passed, it would aim at persons who were beyond reach; that its object was to deter by arresting persons whom, if he had knowledge of, he would immediately arrest; and that there were three categories who, if known to the police, would be arrested. These were members of the old Ribbon Societies, Fenians, and persons—mauvais sujets—well known to the police, who, he explained, if at large, must incite to crime, but whose arrest would at once put a stop to crime and outrage in Ireland. The result had been a decided failure. The arrests under that Act amounted to 800, and at this moment 600 persons were in gaol, at the instance of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, under the authority of this Act. So far as they knew—and they accepted his statement as being thoroughly accurate—the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself had personally investigated every one of these 800 cases. Some Friends said that not above 10 per cent of the persons reported to him were arrested; and if that were so, he had examined, with all his other duties, 8,000 cases, and that must be a labour which few Judges would undertake. However, they had his word for it that at least he had examined personally 800 cases; and each of them, if there were no more, had been
  708
  persons whom he fairly could suspect of inciting to violence, or being, in some way or other, connected with the categories he had mentioned—Ribbon Societies, Fenians, or mauvais sujets. He (Sir John Hay) had looked over the Return laid on the Table. It was stated that hon. Members who represented more especially the persons arrested would have an opportunity in the House of challenging and inquiring into the condition and cases of the arrested persons under this Act; but, as far as he knew, none of these persons were suspected either of being members of Ribbon Societies, of being Fenians, or generally of being village ruffians, and he did see with great regret a document of that importance placed on the Table, containing the names of batches of persons who were at this moment undergoing punishment—undergoing solitary confinement for no crime assigned. There were pages with "ditto" after the names, and they had to go over page after page to ascertain for what reason these persons were deprived of their liberty. They might be guilty; but he said these men were entitled to trial, and trial could not be too soon, either to prove them guilty or free them from arrest. They had no knowledge of the mode or process by which a criminal information was laid before the Chief Secretary for Ireland to enable him to investigate these matters. Who suspected? So far as they knew, it was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Who was the witness? So far as they knew, it was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Who tried the cases? So far as they knew, it was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Who was the gaoler? So far as they knew, it was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He was Judge and jury and everything but executioner, for which office, no doubt, his heart was too humane, and that was not in his power; but he (Sir John Hay) thought that it was monstrous that above 30 murders should have been committed in Ireland, and that not one single execution should have taken place in consequence of them. If crime were arrested by these means, there would be some satisfaction, both to the House and the country; but even by these highhanded proceedings, contrary to law, crime was not stopped. The crimes went on as before. Persons were locked up, against whom they had no charge,

  709
  and these persons being locked up, the same crimes went on, and they had no sort of means of knowing that by locking these persons up they either stopped the crime, or that they had been guilty of inciting persons to commit crime. That was unsatisfactory to the country, and it pointed, in his opinion, to that which he trusted to have heard from the Government, and which he should have been glad to have heard suggested by his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—that which had been recommended by a Committee of the House of Lords, presided over by a noble Marquess who had been a Member of Her Majesty's Government—namely, the suspension of trial by jury in Ireland. It seemed to him that after they had heard the statements of the Judges, there was but one logical conclusion to the statement of the Prime Minister, and that was that trial by jury should be suspended in Ireland. But his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devonshire and the Prime Minister said it was not the time for making any further suggestion for the government of Ireland. He should not hesitate to indicate the course which he had indicated elsewhere. He might be told he was not responsible. In one sense he was not; but he was responsible as a Member of the House, who had voted for the Protection of Person and Property Act for the government of Ireland. It seemed to him, in the first place, that they should recall the Lord Lieutenant, that they should abolish the system of governing Ireland from Dublin Castle, and that they should govern it through the Home Office as they governed Scotland and the Isle of Man. So long as they maintained the Government at the Castle, such as it was, it seemed to him that so long would they have dissatisfaction in Ireland, and they would have Ireland misgoverned, as it had been for generations. With regard to the process by which it should be governed, in his opinion they should give the military authorities power, with the enormous force they had in Ireland, to maintain law and order there; and they should appoint a Committee of Irish Judges to proceed through the country, under the protection of the military authorities, to try every person who was in prison, and acquit those who were found innocent, and punish
  710
