A PUBLIC APOLOGY.

HC Deb 09 February 1882 vol 266 cc298-327

"I, Michael Hanlon, of Ballymullen, Philips-town, King's County, do hereby beg leave to give public expression to my deep feelings of regret for having paid my rent to Sir Edward Grogan without having previously consulted with my fellow-tenants as to what course we should adopt or pursue in view of civil bill process for rent having been served on many of us previous to the last Quarter Sessions at Philipstown. I foolishly and erroneously imagined that I could not go into the Land Court if I allowed a decree to be taken out against me; and as I consider my land to be highly rack-rented, I thought, in justice to myself and family, that I should avail myself of the benefits, if any, of the Act as well as others. I now declare that I came to the decision abruptly, and paid my rent, in ignorance of what were my obligations in this respect, both to my brother tenants and the country at large. I say, again, I regret sincerely my mistake, and humbly ask forgiveness; and I promise, if pardon be granted to me for this, my first offence, neither my fellow-tenants nor the country shall ever have reason to censure me again.

"(Signed) MICHAEL HANLON, Ballymullen.

"We, the undersigned, sons of the above-named Michael Hanlon, beg to endorse every syllable of our father's apology.

"(Signed)	J. HANLON
WM. HANLON.
JAMES HANLON.

"January 16, 1882."

[Advt.]

In another case, a person advertises that some statement to the effect that he had paid his rent was "a false and wicked calumny." I dare say there are some hon. Members who are in doubt whether, after all, the Protection Act was necessary—whether we could not have acted merely by means of the ordinary law. The ordinary law would have been powerless against this "Boycotting." A shrug of the shoulders or a hint was sufficient, and the people dared not venture to disobey. We knew of men being ruined by action that we were aware of not on reasonable suspicion, but by reasonable certainty. We knew the men, and what they had done; but, from the nature of the case, it would have been impossible, owing to intimidation, to have got evidence against them. All this "Boycotting," all this power of ruining, all this use of this weapon—this good substitute for the pike—was based on violence and physical force. I really am sorry to be obliged to detain the House longer; but I have here one or two cases in which physical force was used which I must give as making it quite clear to the victims that the shrug and hint were to be sufficient, and that they were not to venture to disobey them. Here is one— County of Cork, W.R., 9th November. At about half-past 7 o'clock P.M., a shot was fired by some person unknown at the dwelling-house of Mrs. A. Davis, widow lady. A revolver bullet pierced the window-glass and shutter of a room in which Mrs. Davis and her children wore seated at the time. The motive for this outrage was to deter Mrs. Davis from dealing with a man named Bateman, on whose property a series of outrages had been committed. At the time that the house was fired into notices referring to Bateman as a 'land grabber' were posted on Mrs. Davis's porch. Again, the window of the house of a farmer, one Barnabas Kingston, was fired into, the shot penetrating the shutters, and being flattened against the opposite wall. At the same time a notice was posted on a plank, warning him to keep away from a man named Bateman, who was "Boycotted" in the locality. I could multiply instances of a like character to almost any extent. It is quite true that the chief motive for the use of this weapon was the prevention of the payment of rent, or the forcing people to join the Land League; but that was not the only object in view. It was a terrible power to put into the hands of irresponsible people, or people who were the agents of the hon. Member for Sligo and his friends, but who could not be fully controlled by them. We found many cases where this system of "Boycotting"—the execution of this unwritten law—had been used for private spite and trade competition, sometimes owing to children attending schools, and very often for supplying the police with cars. I will tell you the grounds on which one man was "Boycotted," for I hold the placard in my hand that was posted in his neighbourhood. The placard runs thus—I will not mention the man's name for fear of re-exciting a feeling against him— Take Notice," So-and-so, of such and such a place, "has been put upon trial, and a verdict of 'Unmerciful Boycotting' pronounced upon him by the will of the People and a competent Tribunal. 1st. For wilfully giving information to the Police against Lady Land Leaguers. 2nd. For being found guilty of the most Treasonable Practices, that is speaking to Mr. Outrage Forster, the Chief Slanderer of Ireland, at the Railway Station, Mountrath.

MR. BIGGAR

Hear, hear!

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Yes; I see the hon. Member for Cavan thinks that quite sufficient ground for "Boycotting" the man.

MR. SEXTON

What is the date of that?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

It was published about six weeks ago.

MR. SEXTON

After the arrests?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Does the hon. Member by that mean to say that any attempt was made before that to prevent that kind of thing being done?

MR. SEXTON

Yes; it was not taking place before.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The placard goes on to say—

"3rd. Supplying goods to 'Boycotts'.

"4th. For doing all in his power to defeat the objects and principles of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Council, formerly called the Irish National Land League.

"God Save Ireland."

