HC Deb 27 February 1882 vol 266 cc1711-29
MR. GLADSTONE

, in rising to move— That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Irish. Land Act, said: In rising to submit to the House a preliminary Motion which is intended to clear the way for the principal and very important discussion which is before us, I should not have said a single word upon that preliminary Motion had it taken the usual course. But, two or three days ago, there appeared upon the Paper two Notices of opposition to this Motion, one of them from an independent Member of the House (Mr. A. J. Balfour), and the other from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote). I have no means of knowing whether those Notices, especially the latter, are intended to signify that there is to be a real debate and division upon this preliminary Motion, or whether they are only intended, as may be the case, for the purpose of lodging a protest against the introduction of the other Motion. In that uncertainty, especially as I believe I have the right of reply upon this Motion, I will not trouble the House with what I think are very conclusive reasons why opposition ought not to be offered to a Motion of this kind, and I will entirely reserve myself upon that subject. But I will take the liberty of saying one word with respect to the subject that it is intended to introduce, simply because I believe that the tendency of the words that I shall use cannot possibly be to increase the dissension unhappily prevailing, even if they should fail to produce any substantive result in the direction of harmony. They are to this effect. Her Majesty's Government have not given a Notice through me of a Motion such as I have to submit to the House to-night without much consideration. They are very sensible of the inconveniences attaching to it, and, indeed, of the evils which go beyond the description of inconveniences. It is inconvenient in a high degree that even for a night, or possibly for more than a night, the interesting discussion which has already been commenced on the subject of the Procedure of the House should be postponed. That is, at any rate, an evil. An evil, however, of a far graver character, and one which Her Majesty's Government deeply feel, is that of exhibiting in the face of Ireland, and in the face of a Party in Ireland entertaining purposes which we think dangerous to the country, a division between the high authorities of the State—a division accompanied by more or less of suspicion, of imputation, and of reproach. We have felt so much, and we feel so much, the greatness of this evil that, although we have in our own minds considered that there is most serious objection to every description of inquiry into the working of the Land Act at the present moment as being premature and unseasonable, yet we were willing to waive every objection except that which ap- peared to us to be vital. One objection, however, we were not prepared to waive—and on the basis of what I am now saying was founded a declaration made by a noble Earl in "another place" on behalf of the Government a few nights ago—we cannot waive that objection in consequence of what we feel to be a higher duty, the radical and insurmountable objection we entertain to an inquiry by a Committee of Parliament, or by any tribunal or organ at the present time, into the judicial administration of the Land Act. That is the scope of the controversy that, I fear, may unhappily arise. We have been disposed, so far as we could compatibly with our deep convictions of primary duty to the public, to limit the scope of the objection which we have taken. We still remain so minded; and, if even at this moment, it were possible to hope that the judicial administration of the Land Act would be excluded—I mean really excluded, intelligibly excluded—by some declaration not less formal than that which has already set a Committee in Motion, we should still be prepared to accept that exclusion as warranting us in waiving the other objections we entertain to the appointment of that Committee, and consequently we should be prepared to desist from the fulfilment of the intention which I announced last week of asking the House to adopt the Resolution which I am about to move. I must, however, add that I have not the slightest reason to believe that there is any prospect of an accommodation being arrived at on such a basis as I have indicated, and if that be so I have no option but to persevere with the Motion which I now make. But upon this Motion for postponement I Bay nothing relevant to the discussion upon it, unless I shall find that necessity should arise. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by making the Motion of which he had given Notice.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Notice of Motion relating to the Irish Land Act."—(Mr. Gladstone.)