  those who might be found guilty of breaches of the law. It seemed to him that unless some exceptional course such as that was taken by the House and the Government, the state of Ireland would continue a disgrace to civilization, and a disgrace to Europe. It might be said that, in addition to that, Irishmen would not be satisfied until they got some measure of Home Rule. He would give them some measure of Home Rule. He would allow Ireland to continue to have a qualified representation in this House, and to have, in their respective Provinces, such Parliament—if they pleased so to call it—or Local Government Board, as might be settled by Parliament, for the administration of law and government in Ireland. He did not hesitate to suggest this, because he believed it had already been suggested by a great statesman—Lord John Russell. There they would find a sufficient mode of governing Ireland, with some satisfaction to those who were within its borders; and, after all, that was what was already admitted in one part of Her Majesty's Dominions—the Isle of Man—the best governed part of the Empire. The Islanders had their Local Parliament, and full control over all their local affairs, yet the Central Government retained within its hands the Customs Revenue, the Postal Revenue, and the Army and Navy. There would be no difficulty in introducing a like system in Ireland, where already the greater part of the Inland Revenue charge was excused, as were also the Land Tax, the Inhabited House Duty, and the Railway Passenger Duty. Under such a system, the internal affairs of Ireland would be much better conducted than they were now. Imperial affairs might well be managed through the Home Office, as was the case with Scotland. But, in his opinion, no measure dealing with Ireland would be satisfactory unless large provision were made for emigration. He saw with regret that the slight increase and improvement in the harvest in the last year had considerably diminished emigration from Ireland. In 1880 the number of emigrants was 95,857, whereas in 1881 there were only 78,719. It seemed to him that unless they encouraged, and, in some degree, almost compelled, the reduction of the population of Ireland, it was impossible to look

  711
  for good government in that country. They had had it stated in Returns that there were in Ireland 200,000 tenants living on patches of ground under five acres, and 200,000 more on patches under 10 acres. There was a total population of 2,000,000 living on these patches under 10 acres. He knew something of land of that kind in the part of Scotland in which he lived, and knew that it was utterly impossible for a man to live on less than 20 acres. If 1,500,000 persons were removed by emigration there would not be the destitution and crime which existed at present in Ireland. No doubt objection would be raised on the score of expense. Each emigrant would cost£9 or£10; and the total amount required would be about£18,000,000. But that would only represent an income tax of one-third of a penny in the pound; and if we had given£20,000,000 for the abolition of slavery in our West Indian Islands,£18,000,000 was hardly too high a price to pay for order and contentment in Ireland. That sum of money given to Ireland would benefit our Canadian and other Colonies, and would at once relieve the plethora and congestion of population, which was the main evil from which Ireland suffered. As a Scotch Member, who had himself done something in the reclamation of land, and as an employer of Irish labour, he ventured to make that recommendation to the House; and he ventured to think that he could do so with some degree of authority. There was another suggestion he wished to make. He was no supporter of the Land Act; but as it had interfered in the relations between landlord and tenant, he saw no reason why a like interference should not be made between the unfortunate tenant and the usurers who kept them in a state of perpetual poverty. Why should not so much of the old Usury Law be re-enacted as would prevent exorbitant charges of interest, and its accumulation on the heads of these unfortunate persons, or some similiar measure be passed for their benefit? He ventured to make these suggestions for the consideration especially of his right hon. Friend the Member for North Devon and his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Go-
  712
  vernment had, in his speech that afternoon, again displayed his masterly policy of evasion. The right hon. Gentleman was the patron and promoter and admirer of the Land League until it had ceased to serve his political purposes. The right hon. Gentleman had tried to shuffle off some of the responsibility which attached itself on to the shoulders of some Members of that House, who were dimly hinted at, and who, in some mysterious manner, were supposed to have subsidized outrage. In the whole course of his experience in that House, he never before heard anything so remarkable from the lips of a person upon whom so much depended for the promotion of harmony, or for the dissemination of discord and distrust, as the suggestion of the Prime Minister that because counsel were feed, or alleged to have been feed, for the defence of accused prisoners, therefore American money was being employed to subsidize outrage. Why, if it was Lamson, the poisoner, or the most wretched criminal that ever appeared at the bar, and there was any question as to whether he would receive fair play, was there an honourable man who would hesitate to contribute some mite to at least giving him an opportunity of placing his case before the jury who were trying him for his life? With regard to the trial of the miserable M'Lean, which was now coming on—why, the very Government that was prosecuting him had also furnished him with counsel to defend him. Were they to conclude that because Her Majesty's Government had feed the counsel that were to defend M'Lean, that, therefore, they were in favour of the detestable crime of which M'Lean was charged? If the right hon. Gentleman were to make such a statement before a meeting, not of Irish Americans, but even of Yankee Americans, he would be greeted with a torrent of hisses. Never had he heard so paltry and unworthy an insinuation from any responsible person. He was well aware that dreadful outrages had been committed in Ireland. He had never spoken without condemning them; and he was perfectly sure that if the Irish Members and others imprisoned in Dublin, and all the Land League agitators, had been fully and correctly reported, their speeches would be found to be full of denunciation of outrage. The opinion

  713
  on the subject in this country was formed from the exaggerated and unfounded statements of the Dublin Correspondent of The Times, who was editor and part proprietor of The Daily Express, the rabid Tory organ. That man was denounced by the moderate Isaac Butt as a professional liar. Nine-tenths of the people of Ireland would endorse the declaration that the statements daily inserted in the London Times by Dr. Patton, who was a moral criminal, were inserted with the deliberate purpose of misleading English opinion and of blackening the character of the Irish people. No man in Ireland, he believed, within his opportunity and during his time, had done as much to set nation against nation as the Dublin Correspondent of the London Times. But he did not say that his conduct was of a much graver character than the officials of Dublin Castle. Irish Members had been blamed for not condemning outrage. The charge was untrue. But, he would ask, why did not Englishmen denounce the outrages innumerable—the violent assaults, murders, and nameless crimes which took place in