I was forced to the conclusion that that Catholic clergyman was right as to the terrible weapon this "Boycotting" is, and I was forced also to the conclusion that this "substitute for the old pike" must be struck down, and that the only way to do it was by the arrest under the Protection Act, as nearly simultaneous as possible, of the central leaders of this system of intimidation, and of the chief local leaders. Some hon. Members seem to think that it was the speech of Mr. Parnell, following on the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone), which caused his (Mr. Parnell's) arrest. [Mr. BIGGAR: Of course it was.] I do not attempt to gain credence from the hon. Member for Cavan; but I have no doubt I shall have that of hon. Members on this side of the House, and of most hon. Members on the other side, when I contradict that assertion in the strongest terms. I think I have shown clearly enough the reason we were compelled to stop this action, quite independent of any passage of arms between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Certainly, it was a very strong step to take to arrest the leaders and the local leaders; but we were driven and obliged to take it, unless we had been prepared to allow the Land League really to govern Ireland, and to determine, as it would have determined, what rents should be paid; what farms should be taken; what lands should be allowed to remain in pasture; what shops should be kept open; what men should be allowed to labour; what men should be allowed to buy, not merely the luxuries, but the necessaries of life; what tenants should be allowed to take advantage of the Land Act; what decisions of the Land Courts should be respected or rejected; what laws should be obeyed, or rather disobeyed; what ruin should be inflicted on men who honestly paid their debts or loyally obeyed the law. Hon. Members have asked me for an explanation or justification of our arrests, and I have given what I consider a reason and justification. Could we have allowed this system to continue? If we had, what would have been the use of passing the Act of last Session? [Mr. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: These things occurred after the arrests.] I said that unless we had made those arrests this would certainly have happened. I am referring to the arrests of the hon. Members for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), Sligo (Mr. Sexton), Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly), and Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and many others of the very large number we were obliged to arrest throughout the country. We had to arrest the local leaders—could we leave the central leaders alone? Were we to leave alone the instigators and the men who originally devised this system? I might take blame to myself for not having at first seen the full meaning of their speeches. But it required proof, and public opinion to go with that proof; and I must say—and I think most hon. Members will admit it to be quite true—that the hon. Member for Cork City and the hon. Member for Sligo, and most of the other Members, took great care in their mode of expression. It was a long time before we found out their true meaning. It was driven home to us. Being upon our honour, we were obliged to refrain from arresting any man against whom we did not feel there was reasonable suspicion of intimidation or incitement thereto. [A laugh.] Perhaps we were to blame; but I think if we erred, the error was on the right side. Perhaps the noble Lord who laughs (Lord Randolph Churchill) would not have been so careful in the matter, and would have jumped at a conclusion earlier; but as soon as I could say in my conscience that I reasonably suspected the leaders of intimidation, or incitement to intimidation, I advised their arrest. After all, I do not think there is much of a charge to be made against us by hon. Gentlemen on the other side. We, at any rate, all through this business have shown no wish to spare the leaders and pursue the followers. I do not deny that the late Government might have been right in the prosecution they undertook. As to whether they were justified in leaving out the leaders, knowing the difficulties connected with the government of Ireland, and not being able to ascertain the exact ground on which the prosecution was made, I do not attempt to express a legal opinion. At any rate, when we made what in some quarters was called the "sham prosecution," we prosecuted the leaders. I will not say whether the late Government had or had not ground for the course they took. For the little my support was worth they had it; but it did excite my surprise that the leaders were not included in the prosecution. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Michael Davitt was included.] He was not a leader at that time. ["Oh, oh!" from the Irish Members.] Though he had shown great vigour and great energy he was not at that time the leader. Mr. Parnell was the leader then and now. Besides, we cannot but remember that Mr. Davitt was a ticket-of-leave man, and that something else could have been done with him. Well, on these grounds we arrested Mr. Parnell and two or three other Members of Parliament. I should like to make one remark, as I see the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) in his place. I was aware of the state of his health when I advised the Lord Lieutenant to issue his Warrant against him, and he would not have been arrested if he had not been able to go—I will not say whether at the sacrifice of his health or not—at any rate, he was able to go to a meeting and make an eloquent speech, which left us without any reasonable excuse for not arresting him. [Mr. LEAMY: For treasonable practices?] Yes; Warrants were issued against him and Mr. O'Kelly and Mr. Parnell for treasonable practices. This is a legal matter I must leave to my hon. and learned Friend; but I believe I am right in saying it is a treasonable practice, this organized attempt to replace the law of the Queen's Courts by an unwritten law. But it was not on that ground alone these Warrants were signed. If speeches like those that were delivered had continued, and the agitation had not been checked, in all probability it would—nay, it must—have ended in an attempt at civil war. The excitement of the people would have been so great that it would not have been possible to keep them within bounds. If the House will allow me I will refer to one of these meetings. A great torchlight demonstration was held on the occasion of Mr. Parnell's entrance into Dublin, on September 26. An address was presented to Mr. Parnell by Mr. Varian. It ran thus— Honoured and beloved Leader: In the name of the united people of Ireland, and as representatives of the Metropolitan branches of the Irish National Land League…… and as the great God who shapes the destinies of men has endowed you with wisdom, native courage, and eloquence—the attributes of a leader—we ask you to lead us on to that glorious consummation, the dream of Tone, Emmett, and Fitzgerald—National Independence. Yesterday the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) brought forward a Motion for the Repeal of the Union, and one or two Members made speeches in favour of Home Rule. But there was neither the Repeal of the Union nor Home Rule in this address. It was Separation. It was exactly the state of things when the standard was hoisted in the South—when the Confederate States were ready to fight against the Federal Government. This was an address calling upon Mr. Parnell as their leader, and he took care in no way to disavow it, in no way to warn these poor men of what would certainly happen to them if they attempted to carry out this idea of theirs. At the same meeting the hon. Member for Sligo made a speech, and he said— To-night will be marked for over as a memorable and glorious night in the history of Dublin and of Ireland. To night Ireland has broken loose from the Lion and the Unicorn, and has arrayed itself in all the irresistible majesty of the people under the sacred banner of the Shamrock and the Harp. [Laughter.] That may appear a very laughable matter to hon. Members sitting here; but it was no laughable matter when such sentiments were uttered in the presence of an excitable assembly in Ireland; it was no laughable matter for the men who heard what was said by the hon. Member for Sligo, who probably believed what was said, and who might be prompted to act upon the advice they received, and who, if they did, must be treated as rebels. It must be remembered that there was a numerous crowd on that occasion—very many thousands, some persons stated 100,000—who felt stronger in their numbers than they were in reality. I say that though the hon. Members who made those speeches probably did not consider, or did not understand, the dreadful conflict which words such as these words would in the end have provoked, it became the duty of Her Majesty's Government to teach them the danger of giving utterance to such reckless language. Mr. Parnell said— The spirit that is alive in Ireland to-day …. will never die—(cries of 'Never,' and cheers)—until it destroys the alien rule which has kept our country impoverished and in chains, and sweeps that detestable rule, with its buckshot and its bayonets—(hisses and groans)—far away over the Channel, when it can never return. (Cheers.) What did his hearers understand by that? What did the speaker mean by such language? Whatever might have been passing in the mind of the hon. Gentleman at the moment, the people, at all events, understood him to mean to stir them up to enter into a conflict—to engage in a rising, in which they were to be backed by American gold, and by arms which were to be sent across the Atlantic for their use. It was, probably, not the intention of the hon. Member for Sligo to follow the example of Tone and Fitzgerald; but the people must have thought he