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I am perfectly ready to concede to the right hon. Gentleman that the course which I have taken on this occasion in giving Notice of opposition to a Motion, to be made on a Government night, that the Orders of the Day be postponed until after a particular Motion brought forward by Her Majesty's Government has been disposed of, is an unusual one, and I am not prepared to say whether there is any precise precedent for that course. I quite admit, however, that, as a general rule, it is not a course that anyone would be fairly entitled to take, when the Government, on a night appropriated to the Business of the Government, desires simply to arrange their Business in a way which appears to them the most convenient. I am perfectly well aware that that is the common precedent on the part of any Government, and under ordinary circumstances would naturally pass without challenge from the House; but I cannot help observing that the circumstances in which the Government have brought forward this Motion are not ordinary circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman said very fairly that if it had not been for the Notices given by myself and the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) he would have made this Motion without a word of explanation; and I certainly felt, knowing that would be the natural course for him to take, that it would have been improper and exceedingly inconvenient for the House to have decided upon this Motion, without some explanation being given by the Government with regard to it. and without some understanding being arrived at in reference to it. I wish to say, first of all with regard to that question which the right hon. Gentleman says he will touch upon hereafter, if necessary, but which I must touch upon at once, as I have no power of reply—I will say that although the arrangement of the Business is on a Government night primarily for the Government, yet that the House has some reason to be consulted, because we know that if a Government so arranges its Business as to run important matters into a corner, the only way out of it is by a demand for the sacrifice of the time of private Members, and therefore we have some interest in considering whether the Government are or are not taking a course which will lead to that result. I also think that, in the circumstances we are placed with regard to the discussion which was opened last week on the subject of the Rules of Procedure, the House had a right to ask why the Government should think it right to interrupt a discussion of such importance, a discus- sion to which they have been drawing the attention of the public for months, and which is the first and most pressing Business which can be entertained by the House—we have a right to ask why they put that aside, and interrupt that discussion for, it may be, a considerable time. These are reasons which induced me to think it right, at all events, to enter my protest. I have no intention to offer unreasonable opposition against its being assumed that the Government should, as a matter of course, postpone these Orders. But I am bound to say that, that being my feeling with regard to the general state of Business, and the particular position in which we stand, I gather from the observations which the right hon. Gentleman has just now addressed to the House that there is even an additional reason why we should not, at the present moment, pursue the course which he asks us to take. It must, of course, have occurred to everyone who hears me that the Motion which is intended presently to be brought before us, if we agree to this Resolution, is in the nature of a Resolution for passing a censure upon, or at all events of expressing a very decided disapprobation of, the course which has been taken by the other House of Parliament with regard to the appointment of a Committee to inquire into the working of the Irish Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman says that he is so conscious of the disadvantages that must result from such a condition of things as must be brought about by his Motion, and by a difference of opinion arising between the two great Branches of the Parliamentary Legislature, that he is prepared to abstain, as I understand it, from bringing forward that Motion if he could see his way to any arrangement that would exclude from the inquiry to be conducted by the Committee some portion of the subject, or a certain class of subjects, to which he has referred, embraced in the judicial administration of the Land Act. If that be the feeling of the right hon. Gentleman, I wish the House could see its way to take some steps to as certain whether that result can be accomplished. But such steps certainly cannot be taken in this House or by this House. As I understand it, the House of Lords have appointed a Committee upon this subject. We have the Order of Reference before us, and the names of those noble Lords who are to form it. I do not know whether the Committee has yet commenced its labours; but, at any rate, it shortly will do so, and it is obvious that any limitation or regulation of its proceedings is a matter which must now be arranged in and by the Committee itself, and that anything that passed in this House or any words used here could not at all alter the situation. I can imagine that if the Government made representations to those who form the Committee, any representation coming from Her Majesty's Government, and founded upon such a statement as this—that a certain class of inquiry must be injurious to the interest of good government in Ireland—the Committee would not ignore such representations, and that they would so conduct their inquiry as to avoid the evils which are threatened. But that is a matter which can only be settled by those who are in a position to say how that inquiry is to be conducted. There are numerous questions connected with the working of the Land Act, as to which, when we come to discuss the Motion, we shall be prepared to argue to demand some inquiry, of course in a way that would not be dangerous to the peace of the country. I have no doubt the Peers on the Committee are Men of that standing and character, that they would have regard to great questions affecting the good government of Ireland; and I have no doubt also that there is no fear they would so conduct their proceedings as in any way to interfere with the independent judicial administration of the Land Act. But the matter is, as I have said, one on which we have not the power in this House to come to any arrangement, or to make any statements which can in any way bind or affect the Committee. Under those circumstances, I wish to put it to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Government, whether they think it is desirable to proceed with the Motion they have given Notice of till they have an opportunity of satisfying themselves as to the mode in which the proceedings of the Committee will be carried on. Upon them will be the responsibility. If they think it right to challenge a discussion which, as we see by the Notices on the Paper, will necessarily lead to a prolonged and, it may be, important discussion—upon them lies the responsibility.