this country? No English Members had spoken half so strongly against those outrages as Irish Members had spoken against Irish outrages. But he could not but remember that the same charges brought by the Prime Minister against Mr. Parnell and his Friends had been brought by him three or four years ago against the whole Conservative Party, whom he accused of indifference to the outrages which had been perpetrated in Bulgaria. But there were two classes of outrages—first, outrages of revenge; next, outrages of provocation. Irish Members deplored and condemned both classes; but English Members confined themselves to denunciation of the crimes of revenge. What could be expected when magistrates who were discredited and dismissed from English appointments were thought good enough for Ireland, and when Englishmen's ideas of Ireland were derived from such unscrupulous libellers of all classes in Ireland—from the priest in the sanctuary to the humblest peasant, as Terence M'Grath? He challenged the Government to deny was not Henry Blake, that little Cossack, despot of the West of Ireland? What could be thought of a Government which
  714
  was driven to have recourse to a Statute of Edward III., framed for the punishment of "sturdy vagabonds and suspected bandits," in order to imprison a delicate girl, Miss Mary O'Connor, the sister of a Member of that House? It had been proved, and was admitted by the Castle authorities, that Miss O'Connor had steadily recommended an abstinence from outrage, and had counselled the people to pay a fair rent, and her definition of a fair rent was the one given by a Catholic Prelate, Archbishop M'Cabe. Why did not the Government, instead of arresting a girl of feeble health, strike high, and arrest the venerable Archbishop? But Miss O'Connor's definition of fair rent was not only identical with that of the Archbishop, but was virtually the same as that given by Mr. Justice O'Hagan himself, the Chief Commissioner under the Land Act, who defined a fair rent to be that under which a tenant might "live and thrive." And yet she had been imprisoned under an Act intended for sturdy vagabonds and suspected bandits. These were some of the outrages and provocations which stimulated outrages of revenge. At this moment Miss O'Connor's brother, the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), was addressing vast audiences of Irish-Americans; and the recital of this one cowardly act of the Government would be more certain to rouse a desperate and hostile feeling against them among all who sympathized with the Land League than 100 incendiary speeches from the Home Rule Benches. The Government were trying, under cover of a miserable failure of the ghastly Land Act, to introduce new measures of coercion; but he told them there was a spirit abroad which, in these days of civilization, defied the resources of Liberal civilization. So long as the Government continued the policy of brute force, most assuredly the present condition of affairs in Ireland would remain. He was still, as he had been two years ago, in favour of a fair settlement of the Irish agrarian question—a settlement which should be fair to the landlord as well as to the tenant. The suspension of the Constitution in Ireland had only resulted, as had been prophesied, in giving a great increase of power to Ribbon lodges and the midnight assassin. The Government would have to revert to a policy

  715
  of justice to Ireland. He hoped it was not too late. He was glad to say that the policy sketched out from the Front Opposition Bench would be infinitely more favourable to the Irish tenant, and more conducive to the peace and harmony of Ireland, than the brutal and cowardly procedure of the so-called Liberal Government.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he considered that the heavy indictment framed by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) lay entirely, not against the Irish people, but against the Government. All that had been said that afternoon pointed directly to the one great fact that the policy of the Government in Ireland had been a dismal failure. The Prime Minister had alluded to the Coercion Act; but from beginning to end his speech contained no fact or argument to show that the Act had succeeded. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had attempted to prove that it had been a partial success, in that it had defeated the "no rent" manifesto. But that manifesto was the direct result of the Coercion Act. Therefore, the argument of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was this—that the "no rent" manifesto having been created by the Coercion Act long after the latter became law, the "no rent" manifesto was now partly overcome by the Coercion Act. No one could fail to be impressed by the description of the condition of Ireland given by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham. But it seemed to have been forgotten that what had happened was only what had been directly and solemnly predicted by himself and his Friends. Up to the date of the arrest of the leaders of the Land League the land movement in Ireland had been carried on with less violence and outrage than any similar movement in any country of Europe. If an increase of crime had followed the recent action of the Government, it was certainly not the consequence of the action of the Land League, but of the action of the Government. When the Land League was first started it was an open organization, with every meeting open to the light of day; but the Government had stepped in and deprived Ireland of the only restraining influences which stood between the prisons and the wrongs of the people and the promptings of a terrible but foolish revenge. The course the Government
  716
  had taken and were pursuing was one which would plunge Ireland deeper and deeper into a state which was a disgrace to any Government which professed to be civilized. Day by day, through the fault of the Government, the condition of Ireland was becoming worse. The police had been proved to be useless; they were unable to arrest the men who committed outrages; and then the Chief Secretary for Ireland came to their aid, and, acting upon their dark hints, took up and imprisoned, not the village ruffians who committed the crimes, but the most respectable men in the locality, whose influence had always been exercised to prevent outrage, and whose arrest increased the exasperation of the people. The Prime Minister had made an unjustifiable—he would say a brutal—attack upon the men whom he had under lock, and key in the prisons of Ireland, when he charged them with complicity in the outrages which had been committed. And, having put them in prison, the right hon. Gentleman now turned to the Irish Members and asked them to assist in putting outrage down. If