would. [Mr. SEXTON: I did not name them.] You did not name them; but the people must have imagined you had them in your mind. Then Mr. Parnell went on— We are warned by the history of the past that we must fight these people within the lines of the Constitution. [Cheers from Irish Members.] And so hon. Members really think that addresses such as those I have quoted from can be safely made in the presence of 100,000 people, meeting by torchlight, providing that, just at the end of an inflammatory speech, the speaker should drop a word or two about "fighting within the lines of the Constitution," by which carefully-prepared sentence he hoped to shield himself from the consequences of his recklessness! Well, now, on the second day of the Convention, Dr. Dillon Egan, of Boston, United States, made a speech; and I must call the attention of the hon. Member for Longford to this address. It is important to consider what was said by Americans, because without them the Convention would have been useless, and there would have been no attempt to hold it. Mr. Parnell was in the chair, and Dr. Dillon Egan said— From Cape Clear to the Giant's Causeway, from the romantic Connaught to the classic Hill of Howth, I hear one simultaneous shout, and the lightning sends it across the waters of the Atlantic; it is reverberating on the shores of the Pacific; and millions of Irishmen join their voices in the shout of victory that proclaims Ireland a nation, great, glorious, and free. (Cheers.) "—[and I am quoting from The Freeman's Journal]—"A Voice: 'Three cheers for the Irish Republic' (Cheers.) In a little time the hon. Member for the City of Cork vacated the chair, and the hon. Member for Longford took it. Did he advise those who were present to keep within the limits of Constitutional action; did he warn them against attempting to bring about an Irish Republic? Did he tell them that he would not join or assist them in such efforts, which, if persisted in, he must have known would probably lead to loss of life? Did he warn them against engaging in such efforts? No; he quietly took the chair, and the proceedings of the Convention went on without any interruption or remonstrance on his part. There were other appeals to Nationalist feelings—for instance, the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Lalor), at Maryborough, on the 26th of September, talked about getting rid, not only of landlordism, but of foreign rule. Mr. O'Kelly, at the Cork Banquet, on the 2nd of October, made use of these words— The old League was the harbinger of the bright political future that was behind it. For his part, he would never consider his work ended until a foreign flag left their country or lay under it. This foreign flag was the Union Jack. Mr. O'Kelly continued— The Land League would win the land for the people, and, as their fathers ended at Clontarf, by putting the foreign flag into the sea. Were those words that we could allow to be spoken? [Mr. BIGGAR: Oh, oh!] Does the hon. Member think that a very laughable matter? Suppose the men who heard this language had tried to put the foreign flag in the sea, would it have been a laughable matter for them? What was said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell)? Speaking at Dungannon, on October 5, he said what I felt very strongly at the time, and what clearly showed that it was perfectly impossible for us to refrain from action. The hon. Member said— Every English statesman and every English newspaper are lamenting, from one end of Britain to the other, that there are two Governments in Ireland—the Government of Mr. Gladstone, which nobody minds, and the Government of the Land League and of Charles Stewart Parnell. It was my business to take care that the Queen's Government, administered by the Prime Minister and his Colleagues, was minded, and that the Government of Mr. Parnell was not minded. Could we any longer permit this incitement to rebellion? Had we done so, the blood that would inevitably have been shed would have been upon our heads. It has been asked why we did not make the arrests directly the speeches were delivered. These violent speeches were only made a very few days before the arrests were made; and as regards the intimidation, we were obliged to find out that the words resulted in deeds. Well, after the arrests were made, the veil was very quickly dropped, and there was issued the "no rent" manifesto. Last night the right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) seemed inclined to approve that manifesto, on the ground that it was justifiable to withhold the payment of rent until Mr. Parnell and his Colleagues were released from gaol. That certainly does seem to be a very remarkable view of morality for so high an official to take. The manifesto was interpreted by those who read it to mean "pay no rent at all." This appears in the latter part of the manifesto— Stand together in the face of the brutal and cowardly enemies of your race; pay no rents under any pretext. I was rather amused by what I heard yesterday. A tenant farmer took it in a very practical manner; in his opinion, it meant that he should not pay any rent at all, and he said that every night he prayed for my life, so that I might give him an excuse for not paying his rent. Now as to the proclamation of the Land League. The issuing of this Proclamation, I need not say, would by itself have had no effect. The Proclamation did not made the Land League illegal; it did not make its public meetings illegal; and it did not bring the leading members of the League within the jurisdiction of the Coercion Act. At first we were informed and advised—and I have every reason to believe it was good advice—that as regards public meetings there were two grounds upon which we could disperse them—one was the ground of the danger to individuals, and the other was the ground of a breach of the peace. At first we understood that that was limited to a breach of the peace then and there; but it afterwards became clear to our Legal Advisers that we ought to interpret a breach of the peace to mean such incitement of persons at meetings as would in all probability lead to a breach of the peace. ["Oh!"] I have no doubt hon. Members will complain of that. Under these difficult circumstances, we tried to act according to law. I wonder what would have been said if we had stepped beyond our powers and tried to act in an illegal manner ourselves. We had to become convinced that the Land League was an intimidating organization, and that active membership of it was the commission of a crime punishable by law, being an act of violence or intimidation, or an incitement thereto. Long before we had convinced ourselves that the Land League was an illegal organization, and had prosecuted its leading members upon that ground. But that did not bring the members of the Land League within the jurisdiction of the Protection Act; the prosecution merely set forth that they were engaged in an illegal conspiracy, that conspiracy being to compel men not to pay their debts. We could not say that that enabled us to say they might be arrested under the Protection Act. We had to have it proved by experience, and by facts, that the Land League was an intimidating organization. This was abundantly proved; and I have now said why we acted at last, and why we did not act earlier. But I wish to mention that before the publication of the "no rent" manifesto and the issuing of the Proclamation, we issued a very strong Proclamation against "Boycotting." The contest had now become clear. On the one hand we had outrages, intimidation, and threats, followed by ruin and destruction of property, maiming of men and dumb animals, firing into houses, threats of murder and murder itself; and, on the other hand, the determination of the Government to enforce the law. I am not conscious on my part of any failure to assert the law; and it will be the duty of the right hon. Gentleman who preceded me in the responsible position I now occupy to point out any failure, if there has been any. Well, all veils were thrown aside, and we were enabled to see to what extent the Land League would go. I am sorry the hon. Member for Longford is not in the House, for I want to read to him the proclamation that was issued by the Treasurer of the League. My reason for feeling sorry that the hon. Gentleman has left the House is that I am bound to say I must hold him morally responsible for what was done by the Treasurer of the Land League. The hon. Member was an active and prominent member of the League, and I never heard that he disowned the action of its Treasurer, Mr. Patrick Egan. This is what Mr. Egan sent for publication— To the People of Ireland. Pay no rent. Avoid the Land Court. Pay no rent. The person who does should be visited with the severest sentence of social ostracism. [Mr. SEXTON: Where do you find it?] Almost everywhere in Ireland. Will the hon. Gentleman deny that this proclamation was issued by Mr. Egan? Does he deny that The Freeman's Journal thought it was impossible for Mr. Egan to have issued it, and does he forget Mr. Patrick Egan's declaration, through the papers, that he had issued it? The proclamation went on— Avoid the Land Court. Cast out the person who enters it as a renegade to his country and to the cause of his fellow-men. Hold the harvest; and many other expressions of this kind were used. Then there was this proclamation issued, we believe, by the Land League— Notice. £10 reward will he given to any person who can give sufficient information of any tenant farmer having paid any rent since the 'no rent' manifesto was issued by the Central Executive. And also a reward of £5 will be given to any person who can give information of any spy who is informing the police about the Land League Organization. (By Order of the Committee in Council.) This notice was circulated in the country. Will hon. Gentlemen opposite get up in their places and deny it?