MR. GLADSTONE

Sir, it is only fair to the right hon. Gentleman and the House that I should at once play my last card and use the privilege of reply, so as to put the House in the exact possession of what I conceive to be the position before us. The right hon. Gentleman first asks—"Why do you propose to postpone the debate on Procedure which you put before the country as a matter of the utmost importance, and even of urgency?" My answer is, that even that matter of urgency has to be put aside for one of still greater urgency. That which is directly connected with the restoration of tranquillity and order in Ireland—[Laughter from Home, Rule Members]—or which we think to be so, is evidently possessed of a higher claim, not upon those who do not think so, but upon us, than the considerations—the very important considerations—connected with the question of Procedure. That is my answer to the inquiry made for the opposite side. Now, let us see what is the position as described by the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman says that nothing can now be done in this matter excepting by the Committee of the House of Lords; that he has full confidence in that Committee; and that he is convinced that if Her Majesty's Government make proper applications to it, the Committee will take care so to regulate its proceedings that none of the inconveniences which we apprehend will arise. I beg to say that it appears to me that the process recommended by the right hon. Gentleman would be alike unseemly, irregular, and ineffectual. Her Majesty's Government have felt it their duty, through those of their Members who are Members of the House of Lords, entirely to decline serving on the Committee, and Her Majesty's Government have no organ before that Committee. But I have a much greater objection. It is not the business, Sir, of the Queen's Government—it is not the business of the Executive of this country, charged with a responsibility—at this moment the most solemn and fearful responsibility—for the peace of Ireland, to make applications to any Committee whatsoever that may be appointed. And, further, if these applications were made, they must be applications to the effect that the Committee should deliberately exclude from its province the judicial administration of the Land Act. How can the Committee do that? The Committee would be going entirely beyond its powers. That Committee has been appointed by the Mouse of Lords to examine into the whole administration of the Land Act, and it would be an act of presumption on the part of any Committee if, when the House has intrusted to it the charge of investigating the whole of an important subject, it were of its own motion, and without reference to the House—without any limitation of the Order of Reference—to say, "That which is the heart, the centre, the soul of the whole thing, we will by our own subordinate authority exclude from the trust which the superior authority has submitted to us." Under these circumstances, it must be clear to the House that such a mode of proceeding is wholly out of the question. The Motion that I am about to make to-night is not new; takes no one by surprise. It is substantially in accordance with a declaration which has been made "elsewhere" some few days back—a declaration which I believe, unless I am very much mistaken, has found an echo in the minds of many thoughtful and considerate men who are not associated with the political Party to which I have the honour to belong. There has been abundant time for us all to test our minds and our thoughts upon this subject; and as regards an investigation into the judicial administration of the Land Act, we cannot, under any circumstances, or in any form, measure, or degree, be parties to it. It would shake to its foundation that confidence in the Act which we have been happily enabled to engender in the minds of the Irish people—["No, no!"]—not of all Irishmen; but I think I am justified in saying "the Irish people," by the fact of 70,000 applications having been made to the Land Courts. And if the effect of the inquiry be to shake the confidence in these 70,000 only, we are not prepared to accede to it. That is my deliberate answer. I think I may spare the House any arguments upon the general propriety of the opposition to the Motion for postponement, because the right hon. Gentleman has not taken that ground. He has not offered any serious opposition to the Motion. On the contrary, he made a frank admission that he did not know of any precedent precisely bearing out such a proceeding. I admit there have been precedents, sometimes extemporaneous objections taken by independent Members of the House, and one rather remarkable case, in which the Motion was not only opposed, but rejected by a majority. That was a case in the Government of Sir Robert Peel, when the Government proposed not to take a subject which it had itself submitted for discussion, but to set aside all its own Business to make way for an independent Member who had a Motion to submit. That, we, feel is not a parallel case. There can be no doubt that the Rule of the House is a uniform one. It would be vain for the House to commit to the Government the valuable privilege of arranging the Business on Monday and Thursday evenings, if those evenings are to be occupied in discussing the question whether the Government are to have the arrangement of their Business or not. The responsibilities of Office could not be borne on such terms. But, after what has been said, I do not think there is any occasion to prosecute that portion of the subject. Had the right hon. Gentleman, even at this very late hour, given us any reason to hope that, in his judgment, there would be a disposition under all the circumstances to exclude from the inquiries of the Committee the judicial administration of the Land Act, no feeling of self-love, no disposition to adhere precisely to our own ground, would have acted upon us for a moment; but we should have been ready even now to avoid this great and, as I may call it, national evil of exhibiting dissension in the face of facts such as exist in Ireland. But I have no choice but to persevere in the line of conduct which I have already foreshadowed.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, that in the course of the discussions on the Land Bill, he ventured to state that the effect of that measure would be to destroy the freehold of all property let or leased in Ireland, and to convert it into a feudal tenure under the Crown—that virtually the landowner who let or leased his land in Ireland would become a feudal tenant of the Grown, instead of being a freeholder; and they had now a further exemplification of the truth of the observation to which he had referred in what was now occurring. The right hon. Gentleman the First Lord of the Treasury had emphatically declared that the House of Lords was precluded from entering upon an inquiry into the judicial administration of landed property in Ireland, with respect to tenure and with respect to rent. Hence, it was clear that the right hon. Gentleman was endeavouring to inflict a new incapacity upon the House of Lords. They all knew that the limits of the functions of the House of Lords were tested in the year 1860 on the question of the Paper Duties. He had looked back to the debates and to the decision of Parliament in that case, and he found that while the House of Lords might reject a Bill for imposing taxes, and might reject a Bill for the removal of taxes, they had no right to alter a Tax Bill which had been sent to them from the Commons. Let the House, then, observe the analogy. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister intended to extend the disability of the House of Lords, which had hitherto been held only to the alteration of Tax Bills, to any dealing with the judicial power, the feudal power, which was now established under the operation of the Land Act for the disposal of all property let or subject to lease in Ireland. He hoped the House would excuse him for once more drawing its attention to this point. Indeed, there were two points involved—first, an illustration of the change effected in the tenure of landed property in Ireland; and next, an attempt to extend the incapacity of the House of Lords, which had hitherto been limited to altering Tax Bills—to extend that incapacity to dealing with what the right hon. Gentleman called the judicial administration of landed property in Ireland. He (Mr. Newdegate) trusted that in the few words he had spoken he had as tersely as possible explained to the House the double issue which had been raised by the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that this House should interfere with the internal discipline and with the procedure of the House of Lords. And he would impress upon the House, even upon the most advanced Liberal in the House, how serious a matter it would be if this House should succeed in so far superseding the independence of the House of Lords as practically to leave the country with only one Legislative Chamber. In the United States of America the people had become alive to the dangers sure to arise from an arrangement of that sort; they were more keenly sensitive on this point since the Rebellion which was happily subdued in that country. The great object of every American statesman had been, and was, to strengthen the Senate, to strengthen the Supreme Court, and, as far as possible, to unite the authority and functions of the Senate with the authority and functions of the Supreme Court. But what was the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman? In the first instance, he proposed to inflict an incapacity on the House of Lords. Yet, inasmuch as the Lord Chancellor occupied the Chair in that House, the right hon. Gentleman was proposing to restrict and incapacitate that House in a matter for dealing with which the House of Lords was peculiarly qualified. Moreover, if the House of Lords found that it had to deal with difficult questions connected with property, it had the power of commanding the advice and assistance of all the Judges, and that was a power not inherent in this House. Therefore, he (Mr. Newdegate) had ventured, as a Member who had had some experience in the House; who remembered the attempt which was made by the right hon. Gentleman himself, in the year 1860, to deprive the House of Lords of its power of dealing with the Paper Duties by the acceptance or rejection, not by alteration, of the Bill; and having seen that attempt fail, and the right hon. Gentleman brought to admit the rightful function of the House of Lords in that matter, he (Mr. Newdegate) had ventured to make these observations; and, moreover, to say that he looked with deep suspicion upon the present attempt of the right hon. Gentleman to go further in the direction he endeavoured to pursue in 1860, and from which he was obliged to recede, in a matter touching landed property, a subject with which, as he had said before, the House of Lords was peculiarly fitted to deal.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, he did not intend to interpose for any length of time between the House and the speech of the Prime Minister, and he thought the question was hardly quite so wide as to cover all the ground traversed by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). The question now before them was not whether the House of Lords were acting wisely or unwisely, and whether they deserved to be censured or praised, but whether the regular and appointed Business ought to be put aside for the purpose of enabling the Government to introduce a Motion which was substantially a Vote of Censure on the House of Lords. He had no particular objection to see the House of Lords censured. He was not an enthusiastic admirer of the House ox Lords as an Institution; and he was inclined to think that in this case the course which they proposed to take could not do any possible good to Ireland. He doubted, indeed, whether it was even seriously intended to do any good. But the manner in which he looked upon the question was this—here was a proposal to postpone the Business of the evening in order to censure the House of Lords because they proposed to inquire into the working of the Land Act; and he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) and many of his Friends were of opinion that the working of the Land Act did, even now, very much require investigation. They were of opinion that in some of its most important clauses, the Act was so entirely defective as to be of little or no use to those who had most need of benefit from its operation. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had said that the Irish Land Act had the full confidence of the people of Ireland, and therefore he could not consent to an inquiry. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he was much mistaken. The Irish Land Act in its present shape had not the confidence of the people of Ireland, nor, unamended, could it possibly have their confidence. Then the right hon. Gentleman pointed out that the Committee was already formed, and that it would be impossible for the Government to go as supplicants to ask the Lords for a change in its constitution. He agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, that it would not be becoming in the Government to go as supplicants to the House of Lords. Therefore, the mischief was already done, or, at least, begun, by the action of the House of Lords, and no Motion made by the House of Commons to-night or to-morrow could in any degree modify the two conditions of which he had spoken. Looking to these two grounds, that whatever harm was to be done by the Resolution of the House of Lords was already tolerably certain, and that the ground on which that House was to be censured was simply for asking inquiry into the working of the Land Act, which he and his Friends believed to require investigation, he should, if the question went to a division, be compelled to vote against the Motion of the Prime Minister.