the Prime Minister considered any men on those Benches guilty of encouraging outrage he was acting a cowardly part in not bringing them into a Court of Law, and giving them an opportunity of dealing with the charge. It was said that the funds of the Land League were spent in encouraging the commission of outrages. That charge was not made by the Prime Minister, who evidently thought it was true, but shrank from making it. The sole foundation for such an insinuation was that a certain sum was paid to defend a certain prisoner. But an accused person was to be regarded as innocent until he was convicted; and, therefore, those who supplied money for his defence would be perfectly justified in doing so. The veriest criminal in this country, from the liberality of the English people or otherwise, found means for paying for his defence. But, in his opinion, there was a fund from which men who committed outrages were paid, and that was the Secret Service Fund. ["Hear!" and "No!"] He did not mean that the Government offered a man money for committing outrages; but the police went about the country asking people whether they knew anything about outrages which were to be committed, and then

  717
  some designing fellow instigated some foolish or passionate man to commit crime, and, having done so, came and claimed the money from the police. He was glad that before the rising of the House allusion had been made to the arrest of Miss O'Connor, who had been sent to prison for six months. She was not the only lady who had been so treated. He held in his hand some Papers about the imprisonment of Miss M'Cormack, who, in bad health, was now in Limerick Gaol. Miss M'Cormack had the misfortune to carry on her operations in the district ruled by Mr. Clifford Lloyd. She was brought before him without warrant, and without any explanation given; no evidence was produced, and no opportunity for defence was allowed. She was charged with inciting to discontent—a vague accusation—and was immediately ordered to find security for her good behaviour for three months, or in default to go to gaol; and when she claimed to be sent to trial she was committed to prison under powers given to the magistrate by an old law of Edward III. Thus, the result was that a young lady of 20 was imprisoned without being heard in her own defence. Another lady was imprisoned for six months. It was to be borne in mind that although these ladies were not subjected to the treatment inflicted on male prisoners, they had, nevertheless, to suffer solitary confinement; and it was nothing less than inhuman for any Government to pursue such a policy as that. He drew the attention of the Solicitor General for Ireland to this matter, and would ask the Government what was to be their course of action in the future? The Prime Minister had said that he would not take from the hon. and learned Member for Chatham any directions as to the time when a new policy might be announced; but surely that time had nearly come. The English people were beginning to see that coercion had failed, and were asking when, where, and how it was all to end? If the Government had pursued one policy alone, either of repression or redress, they might have succeeded. He could understand, and even respect, the man who believed that Ireland could be ruled only by force; but was that the belief of the Government? If so, they must proceed by coercion, and hang and flog as well as imprison on suspicion; and as for the Irish people, he could
  718
  only say that they had survived the attacks of men who had a greater capacity, if a less desire, for repression than the present Chief Secretary for Ireland. He believed, therefore, they would survive the force of oppression to-day. The only way, however, to bring Ireland back to a condition of peace, and quiet, and contentment, was by adopting a wise policy of conciliation; and if they had done this at first, and kept coercion as a stone in the sleeve with which to punish the Irish people if the Land Act failed, they would have succeeded far better than they had done. He asked the Government, in all seriousness, to abandon the hateful measures which had proved utterly useless for the suppression of outrages and agitation, and to substitute for them measures of conciliation, which was the only remedy for the present unhappy condition of the country. If they did not, they would be only hastening the day when the Irish people, freed from the oppression of England, would be able to legislate well and wisely for themselves in a Parliament of their own.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to avoid saying anything that might in any way add to the difficulties of what the Prime Minister had just described as the "grave position" in which the Ministry now found itself with regard to the government of Ireland It was impossible for the Prime Minister to accuse Members of the Conservative Party of anything like factious opposition to the Government on this question. Hon. Members on that side of the House had loyally supported the Government of the Queen even in cases where their natural feelings were opposed to its action. The Conservative Party assisted the Ministry in passing the Act which they declared necessary for the protection of life and property in Ireland. When the Land Act was before the House—a measure which, in the opinion of hon. Members on that side of the House, was in the highest degree unjust and impolitic, and that view had been completely justified by the course of events since its enactment—they did not offer to that Bill an unreasonable opposition. The Conservative Party in the House of Lords had it in their power to reject the Land Bill altogether; but they refused to take a step which, they were told, in the judgment of the Ministry,

  719