MR. METGE

I most distinctly deny it.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

I deny it. I never heard of it before.

MR. W. E. FOESTER

Here is another proclamation, signed by Patrick Ford—[A laugh]—of The Irish World. It is very ungrateful of hon. Members if they disown Mr. Patrick Ford. It is headed "No Rent," and then follow the names— Parnell, Davitt, Dillon, Sexton, Kettle, Brennan, Egan," and, "Fly the Land Court! 'Tis a Sham—a Fraud!! He who acts the traitor in the hour of Ireland's trial shall pay the penalty of his villainy. You know what the penalty meant. I will tell you what it meant; and I should like to tell the hon. Member for Longford what was the penalty that ensued upon disobedience to the orders of the Land League, of which he was a prominent member. This is what happened in the county of Kerry on the 12th of November— Thomas Galvin, farmer, was fired at and wounded, at about half-past 8 o'clock, P.M. A party of men unknown, armed and disguised, and numbering about eight, visited his house at the hour stated. Five of them entered, one of them asking whether Galvin had paid his rent. He replied that he had, whereupon another man asked him whether 'he would have his ears cut off, or be shot?' Galvin replied, 'Shoot me; I can only be killed once.' One of the party then gave orders to 'Fire, and take him on the legs,' and Galvin immediately fell, five shots having been fired at him, two bullets taking effect in his left thigh. His mother, who was present, threw herself on his body, saying he was dead, and the offenders went away. That was the penalty. In County Eos-common, on the 13th of December— James Brennan, farm labourer, aged 40 years, was murdered by some person unknown, at about 7 o'clock, P.M. He was sitting near the fire with his brother Michael, when suddenly the latter heard a shot outside the window, and the deceased dropped off his stool and, exclaiming 'Lord have mercy on me, I am done!' expired The charge had taken effect in his back under the right ribs. The motive for this out. rage appears to have sprung from the fact that Michael Brennan, who holds about five acres of land, at a yearly rent of £2 19s., had paid a year's rent, two and a-half years being due by him. He was the only man on the town-land known to have done so. On the 12th December a notice was found by the police on a yard gate, about half-a-mile from Brennan's residence. This notice declared Michael Brennan 'Boycotted' for having paid his rent, and warned the murdered man to have a clear acquittance with him. The murder was undoubtedly perpetrated to enforce compliance with the 'no rent' doctrine. It is a very serious thing for me to say I consider that Members of this House are morally responsible for these outrages, but I do say so. I say these outrages have happened in consequence of the incitement and advice of, and at the instigation of, the Land League, to the effect that men should be visited with penalties because they paid rent. There was no attempt [on the part of the organization to prevent these outrages, and when these things were happening there was no stepping forward of the hon. Member for Longford to disown them. [An hon. MEMBER: He was in Athens.] Why did he not come back and say—"I will not have the reproach of such horrible deeds fall on me." [Mr. REDMOND: What did Davitt say?] I am not quite sure what Davitt said; but the placard signed by Patrick Ford was largely circulated in Ireland. I have no positive proof it was issued by him; but I believe it was, and I can give good grounds for my belief. There is no doubt about Mr. Patrick Ford being the editor of The Irish World. The Irish World speaks for itself, and I will read an extract from its columns. I consider hon. Members opposite in a great measure responsible for what appears in The Irish World, for if it was not for The Irish World and the money from America we should not have this agitation to deal with. The leading article of The Irish World of the 29th of October commenced— Glorious news from Ireland. The 'no rent' banner has been at length raised, and the Land League is pledged to rally round it. From the bottom of our heart we send up a prayer of thanksgiving for this. Long have we asked the Irish people to take the stand they have now taken. Again and again we have appealed to them to draw the 'no rent' sword, knowing that landlordism could not face that weapon. … The pressure of public opinion"—we know what that is—" must be brought to bear on anyone who shows symptoms of yielding. Ireland is at war with landlordism; and as in every war all who aid and abet the enemy are regarded and treated as enemies, so in their war begun in Ireland everyone who assists the land thieves by paying rent ought to be accounted as bad as the land thieves themselves. Can we wonder at these men going about and committing outrages and murders when papers containing such articles were circulated amongst them with the assent of hon. Members opposite, or, at any rate, without any disownment on their part? It was because these articles and the like were circulated in America that the money was received; certainly without their publication the money would not have been received. The article went on— Irishmen, whilst lighting the common foe, cannot afford to allow him to receive the 'sinews of war' when it is in their power to prevent him from doing so. Let it, then, be well understood that he who from this time forth pays rent, by that act proclaims himself an enemy of Ireland. … Ireland must not tolerate traitors in the rear when the 'no rent' battle is going on. The readers of The Irish World are under peculiar obligations to assist the Irish people in keeping the Irish banner from going down in defeat, as it was by their advice it was first raised. In the same paper and number we find this— Yet the time may come—the British Government seems determined to precipitate it—when forbearance shall cease to be a virtue, and in such an emergency the Land League must have the wherewith to strike. The money now given may prove to be its 'sinews of war' in more senses than one. Bend to the work then! Attend your regular meetings! Fill up the membership. Let every man consider himself a recruiting sergeant. Send out collectors in wards and parishes and gather in names, which names, whilst The Irish World will promptly and cheerfully forward on to Mr. Egan in Paris, will find a place with many of others on our Roll of Honour. The names spoken of were those of subscribers to the fund for assisting evicted tenants, and "the 'sinews of war' in more senses than one" were to go to Mr. Egan, the Treasurer of the Land League, to which hon. Gentlemen opposite belonged, and with which I have never heard the hon. Member for Longford disavow his connection. On the 17th of December The Irish World said— They (the Irish people) hate the oppressor with a burning, deep, implacable, though silent hatred. Then follows an allusion to myself, with which I need not trouble the House, and the writer proceeded— A land or water bailiff will be a social pariah, and the whole crowd of aliens who misgovern Ireland—the Goulates—will be hated, despised, and execrated for all time…. India and Africa will learn from Ireland the lesson of implacable hostility to their common oppressor. No; we shall never forgive until the last vestige of the yoke of alien rule has been removed from Ireland's neck, and until landlordism shall be no more.