MR. CHAPLIN

said, he doubted very much whether there were precedents for the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, while there were many obvious reasons against it. He (Mr. Chaplin) was confirmed in his opposition to the Motion by the main reason given by the right hon. Gentleman in advocating it to the House that night. What was that reason? "Why, it was this. The right hon. Gentleman said—"If you have this Committee of Inquiry you will inevitably shake the great confidence felt by the Irish people in the Land Act." Confidence in the Land Act! Who felt any confidence? [Loud cheers.] Was it the tenant farmers of Ireland? Why, Her Majesty's Government had the answer in the cheers of the Irish Members around the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). ["Oh, oh!"] The Prime Minister, he knew, had denied that these hon. Members represented the opinion of the Irish people; but he (Mr. Chaplin) was under the impression that they were the Representatives of Irish counties and Irish boroughs, and that they expressed the feeling of the great majority of the people of Ireland. Or was it the landlords of Ireland who had any confidence in the Act? He doubted very much whether the right hon. Gentleman would dispute for a moment that the landlords of Ireland had felt, did feel at the present time, or were likely to feel, confidence in the working of the Land Act. He thought that the right hon. Gentleman did well to evade an inquiry into the Land Act, because he (Mr. Chaplin) knew perfectly well, and his Government knew well, and he suspected the majority of the Sub-Commissioners knew well, that the working of that Act would not bear inquiry for a moment. The right hon. Gentleman dared not face it. If any class of people in the country seriously believed that the Irish Land Act was a measure deserving the approval of the country, if beneficial results had followed it—if peace and quietness prevailed—if they had reason to hope for still more beneficial results, then he thought the right hon. Gentleman would be right in making his Motion, and they should deserve condemnation for opposing it. But, unfortunately, they knew that the Land Act up to this time had been the greatest legislative failure that had ever been known; and they knew also that it had been followed by results in Ireland more disastrous than had ever succeeded any legislation in that country. He, for one, should say "No" to the Motion.