  would have been injurious to the interests of order in Ireland. But the right hon. Gentleman made certain statements which required immediate and complete refutation. The Prime Minister endeavoured to shift the responsibility for the deplorable state of Ireland upon the Conservative Party by statements which were absolutely inaccurate, as he would show. He said that the Land League had acquired overwhelming, influence and power in Ireland before the fall of the late Government. He also ridiculed the idea that the abandonment of the Peace Preservation Act had led, in any way, to the present anarchy in Ireland, and that its maintenance would have preserved order in that country. Neither of these allegations of the right hon. Gentleman would bear examination for a single moment. The Land League had little or no influence in Ireland when the present Ministry came into Office. It had not been founded more than nine months. Lawlessness and crime had hardly begun to raise their heads, and they were at once checked by the firmness of Lord Beaconsfield's Government. Agrarian outrages of all kinds, which, in November, 1879, had reached a total of about 150, at once began to diminish after the arrest of Michael Davitt. Month by month they grew less, until in April, 1880—that was the month in which Lord Beaconsfield resigned—they only amounted to 69. The moment that the fatal impulse of the weakness and incapacity of the present Ministry was recognized in Ireland the tale of outrage steadily and rapidly increased, until, in December, 1880, it had swollen to the enormous total of 867—a number of crimes in one month exceeding the total which had been committed during the whole 12 months of 1879, when a Conservative Ministry was in Office. The agrarian offences, which numbered 863 in 1879, increased to 2,590 in 1880; six-sevenths of these took place in the last eight mouths of that year, when the right hon. Gentleman was in Office. In 1881 they had risen to the monstrous total of 4,713. During the first three months of this year the increase in number had been still more alarming, while the character of the crimes had been peculiarly atrocious. These facts were a complete answer to the statement of the Prime Minister; and they fixed the responsibility for the existing state of Ire-
  720
  land, beyond the possibility of escape, upon the Prime Minister and his Colleagues. The Peace Preservation Act, which he had treated with so much contempt, was originally his own production. It was considerably mitigated by Lord Beaconsfield; yet the late Government were able with it to maintain order and peace in Ireland. The noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India once compared that Act to a "garden engine;" but it was with this "garden engine" that Lord Beaconsfield governed Ireland well and peacefully for six trying years—years when the earth refused to return her fruits, and when the commercial and social distress that prevailed might have furnished an excuse for agitation and disorder. The present Ministry had had in their favour two bountiful harvests in Ireland; yet the stated of that country presented a terrible contrast to what it was under their Predecessors. The Prime Minister spoke in tones of supernatural gravity about the difference between "social" and "political" revolution. The agitation in Ireland, which began as a political movement, had acquired its present hold over the mass of the Irish people solely through the want of firmness shown by the Government in dealing with it. It was only "social" because it appealed to the greed and avarice of the people. It was Communistic in its aims and methods, which did not differ from similar movements that had been repeatedly set on foot on the Continent; these had been overcome by a statesmanship which had, unfortunately, been wholly wanting in Ireland. A revolutionary agitation in Spain had just been put down in three days by firmness, at the cost of but two men wounded, and this among the Catalans, a population more independent and difficult to govern than the Irish Celts. So much for the "social" revolution. But what a deplorable effect would it not have upon the propagators of disorder in Ireland when they read the Prime Minister's confession to-day—that the Government was at the end of its resources. The right hon. Gentleman told the Conservative Party that they did "not rise to the level of the situation," and did not "grasp the full gravity of the state of Ireland." The difference between the Ministry and the Conservative Party was this—that the Conservative Party grasped the gravity of the situation two

  721
  years ago, when the right hon. Gentleman and his supporters were wholly unable to foresee to what mischief their blundering was inevitably leading. Not only did the illustrious statesman, who was now no more, warn the Liberal Party that their unpatriotic policy would produce "a state of things in Ireland worse than pestilence and famine," but every Conservative Member who spoke added his warning to the voice of his Leader. They warned the Prime Minister that the unnatural alliance with the Revolutionary Party, by which he gained Office, must have disastrous results. Over and over again, during the last six months of 1880—that fatal period in the history of Irish anarchy, when the tale of agrarian crime, unpunished and even unrebuked, was swelling week by week, until the "terror" had enveloped the whole country—did they warn the Ministry against their ruinous inaction. They knew, indeed, now, from the confession of the President of the Board of Trade, that "to have stifled the agitation then would have been to prevent reform"—that was the Land Act. But that disgraceful confession had not been adopted or approved of by other Ministers. After the Coercion Act was passed, the Conservative Party warned the Ministry that to be effective it must be administered with consistency and firmness. It was this mixture of extreme severity and almost servile coaxing which had been so fatal in the administration of the Government. They had run from the extreme of coercion to the extreme of bribery. They had aggravated Irish feeling, without intimidating the violent or repressing the criminal. Their failure to govern Ireland was now so conspicuous, and their plight was so desperate, that pity almost silenced our criticism. The Prime Minister, instead of addressing himself boldly and in a statesmanlike way to the pacification of Ireland, had given the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) no satisfactory reply to his convincing speech, but had endeavoured to call public attention from the failure of his policy in Ireland by charges against the Conservative Party which could not be substantiated. A few weeks ago he accused them of advocating the suspension of trial by jury in Ireland. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) did not know of any body of Members on his side of the House who had re-
  722