MR. BIGGAR

Hear, hear!

MR. W. E. FOESTEE

The hon. Member for Cavan says "Hear hear!" in safety under the Privileges of the House. But does he suppose that we were going to allow men to say such things, and to make use of such incitement as this in Ireland, where it was likely to lead to actual results? And now I must refer to another paper—and here, again, I lament the absence of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy)—I must allude to a newspaper which, I presume, is referred to in the Amendment—namely, United Ireland. The question of the action of the Government with respect to this paper, I suppose, will be decided in a Court of Law; therefore, I shall dwell but shortly on this part of the charge. I think, however, I ought to give my hon. Friends around me some ground for our interference with this publication. The hon. Member for Longford is one of the very few shareholders of this paper; he is one of the very few gentlemen who bought up a newspaper and called it by the name of United Ireland. He has never disavowed his connection with it, and, therefore, I think he ought to have shown me the courtesy of staying in the House to hear what I had to say on the subject. He should have been here to say, or should have commissioned one of his Friends to say for him, whether he will keep up his connection with the paper any longer. In an article published on October 28, the newspaper says— That which distinguished the taking of the Bastille from a common street riot is what distinguishes the struggle against landlordism from a struggle for its purse. One citadel was the throne of tyranny in France, the other is the barracks of the garrison of England. A bas les Bastilles! The men who level them will go further—to a Palace at Versailles or a Castle on Cork Hill. And the hired Swiss, be they primed with ball-cartridge or clad in plush, will not stand long in their way, depend upon it. Was that not inciting to insurrection? Our nation stands fused like glowing iron—fused as it never was fused even in the golden dawn of its history. The race which was set clan against clan in fratricidal strife feels and strikes as one man, from the glens of Antrim to the laurelled streets of glorious Cork—down in the English mines—deep in the backwoods—far in the gold diggings. It can no more be got rid of than the North Pole. For every man that Carew butchered, whom Cromwell sold to slavery, whom Carhampton scorched with pitch-caps, there are 50,000 ready to take up the fight, where Tyrone, where Owen Roe, where Sarsfield, where Tone, where Emmett, where O'Connell, where Mitch el, where Allen, Larkin, and O'Brien left it off. These words are written as if the man who wrote them believed them, and I verily believe he was ready to take the risk of having written them. I believe that if this person had persuaded the people of Ireland to follow the spirit of his words, he would have been ready to suffer the consequences. I have more respect for him than I have for the gen- tleman who set such a paper as this on foot, and who either neglects to read what is in it, or, having read what is in it, allows it to go forth under his name and at his instigation without disowning it. We have, again, in United Ireland these words— The 'no rent' manifesto—which, by the way, Baron Fitzgerald declines to pronounce illegal—is practically the law of the land. Scarcely any rent is being paid anywhere. The landlords are in despair. Many people believed that the "no rent" manifesto was really the law of the land. For the last three or four months we have had a most severe contest; we have had an unscrupulous organization against us, and a large foreign fund supplying the means of agitation. We have had against us what the Duke of Wellington said was so difficult to oppose successfully—an attempted strike against rent. We have had every feeling of selfishness on the part of the tenant farmers appealed to against us. We have had, I am sorry to say, to discover one of the chief faults amongst the Irish people. Although there is no race more remarkable for physical courage in the world than the Irish, they certainly do not seem to be pre-eminent as regards moral courage. We have experienced a want of self-help on the part of the victims of the agitation, such as, in my opinion, would not have been experienced under similar circumstances in England or Scotland. I am not speaking of the landlords, many of whom have done their duty. I am speaking more of the tenant farmers, who have allowed themselves to be ill-treated, their property to be damaged, and their families to be insulted, who acknowledge this, and who yet have not the moral courage to stand up for themselves. I will tell the House what a friend of mine stated. He said he had seen a farmer from one of the worst districts in Ireland, who told him—"We are absolutely tired of the agitation; it is ruining us; we do not feel safe; we would do anything to get rid of it; and," he added, "those who agree with me are more in number than the hairs of my head." I must say that in England or Scotland the farmers would have rallied round one another. I am happy to say they are beginning to do so in Ireland. Hon. Members from that country will soon see them doing it more and more. Well, in the difficult position in which we found ourselves many suggestions were made to us. It was suggested that we should call Parliament together and ask for a fresh Coercion Act. It was suggested that non-payment of rent should be regarded as a crime. Another suggestion was that martial law should be enforced, and another that trial by jury should be abolished. These and many other suggestions, to which neither I nor my Colleagues could for a moment assent, were made to us. I felt, and my Colleagues agreed with me, that instead of calling Parliament together we should do the best we could with the powers we had, and we have done the best we could. We determined to bring into operation the Land Act, which the leaders of the agitation have so much decried—to bring it into operation in every disturbed county. We determined to use all the powers we had with all the vigour at our command, and we have done so. We were obliged to make many arrests under the Protection Act. I am sorry to say there is a Return of a large number of arrests on the Table of the House up to the 1st of this month, and we have had to make several arrests since. Several arrests have been made in County Clare, and I will tell the House the reason why. Here is an extract from a letter I have received from Mr. Clifford Lloyd from Milltown Malbay— And now as to Milltown. Terror reigns complete in the name of the Land League. It has here its paid agents, who commit all the crime