MR. SHAW

said, he had no intention at the beginning of the discussion of addressing the House on this Motion; but some observations made by his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) left him no option but to do so. He (Mr. Shaw) did not think that on this question his hon. Friends opposite represented the views of the tenant farmers of Ireland. What was more, he had a strong notion that if they looked into their own minds, they would find that their public utterances did not represent their own private wishes. Of course, they wished to punish the Government in every way they possibly could for passing the Coercion Act—that was at the bottom of it—but he had as extensive opportunities of knowing the feelings of the tenant farmers of Ireland as his hon. Friends opposite, some of whom were disporting themselves in foreign parts during the Recess. As to the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Chaplin), he (Mr. Shaw) was not aware that he knew much about the views or wishes or wants of the Irish people. He (Mr. Shaw) had during the last five or six months lost no opportunity of speaking individually to tenant farmers in Ireland, and learning their views on this measure, and he believed there never was an Act more thoroughly calculated to gain their confidence, or one which had gained their confidence so much. He believed there were some things in it which required amendment; but that was not the time to disturb the action of the Commissioners and the action of the Courts. When the proper time came he would be as earnest as any hon. Member opposite in endeavouring to enlarge the scope of the Bill, and especially that part of it which dealt with the purchase of their farms by the tenantry of Ireland. He hoped the Prime Minister would not accept the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), and that he would go on with the discussion. What would hon. Members opposite (the Irish Party) do, if they voted against the Government? They would vote that this inquiry should be conducted by a Committee of the House of Lords. They would vote that the Land Act, that was going all through the country, knocking off rack rents that had been crushing down the people of Ireland for generations—crushing them, so that when bad seasons came they had no recuperative power in them, the Irish Members opposite would vote that that Act should be given over to the tender mercies of a Committee of the House of Lords. He would vote against that in every shape and form, and if the Lords persisted in damaging themselves, he could not help them. If they wished to destroy themselves they would persevere. He stood in that venerable Assembly the other night, and it was impressed upon him deeply that amid all the reforms that were taking place in this country, reforms that were bringing the Sovereign more and more into the position of a Constitutional Monarch, that House had escaped. If the House of Lords wished to damage themselves, they never went more directly about it than in meddling with this Act, which had hardly yet commenced its work. He maintained that the action of the Sub-Commissioners would bear examination by any properly-constituted Committee. Of course, there might be cases to which objections could be taken; but he believed the decision of the Sub-Commissioners everywhere had strongly been supported by local public opinion. Having taken pains to learn the opinions of all classes, he found that invariably the only men who were against the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners were the landlords themselves. He would oppose in every shape this inquiry at the present moment; and he maintained that Irishmen who voted against the Government on this motion would not be doing their duty to their country.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, the hon. Member who had just spoken (Mr. Shaw) had been described by the Prime Minister as the Leader of the nominal Home Rulers. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Never.] He thought the House would remember the reference. The Prime Minister, in reference to the hon. Mem- ber, spoke of nominal Home Rulers; and that nominal Home Ruler had come forward to declare that the public opinion of Ireland, as regarded the tenant farmers, was in favour of the Land Act. He had taken care, however, to add that he adopted no public means for finding out what the public opinion was, but that his searches were private and of an individual character. If hon. Gentlemen really thought the Land Act possessed the confidence of the Irish people, why did they not dare to run a candidate for Meath against Michael Davitt? That would have shown whether the Government had gained the confidence of the Irish farmers. Or, if a wider demonstration was needed, let the hon. Member persuade the Premier to face a Dissolution. It was not the nominal Home Rulers merely who thought with the Premier on this question; the right hon. Gentleman was also supported on this occasion by the moribund Home Rulers. He confessed he did not feel disposed to give any strong or serious opposition to the Premier's Motion for postponing the Orders of the Day, because he looked upon the proposal of the Prime Minister as a kind and thoughtful method of opening up the largest, the widest, the most complete inquiry that could possibly be held regarding the Land Act. The difference between the Premier and the House of Lords bore strong analogy to the difference that existed between the Premier and the Land League on the Agrarian Question—the right hon. Gentleman merely objected to anyone else doing what he desired to do himself. He (Mr. O'Donnell) thought there ought to be an inquiry into the working of the Land Act. They had seen the tremendous evils which fell upon Ireland because no adequate inquiry was held into the working of the Land Act of 1870. Was Ireland to be plunged for another 11 years into discontent and misery, similar to that which resulted from the misplaced confidence of the country in the Premier's infallibility? The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Porter), when contesting Derry, had to express regret to the electors that, in many cases, the Land Commissioners had not given decisions in conformity with the expression of the people. Though agreeing with his hon. Friend and Leader the Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), that the Irish Members owed no particular debt to the House of Lords, he did object to the proposal of the Premier, because he saw that the right hon. Gentleman, under cover of the Privileges of the House of Commons, was making a thinly disguised attack upon the Privileges of the other House. It was notorious that the Land Act had not produced any of those beneficial effects which its promoters promised would follow its adoption by the Houses of Lords and Commons. The right hon. Gentleman had spoken of the confidence of 70,000 tenants. He must remember that only 1,300 applications had been heard on the first sittings. When would the entire 70,000 be heard? The right hon. Gentleman and the Chief Secretary of Ireland had themselves supplied a reason why there should be a speedy inquiry. This reason was afforded by their declaration of the necessity for a stringent application of coercion. If the Land Act were calculated to deal with the evils of Ireland, why had the Chief Secretary for Ireland resorted to the expedient of sending scores of men to the Government Bastiles every week? He should not further trespass at that stage upon the House, because he considered the Premier's Motion would most likely be carried, and that then they should hear the Premier unfold the reason why he desired to interfere with the Constitutional Privileges of the House of Lords. Having heard those reasons, the Irish Members would have an opportunity of giving the House a full explanation from an Irish point of view of the true operation of the Land Act.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, he had always understood that by a Standing Order any direct allusion to the other House was forbidden. He begged to ask Mr. Speaker, whether, during the discussion, the Standing Order would be suspended, or, if not, what were to be the precautions to be taken by those who wished to avoid the censure of the Chair?