  commended such a step. It was a measure which, in his judgment, must be entirely left to the initiative of Her Majesty's Ministers, who had the best sources of information as to the state of Ireland, and who were responsible for its government. The Prime Minister said, in tones of apparent fervour—"Abolish trial by jury!" "Why, you would do away with one of the safeguards of Irish liberty!" What a mockery were those words in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman. "Irish liberty!" What liberty was there in Ireland under his Administration? Was there liberty for the Irish popular Party? Over 700 of its principal members were in prison without trial. Many of these, no doubt, deserved even a severer punishment than the Capuan confinement in which they were kept. The condition of the Nationalists was not one of liberty. And, on the other side, what liberty was there for the loyal and the honest? There was absolutely none; a foul terrorism enshrouded the whole land in its demoralizing folds. The landowner who claimed that which was his due; the farmer who paid his just rent; the labourer who rendered the work he was bound to do, had not even bare security for their lives, much less anything that could be dignified by the name of "liberty." Let the atrocious murder at Lough Mask of that aged bailiff and his youthful nephew; let the assassination of Farmer Moloney before the eyes of his agonized family; let the terrible murder near Mullingar, on a peaceful Sunday afternoon, of an unoffending lady, testify what liberty the loyal inhabitants of Ireland of every class enjoyed under the present Ministry. The Prime Minister had denounced the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) for speaking of "the English in Ireland as brigands," and as encouraging disorder by his violent language. They all condemned such speeches as that of the hon. Member for Wexford; but he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) was somewhat surprised at the rebuke coming from the Prime Minister. He ventured to hope, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that he would himself in the future be more cautious than he had been, in the use of expressions which had undoubtedly served as a stimulus to agitation and lawlessness in Ireland. His well-known reference

  723
  to the "blowing up of the Clerkenwell Gaol," and to "the murder of the policemen in Manchester," as bringing Irish grievances "within the range of practical politics," were such incentives. His denunciations of what he called the "Upas Tree of Protestant ascendancy," and of the "English garrison" in Ireland, were but rendered by the Member for Wexford in language coarser and more blunt than that used by the Prime Minister. He had listened with amazement to the sneers and the attacks levelled by the right hon. Gentleman in that House at the "English garrison," which, as a statesman and an Englishman, it was his duty to maintain. He would not have entered upon this subject had not the Prime Minister, by his statements, challenged contradiction. The state of Ireland after two years of Liberal Government was "grave" indeed—it was appalling. The Prime Minister found that country peaceful and orderly. To quote his own expressive language, used in March, 1880—
  "There is an absence of crime and outrage, and a general sense of comfort and satisfaction such as was unknown in the previous history of the country."
  The right hon. Gentleman went further than this. After he had taken Office as Prime Minister, he and his Colleagues also made repeated references to the satisfactory and peaceful state of Ireland. The Ministry went, indeed, far beyond words; they alleged that as a reason—in the Queen's Speech, and afterwards in Parliament—for not attempting to renew the Peace Preservation Act. How, then, could the Prime Minister, without completely stultifying himself, now turn upon the Conservative Party and say that "the Land League was firmly established in the land" when he came into Office; or that "the seat and source of this movement" was to be found before that date—namely, April, 1880. Such an allegation was opposed to the right hon. Gentleman's own declarations no less than to notorious facts. The power of the Land League rested on outrage and terrorism, as the Prime Minister had often told them. By that test, in April, 1880, when he came into Office, its power did not exist, for agrarian crime was at its minimum. The Minister and his Colleagues had, in a brief space, reduced Ireland to a state which, again, in his own words, spoken
  724
  16 months ago in the Mansion House of this City, and practically repeated tonight, was a "shame and disgrace to England in the eyes of the civilized world."
  MR. HEALYdid not intend to have taken any part in this debate, but for the association which had again attempted to be established by the Prime Minister between the Members of the Irish Party and those who committed outrages in Ireland. The policy of the Government was to fix the blame upon them for everything that occurred in Ireland, and on the principle of throwing plenty of mud, in order that some of it might stick to the occupants of the Opposition Benches, repeated day after day the most ridiculous charges against the Irish Members. With regard to the quotation which had been made from his letter, he thought they heard much and saw little of what would have been shown if the whole of the extract had been published without alteration or emendation. The following was the letter which he forwarded to his constituents, in acknowledging the resolution sent to him:—
  "With regard to the second resolution which you have forwarded Mr. Forster, it was impossible for me to point out to that gentleman on the occasion in question (as I had already spoken) that the constituency which he invited me to lecture respecting outrages was a good deal freer from crime than his own town of Bradford. The outcry which the English raise about outrages in our country must be considered hypocritical. When a few exasperated peasants, driven by want and oppression, retaliate by the commission of regrettable disorders, a howl is instantly raised in England; but when outrages are committed upon the people themselves there is not a single word of protest, as the eviction of tens of thousands and the ruin and enfeeblement brought upon hundreds of persons imprisoned without trial continually witness. Yet this same nation, within a year or two past, has, unprovoked, slaughtered thousands of Afghans in cold blood, has blown up Basutos and Zulus with dynamite in their caves, have been the curse of every country they have invaded; and now, in admiration of its own virtues, hold up it hands in pious horror at the proceedings of a small section of the oppressed classes in Ireland. Of course, we can only regard such conduct as worse than Pharisaical. For myself, I look upon the English in Ireland simply as a gang of brigands, whose rule has degraded, and whose exactions have impoverished our country. The captain of the gang, the Right Hon. W. E. Forster, invites me, as your Representative, to convey certain English moral lessons to the town of Wexford, a town in whose market place his predecessors slew scores and hundreds

  725
  of women and babes, and upon whose fields an English soldier plucked out your priest's heart to grease his boots. Such audacity on the part of this impudent foreigner might well excite indignation amongst your justice loving-people; but it would be a mistake, I think, on our part, to allow ourselves to be moved by any expressions of opinion of the English. We should merely ignore them—Faithfully yours,
  "T. M. HEALY."