and commit ever}' act of intimidation. I believe the murderer of Lenane was paid for his work. They have a staff of these blackguards in the village. Poor Mrs. Morony is in a sad way. Within the last 10 days all her servants driven from her on threat of similar death, completely' Boycotted,' not a loaf of bread even sold to her, and this is 24 miles from the nearest town—Ennis—a dreary, wild drive. Every conceivable act of intimidation has been perpetrated on her and her people; but she bears up with a brave heart, and says she will see it out. Her lands are let on lease, some for 999 years. She has offered large annual reductions, which are declined unless made permanent. This she has not got the power to do. Mrs. Morony is the victim of a gross, cowardly tyranny and persecution, literally 'even unto death.' It will require a strong blow, followed up, to right matters. I think the state of things in this district will be better now, thanks to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. It may be thought that some of the cases of outrage reported are exaggerated; but, at any rate, there is no exaggeration here. This is a case of murder. Lenane, the man alluded to, was killed by a shot fired through the window, and the cause assigned for the outrage is that deceased remained in the service of Mrs. Morony. No doubt, it was also intended by those who perpetrated it, and who had had differences with Mrs. Morony, to bring her to terms. I am glad I have sent Mr. Clifford Lloyd down there, for that kind of murder is not likely to occur again. Mr. Clifford Lloyd will make order in Clare as he has made it elsewhere. We found that there were a large number of secret societies, that patrolling might be improved, and that there might be a better distribution of the police; and, in order to effect the necessary improvements, we have done that which is alluded to in the Amendment—namely, appointed five special magistrates to see that there is better distribution of the police and more efficient patrolling. Here, again, I may be asked—"Why was this not done before?" If any hon. Member who feels inclined to put the question will apply to those who have filled the Office of Chief Secretary before me, he will be told, I have no doubt, that it is not an easy thing to do. It requires a very strong case to justify such a stop, and you must exercise great care that you do not do more harm than good. I believe that no Government could have acted with greater promptitude than we did; in fact, I do not feel sure that any other Government would have taken the strong measures that we took as quickly as we did. We found that a very largo number of police was required for the protection, not merely of landlords, but of farmers and the industrious poor. It has been a curious feature of this agitation that there has been no respecting of persons in it, and that the poor have been visited quite as much as the rich. As my words may reach Ireland, I wish to say this—that, in order to enable the police to attend more thoroughly to the duty of patrolling and preserving the peace of their districts, we have, to some extent, replaced the constabulary in the protection of individuals by soldiers; but in this work we have not been assisted, by many of the landlords. Some of them have been sorry for the change; but I will not say more than this—that they are bound, as good citizens, and as relying upon us for the protection of their lives and property, to assist us in the measures we take for the good of the community. Then as to the subject of centralization. Everybody knows that the Government in Dublin is a centralized Government. We found it such, and we have been obliged to work with it. Do not let it be for a moment supposed that we find any fault with the officials in Dublin Castle. I believe it would be difficult for any Government to find more efficient and loyal servants than we have had; but under the great pressure that existed in this battle against lawlessness, I could not proceed by written Minutes and by letter from Dublin, and we had to pick out men we could thoroughly trust, who had proved themselves to be men of energy, vigour, and discretion, and send them down to the different districts to see that what we wished to be done was done, and also to make their own suggestions to us. I shall not trouble the House much longer. I will pass away from this array and catalogue of crime to which I was obliged to refer and allude to one portion of the Queen's Speech. We most thoroughly believe we were justified in begging Her Most Gracious Majesty to state that there are signs of improvement. If anyone had had the life that I have had to pass for the last three or four months, they would probably feel that I am not likely to say there are signs of improvement unless I am convinced there are such signs. In the first place—though I do not rely upon this—the figures in regard to outrages are better. Including threatening letters in December of last year the outrages were 229—that is, 156 less than in December of the previous year, and 28 less than in the preceding month of November. In January last they were 189—that is, 40 less than in December. You cannot, of course, judge by what has passed this month; but hitherto the figures show a considerable falling-off. Again, there is much less "Boycotting" intimidation than there was. I do not mean to say that we have stopped or prevented outrages; but we have, in all the districts of Ireland, diminished them. The facts, indeed, are better than the figures. In October of last year hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends organized a strike against rent, and a most dangerous weapon they had in that organization. Last month and this month, landlords, being tired of waiting any longer, have tried to get their rents; and we, in the performance of our duty, are supporting them with all the power at our disposal. The natural result of that would have been an increase in the outrages. On the contrary, however, there has been a diminution. I am not attempting to put too favourable an appearance on it. I am only stating facts. To a great extent rents are being paid, and as rent becomes paid we are less likely to have outrages, for they are generally committed in the hope of preventing the payment of rents. Then we also find that the farmers are discovering how they have been misled—that the promise made by Mr. Parnell and his friends, early in the autumn, that if they allowed their farms to be sold they should not suffer loss, cannot be kept. You find farmers hanging about the doors of the Land League, with tears in their eyes and curses on their tongues, complaining of the manner in which they have been misled.