[No reply.]

MR. SEXTON

said, he wished to point out to the House a very important fallacy in the speech of the hon. Member for the county of Cork (Mr. Shaw). The hon. Member considered himself, and was considered by hon. Gentlemen opposite, to be the very incarnation of what was called respectable opinion. He (Mr. Sexton) would not interfere with that view. He wished to point out that the accusation which the hon. Member made against himself (Mr. Sexton) and his hon. Friends, that in voting against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) they were voting in favour of an inquiry by the Lords, was an entire fallacy. The inquiry by the Lords was already decided upon, and would take place whatever this House might do. They could not affect it either way; but they took issue with the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, that a Parliamentary Inquiry at the present time into the working of the Irish Land Act would tend to defeat the operation of that Act, and might be injurious to the interests of good government in Ireland. On the contrary, they were strongly of opinion that the Act had proved a dismal failure. He would not discuss the cause of that failure; but he must say he thought that if it were allowed to continue without immediate and exhaustive inquiry, it would be most injurious, not only to the working, but to the interests of good government in Ireland. They said that there were thousands of small farmers in the West of Ireland who had their rents reduced by 4s. or 5s. a-year, who were in a worse state of misery than they were before. In voting against the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, they did not concern themselves in the least degree with the action of the House of Lords; but they claimed for themselves the right of fully and openly showing that an exhaustive and immediate inquiry into the working of the Act was necessary. If the right hon. Gentleman carried out the intention which more than one daily paper had that morning attributed to him—namely, to return to the country—they would be able to show the right hon. Gentleman, and the small and discredited number of Irish Members opposite, whether it was upon that side of the House or upon this that the opinion of Ireland was represented. He would say nothing more upon the subject, and would close by saying that the moment the right hon. Gentleman moved his Motion they should be prepared to show, not by vague rhetoric or general accusation, but by close and exact inquiry into every detail of that Act, that it was a failure; that at the present moment it was an absurdity before the country to have 70,000 cases before the Courts, and that the only way it could escape from disaster was by a withdrawal of these cases by the desperate and disputing tenants.

MR WARTON

, who spoke amid great interruption, said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had now given them fresh cause to regard him as the most imperious Minister that ever sat in that House. It might be said with truth that an Imperial Minister had been succeeded by an imperious one. He only stopped his endeavours to destroy liberty of speech in the Commons because he aimed at nothing less than the destruction of the other House of Parliament by destroying its independence. Now, the representation of Ireland was divided into three sections. The loyalists had no confidence in the Land Act, and neither had those who sought separation from England. But there was a small section of Irish Members behind the Government who did appear to be in favour of the Act, and from that section all the appointments under the Act were made. He had said that the people of Ireland had confidence in the Land Act. The Act was a failure. It would take, at the present rate of progress, at least 15 years to get through the present applications, and the result of its operation would be that the Irish Land Question would be re-opened again and again, and no one would profit except the lawyers. He had nothing more to say, beyond that he was very much obliged to the House for the kind manner in which they had listened to him.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 300; Noes 167: Majority 133.—(Div. List, No. 28.)