  The ground on which he described the English in Ireland as a gang of brigands was taken entirely from a speech delivered some time ago by the President of the Board of Trade. On the 25th of October last the right hon. Gentleman, in his celebrated speech at Liverpool, used this expression—
  "We know that for the whole time to which I have referred [that was, the 700 years during which the English had been in Ireland, unfortunately] the Irish people have been constantly dissatisfied. There has not been one single year during which the removal of the English garrison would not have been a signal for the instant uprising of the people, and for a declaration of their independence. Is it not humiliating to Englishmen that now, after 700 years' rule, it takes 50,000 soldiers and police to keep Ireland?"
  The House would see from this extract that the description of brigands given by him was only putting in a condensed form what the President of the Board of Trade stated on a larger scale. If it took 50,000 soldiers to maintain British rule in Ireland, and if their withdrawal would, as the President of the Board of Trade believed, be a signal for the instant uprising of the people, what moral sanction or claim had the English to remain in Ireland except the claim of brigands? That was a proposition which he was willing to argue with any hon. Member. If, according to one of their own Cabinet Ministers, it took 50,000 paid mercenaries to maintain their rule in Ireland, and if the people of that country abhorred and despised them, he would like to know what better were they than a gang of brigands; and if he and other Irishmen were invited by Gentlemen like the Chief Secretary for Ireland to denounce crime in their country, they would tell those Gentlemen that they regarded them simply as foreigners, and they treated their counsels as so much impudence, which they declined to notice in the least degree. The English people themselves were far more brutal than the Irish. The most disgraceful outrages occurred week after
  726
  week in that country. He ventured to say that more outrages occurred in one month in England than occurred in Ireland for a year. He could easily prove that statement by a reference to the latest Report of the London Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, which related by the hundred such outrages as tarring and burning dogs, pulling the tongues out of horses, starving donkeys to death, and mangling cats with turning machines—a resource of civilization quite unknown in Ireland. The statistics published in this Report, although they numbered thousands of cases every quarter, represented but the work of a small Society in London. He ventured to say if a similar record was kept all over England, the total would reach 20,000 or 30,000 cases every year, a figure which should make the mock Pharisaical English turn their attention to their own country, and cease to declaim about Ireland. It would be far better for them to take the mote out of their own eyes than operate upon the beams of the Irish people. The Irish Members sitting on that side of the House repudiated in the strongest manner not merely outrages themselves, but they told the House that, so far from these outrages being a service to their cause, they hindered and impeded it in the most material degree by bringing down coercion upon the Irish people. Outrages were a distinct damage and a distinct disadvantage to the cause in which the Irish Party were engaged. He had been frequently asked in letters, and in the newspapers, why he did not say in Ireland what he said in the House of Commons with respect to outrages. The reason was very simple. If he went to Ireland he would be handed a warrant the moment he landed on Carlisle Pier and sent into Kilmainham. Under these circumstances, he might be fairly excused from going to Ireland at the bidding of the London newspapers. The political education of a large portion of the Irish people was not so complete as the political education of the English people, and they were not guided to the same extent by the declarations of their leaders; therefore, there was not that quick connection between speeches delivered in that House and the subsequent acts of the people. By the benevolent operation of English statesmanship, the masses of the Irish people had been kept

  727
  ignorant. Not very long ago a price was set upon the head of a schoolmaster in Ireland as it would be upon the head of a wolf. Quickness of perception in political matters was retarded, and today it was impossible to suppose that if those who committed outrages could see, as the Members of the Irish Party saw, that, so far from benefiting their cause, they were imposing a distinct hindrance to its advancement. It was impossible to suppose that if they read the speeches of their Representatives in Parliament they would not have long since ceased to commit outrages. The Irish Party told the Government that if the Coercion Act was passed it would most surely lead to the commission of outrages. "Well, so it had, and the explanation was not taken from the prophecy of the Irish Party, but from the fancied connection between them and those who perpetrated the outrages in Ireland. In the Land League there was a large number of men who viewed Parliamentary action with the greatest jealousy; they were men who believed Parliamentary action to be entirely useless; and, therefore, when the Government attempted to fix upon the Irish Parliamentary Party, who were but very small agents in the matter, any responsibility, they were doing them a great injustice, and exhibiting the ignorance and misconception of Irish affairs which so charmingly distinguished Englishmen in general. The Prime Minister triumphantly repeated some statement as to£100 having been subscribed by the Land League for a certain purpose, and said it had never been denied. Were they to deny everything that came from the Treasury Bench? The occupants of the Treasury Bench did not deny many of their allegations; and if the Irish Party laid themselves out for contradicting every slander heaped upon them and their country they would have constant occupation. For his part, he had never any connection with the Executive of the Land League, or with the apportionment of its funds. If he had an offer of the kind, he should decline with thanks, for the gentlemen of the Land League were well, able to conduct their own affairs. The connection between the Land League and the Irish Party simply amounted to this. The latter were engaged as the champions of a particular scheme of agrarian reform