MR. SEXTON

When? Who are they?

MR. LEAMY

The doors of the League are shut.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

It would be rather a heavy penalty on them if I were to say who they are. The patrolling is more effective, and one great cause for congratulation is that juries are, to a certain extent, doing their duty with far less fear. A jury of Cork lately did not show any of those symptoms of intimidation shown by the juries of Cork last year. I believe there is one reason for it. The shopkeepers of Cork are finding out that non-payment of rent means also non-payment of other debts, and that, upon the whole, they had better run the risk of the penalties of the Land League than allow this state of things to continue. I do earnestly hope that we shall find the same courage shown at the Spring Assizes; but everyone knows they are different to the Winter Assizes. I may add this, though I cannot enter fully into the subject—and I must ask hon. Gentlemen to give me credit for saying what I believe— that our last confidential Reports are, for the first time for a long time past, decidedly better. The fact is that the Land Act is now beginning to tell. When the farmers find that, on the one hand, they have the advantages of the Land Act—and no one will deny that there are advantages in it—

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Hear, hear!

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not suppose the noble Lord will deny it.

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

I do not deny it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The Act was passed by an enormous majority of the House in the belief that there would be advantages in it. When these men find, on the one hand, the advantages of the Act, and, on the other, the great probability of losing their land if they obey the Land League, that fact begins to tell. But, although there are signs of improvement, they are not such as would warrant us for one moment in relaxing our measures. If there are any hon. Members who think the time has come when we can discharge the prisoners under the Protection Act, I would tell them that that is a mistake, and that the time has not come. We may find, as time goes on, that there is less intimidation, preventing witnesses from coming forward and causing juries to fail in their duties; and we may, therefore, be able to return to reliance on the ordinary law. When that will be I cannot say. Matters have so far improved that though a few weeks ago I could hardly have hoped that we could meet Parliament without asking for further powers, we at last found that we could do so. We have found that we can put off to a later period of the Session the consideration of the steps we should take. The Protection Act expires at the end of September; and it will be a serious matter for the Government to consider, and for the House to consider, before we come to that time, whether we should renew it, or replace it by some other Act, or allow it to expire. But, however that may be, of this I may assure the House—that the Government will not relax its efforts to maintain law in Ireland, and to protect life and property there; and that we shall not relax our efforts to suppress that organization which has now proved that its object is robbery, and that its means of action—without which it would be powerless—are intimidation, and outrages, and murders. I am perfectly sure of this—that if this Government were to fail—which it will not do—in its efforts, it would be very quickly visited with punishment. I had intended to make some remarks as to the Land Court. I must make these remarks as short as I can; but something fell from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Tottenham) that requires some statement from me. But first let me refer to a subject upon which I rather hoped to have made a statement earlier in the Sitting—that is, an explanation in regard to the pamphlet alluded to by my right hon. Friend. It is headed—How to Become the Owner of Your Farm. Passages have been read from that pamphlet which certainly were of a character most improper to be issued by any Government Department, and still more by the Land Commission, with its responsible duties. As soon as. my attention was called to this publication, a few days ago, I communicated with the Secretary, and received from him the history of what had happened; but as I thought that I ought to ask the Commissioners for an explanation, I accordingly wrote to them, and I now have their reply, which, with my letter, I will lay on the Table of the House tonight, and they will be circulated tomorrow; and I must say their explanation absolutely and entirely frees the Commissioners from any blame in the matter. The history of what occurred is, shortly, this. The pamphlet was brought to the Secretary as containing suggestions as to the working of parts of the Land Act, particularly Part V.; and the Secretary, in the pressure of work, and relying on the information he had received, did not himself read it. If he had read it, it would never have been issued. It was after a certain number of copies had been ordered—[Mr. GIBSON: Did no one read it?] Well, the whole story will be brought out in this letter. As I have said, the Secretary did not read it; but after its issue Judge O'Hagan did read it, and when he had done so he at once called his Colleagues together, and a Minute was issued suppressing the publication and ordering all the copies that could be got hold of to be destroyed. But a full explanation will be found in these Papers. Remarks have been made on the subject of the Sub-Commissioners. I feel myself especially responsible for the appointment of these Sub-Commissioners; but I will not enter into a defence of these appointments at this time, nor should I feel able to do so if I had plenty of time, unless real and distinct charges required my reply. I will only say that I made the appointments after the most careful investigation, and from a very large number of applications, not necessarily limiting the number of applicants, but trying to get the best men I could, with the assistance of the Commissioners, of my right hon. and learned Friend beside me (the Attorney General for Ireland), and of his Predecessor, the present Lord Chancellor of Ireland. As to the legal Sub-Commissioners, of course I rested more on their judgment than on my own; but I believe we were fortunate in our appointments. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim last night made some reckless charges, and said that there were among the Sub-Commissioners solicitors with a small practice. There are two solicitors, but with a large practice; one has been a respected Member of this House, his appointment has received the approval of all parties; and the other had one of the largest practices in the North. As to the lay Members, I was more directly responsible; and my object was to appoint gentlemen upon whose integrity I could rely, upon whose knowledge of farming and of the value of land I could rely, who had gained the confidence of their neighbours; and, wherever I could, I have chosen those who showed that they were trusted in disputes of this kind between farmers and landlords. All I can say is, if any charges are to be made, I hope they will be made in a definite form; and I must further ask that sufficient notice of these definite charges shall be given, that I may have two or three days to provide a reply; and I must really ask that charges such as those made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim may not be repeated. They were, in general description, as incorrect as possible.