  728
  which was similar to that advocated by the Land League; but there the connection ended. He himself could say faithfully that he had as little to do with the political working of the Land League as any Gentleman on the Treasury Bench. ["Oh!"] That was absolutely a fact. He challenged anyone to deny it. Of course, when a great crisis came in Ireland, and when the people of Ireland needed, as he believed, to be instructed, he went from town to town expressing his views; and he hoped, when the present Government went out of Office, to go again and give his views to the people of Ireland. Selections were made from their speeches as specimens of incitement to outrage by the Prime Minister; but if this sort of constructive interpretation was placed upon words, there was no man worse in this respect than the Prime Minister himself. The Clerkenwell outrage, said the Prime Minister on one occasion, had no more to do with pulling down the Irish Church than the tolling of the bell had in bringing people to worship. What was that but an incitement to outrage—an invitation to the Irish Members to toll the bell if they wished to have their grievances redressed? But he would not pursue the subject. The Prime Minister sought to throw on them responsibility for the outrages. But he, for one, begged to repudiate any responsibility in that matter whatever.
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he had listened to the debate in the hope that some hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench would supplement the speech of the Prime Minister, and tell the House something more definite than that which had fallen from him. The Prime Minister had assumed that the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) had endeavoured to fix the day on which the Government should announce some further measures for dealing with Ireland. That was a misapprehension. The hon. and learned Member had made a statement to the House with regard to the condition of Ireland, which was of the gravest and most alarming character. That was either a true statement or it was not. If it was not true it ought to be contradicted at once by the Government. If, on the other hand, it was a true account of the state of things in Ireland, there could be no doubt that the question was

  729
  one which did not admit of delay. They could not wait to suit the convenience of the Government until further shocking murders were committed. At the commencement of the Session the Chief Secretary for Ireland told them that matters were so far improved that a few weeks previous he had thought he should be unable to meet Parliament without having to ask for further powers. It was clear, therefore, that the Government had it in contemplation to appeal to Parliament for additional powers. The Government ought now to give the country some definite assurance that they would deal without delay with the very grave state of affairs existing in Ireland; and he trusted that the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India would rise and give the House that assurance, and then the House would separate for the holidays with less alarm. The most despairing speech which had been made that day by the Prime Minister would be read with deep concern by the country.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he believed there was no Member of the House who did not view with regret the brutal murder perpetrated in Westmeath on Sunday last; but while viewing the murder with abhorrence they should draw some lesson from it. Where was that murder perpetrated? Not in a distressed district in Ireland, but in one of the most prosperous and richest portions of the country. It was well known that for the last 30 years in Ireland the condition of affairs in that district had not been healthy. Ever since a packed jury convicted an innocent man who was charged with an attempt on the life of Sir Francis Hopkins, a feeling of dissatisfaction, of mistrust of the law had prevailed in that district, and they should learn from that lesson not hastily to abrogate the rights of citizens, and to enact what was tantamount to martial law—namely, trial by some resident magistrates and justices. He represented a county which the blundering incapables who regulated the Executive in Dublin Castle had recommended the Chief Secretary for Ireland to have proclaimed. In this county six "suspects" had been arrested; two of them had been lately liberated. He felt a peculiar interest in these "suspects." If they were all supporters of his at the late Election, they were not all Land
  730
  Leaguers, but they were the victims of the police. Captain Keogh, presiding in Dundalk, on the 4th of February, said it was all nonsense to speak of keeping arms for protection in that country. There was not a quieter spot in the whole world than the county Louth. He must express his regret that the Chief Secretary for Ireland was not in his place to hear the observations which might have been made upon his political conduct. The right hon. Gentleman ought to be removed from his present position and replaced by someone who was more capable of governing Ireland, and who, from his antecedents, was more likely to promote satisfactory results in that country. The Government ought to state whether, if Irish Members visited their constituents to consult them, about the Land Act or other matters, they would be placed under arrest on what the Chief Secretary for Ireland called "reasonable suspicion." If he himself went to Ireland and addressed his constituents, even although he was not a Land Leaguer, and never would be one, and even although he might denounce outrages, he might become a victim of the suspicions of the police, and, no doubt, his Radical Friends on the other side of the House would say that it served him right. It would be unwise for Irish Members to rush within the toils of the hunter. They should remain where they could be of most service to their country, and where they could strike the heaviest blows at the common enemy.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Monday 17th April.
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock till Monday 17th April.