MR. TOTTENHAM

I shall be perfectly prepared to substantiate what I said.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Very good. I think the hon. Member must allow me to make allusion to one of his charges. I think he spoke of a "chemist's assistant." Now, by such an expression he alludes, I suppose—for it can mean nobody else—to Mr. O'Keefe, Sub-Commissioner for County Cork. Mr. O'Keefe has been long known in practical agriculture; he holds a chemist's diploma from the Queen's University; he has been 30 years in his profession, and closely associated with agriculture, acquainted with value of land, and all kinds of farming and farm produce, and the reclamation of waste lands, in which he has been practically engaged. He is one of two scientific Sub-Commissioners I appointed. He is Fellow of the Chemical Society—that, I suppose, is the foundation for the charge of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim. He has been public analyst to the City and County of Cork, and he holds first-class testimonials from various gentlemen of the highest standing, among others Colonel H. B. Bernard, an authority that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. Before I leave the subject of the Sub-Commissioners, allow me to make another remark. I dare say fault will be found with some of their decisions. I have told them—"Your actions as Sub-Commissioners will be criticized, and it will be my duty to say what I can in your defence when charges are made against you. Keep, therefore, a record of all your cases, and let me know your reply; and though I cannot promise that I shall always agree with you, I will see that you have fair play." And this fair play I demand for them—that charges shall not be suddenly sprung, and that some notice, public or private, shall be given; for it will be absolutely impossible, seeing that there are more than 1,000 cases, to go into a case without notice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Leitrim (Mr. Tottenham) has made complaints against the legal Chief Commissioner, and commented on a passage in his opening speech, in which he said the doctrine to the tenant is "live and thrive." The hon. Member for Leitrim calls this a "new" doctrine—that is the expression he used. I should be sorry, knowing how hard has been the lot of many of the landlords in Ireland, that the first speech in this debate, made by one of their able champions, should contain an expression such as that, and give colour for much of the unjustifiable attack made against them. "Live and thrive" a new doctrine! Well, it ought not to be a new doctrine, and it will not be a new doctrine under the Land Act. What is "live and thrive," after all? It is just what we were debating for days and weeks last year—what a solvent tenant can make a living out of. Does the hon. Member for Leitrim really suppose "live and thrive" is a new doctrine? Now, in regard to the reductions of rents, we must bear these facts in mind—first, as my right hon. Friend says, that the strongest eases were naturally those to come first; and, also, you must bear this in mind—that it will turn out, I believe, that the rents in Ireland are higher than the House expected. They are not higher than I expected to find them, for the information that I obtained years ago, and which I have tried to correct since, was that rents were very high. I make no complaint against the landlords; I think they were high for this reason—that the sellers and occupiers of land had had the advantage in the market for generations, and it is difficult to over-estimate the effect on the market value when the pull of the market has been all one way for 50, or 100 years, or more. It got to such a state of things that to check it this House had to break through the general rules of political economy, and declare we could not leave Ireland in that condition; and in order that we might have, as a general rule, tenants who could "live and thrive," it was necessary to declare what is a fair rent; and in declaring that fair rent there will be, I believe, larger reductions than were generally supposed necessary. But what does that mean? It means, after all, that there was greater ground for the Land Act than some of us who brought it forward could see, or those who accepted it with more or less reluctance were aware of. Now, I really am coming to a conclusion, and will detain the House but a few minutes more. I must just say this—We are constantly charged by right hon. Gentlemen that it is we who have placed Ireland in this state; that had it not been for our coming into power there would have been no Irish difficulty. I do not know whether the difficulty would have come this year or next; but this I do know—that the difficulty would have been far worse if we had not tackled it. The state of the relations between landlord and tenant and the system of land tenure in Ireland were such that quiet was impossible, and that no industry could be successful. Without a reform, therefore, we could not hope for contentment amongst the people. Sir, a great agitation was upon us, and it is alleged that we brought in our remedial measure as a concession to that agitation. But I affirm that we brought in our remedial measure as a concession to justice. For if the grievance had remained, agitation and distress would have become worse. That happened which has often happened before—namely, a bad state of things produced complaints, and the complaints of individuals led to agitation, which, in its turn, was seized upon by some men for selfish and illegal purposes. It was not in concession to them that we brought in the Irish Land Bill. When we came into Office, as has been frequently explained before, we met the House with the statement that in the following Session it was our intention to deal with the question of Irish land tenure. We appointed a Commission, and upon the Report of that Commission we acted. Therefore, I say, there is no foundation whatever for the statement that we acted in concession to agitation; and I repeat that what we did was done because it was just and right, and had we not so acted, we should have been responsible for the bad state of things in Ireland. Then, again, another thing happened, which has often occurred before—those who conducted the agitation became the greatest foes of those who brought in remedial measures. The men who seize upon agitation for illegal purposes have ever been the most disappointed when they find they run the chance of losing the lever by which that agitation is effected, and, to use a homely simile, agitators in the present case found that they were about to be "starved out" by the Land Act. I will only add that we shall persevere in our course; that we shall endeavour, to the utmost of our ability, to maintain lawless organization with which we have to law and order, and to put down this deal; that we shall do our best to insure fair play to the remedial legislation which we brought forward, and which Parliament enacted, and to secure the full benefit of that measure to the people of Ireland. It is not for us to be too sanguine of its result. I have had disappointments, and I feel that time is necessary to obliterate the bad effects of a bad system. But I am not altogether without hope and faith in the Irish people; and although, probably, few persons have less reason than myself to speak favourably of much that has occurred in Ireland, I have not been brought into such close contact with them without feeling that, with all their faults, they have great virtues. They have especially that great foundation of civic virtue—a strong love of family—and I believe that if we persevere in doing our duty regardless of fear or favour, not caring for reproach and not looking for immediate reward, we shall have the satisfaction of leaving Ireland in a better condition than we found it, and also of leaving the Three Kingdoms in a safer and more united condition.

MR. REDMOND

rose for the purpose of moving the adjournment of the debate. He observed that no Member representing an English constituency rose to address the House after the lengthy speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; and he trusted that hon. Members would see the justice of the course he was pursuing when he expressed his opinion that, before any reply to that most important statement came from his hon. Colleagues, it would be no more than right that they should have the opportunity of seeing it in print.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Redmond.)

MR. R. N. FOWLER

had not risen for the purpose of offering any objection to the Motion of the hon. Member who had just sat down, but to express a hope, which had connection with a portion of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech, that the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies would shortly be in a position to afford the House all the information in his possession, consistently with his public duty, in regard to the important events which were taking place amongst the Basutos. Although the subject to which he alluded might not be thought by some hon. Members so important as that which the House was then considering, he believed neither the Prime Minister nor the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would deny that it was one of great gravity. A telegram had just appeared in the evening papers which gave rise to much anxiety; and he felt sure the House and the public would wish to hear the opinion of the hon. Gentleman in charge of Colonial affairs with reference to the existing state of affairs, and to receive from him such information as he could supply, if not before the conclusion of the debate on the Address, at any rate on Report.

MR. GLADSTONE

I may say one word in answer to the remarks of the hon. Member who has just alluded to events alleged to be taking place in Basutoland, and I wish to state my belief that my hon. Friend is not in possession of any information whatever upon the subject. I believe a telegram has appeared in an evening paper, which has given rise to the observations of the hon. Member opposite; but I would remind him that all possible efforts are used by the various newspaper proprietors, and great credit is due to them for using their private energies in securing and supplying telegraphic information for their own purposes. Information thus obtained, however, in passing from one source to another, sometimes acquires a magnitude far beyond its actual import. With regard to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, it is certainly brought forward at an earlier time than usual (11.50); but, under the circumstances, we do not propose to offer any objection, for we can hardly expect Gentlemen who have material statements to make on a question of this large importance to do so at this hour; moreover, there are many Bills which hon. Members were prevented introducing yesterday, and we are not willing that their introduction should be farther postponed. For these reasons we shall offer no opposition to the Motion of the hon. Member.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he had been requested to bring before the House circumstances in connection with the alleged promotion of drunkenness in India. Reference being made to Indian affairs in the Speech from the Throne, he should be glad to be allowed to raise the question he had alluded to upon the Report of the Address.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

pointed out that, although the question could be raised by the hon. Member for Dungarvan at the time referred to, it would be more convenient if it were brought forward later.

Question put, and agreed, to.

Debate adjourned till To-morrow.