Commons Sitting of 22 June 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Committee—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R.P. [Seventeenth Night]; Partnerships (re-comm.) [179]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Arrears of Rent (Ireland) [163–213].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 5)* [160]; Vagrancy* [199], and passed.

PETITION.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  Mr. BRADLAUGH, one of the Members for Northampton, came to the Table:—
  Mr. SPEAKER reminded him that he had not taken the Oath required by Law;
  Whereupon Mr. BRADLAUGH stated that he held in his hand a Petition, which he desired to present to the House.
  Mr. SPEAKER informed the honourable Member that not having taken the Oath, he was not in a position to present a Petition, and directed him to withdraw; and Mr. BRADLAUGH withdrew accordingly.

QUESTIONS.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—MURDER OF MR. OGLE.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it will be possible to obtain a Report of the preliminary inquiry held by the Greek Government into the murder of Mr. Ogle; and, if so, whether he will lay it upon the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Minister at Athens was asked by telegraph whether this Report could be laid upon the Table, and has replied that it would not be right to make it public on account of its confidential nature and necessary incompleteness, as it contains no evidence, but only data for an administrative inquiry. He adds that the Report of the Commission of Inquiry is not likely to reach England before the end of July.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—P. AND W. QUINLAN.
  MR. MURRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Patrick Quinlan and William Quinlan have been recently released from Limerick Prison, where they were confined on reasonable suspicion of assaulting and wounding a person by night; whether, previous to their release, any communications were made to the person assaulted and wounded by them; and,
  18
  whether it is intended to put them on their trial for the offence?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, these men have been released. I am not aware that any communications were made to the person assaulted, or that it is intended to put them on their trial for the offence. They were both arrested in May, 1881, and consequently had been under detention for about 12 months.

  POST OFFICE—ENGINEERS' DEPARTMENT—RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. ARNOLD MORLEYasked the Postmaster General, If it is proposed to apply to the Engineers' Department of the Post Office a scheme similar to that which was applied last year to the Commercial Department; and, in the event of its being so proposed, if he can state whether the scheme has yet been approved; how soon it is expected that it will be published, and whether it will date back to April in last year, as was the case with the scheme applied to the Commercial Department?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I beg to state that the scheme is settled; and, under the special circumstances of the case, instructions have already been given for putting it in force from the 1st of April, 1881, so far as concerns that portion of the branch which may be regarded as co-ordinate with the indoor branch of the Telegraph Service. This latter branch is what I understand my hon. Friend means by the Commercial Department.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—ENNIS GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that on the 22nd May, at the hour of six a.m. Chief Warder Sharpley, of Ennis Gaol, left that prison, taking with him the keys of a ward in which prisoners were, including some detained under the statute of Edward III.; and, whether, in consequence of the keys being taken outside the walls of the prison, the friends of one of the prisoners, Mr. Reedy, arrested under the Act of Edward III. were delayed half an hour in making their visit?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am informed that Chief Warder Sharpley was out of the prison on duty on the 22nd of May for half-an-hour between 10 and

  19
  10.30 A.M., and that the prisoner Reidy was visited during that time by two friends. The Chief Warder cannot remember whether he took the keys of the ward with him; but no complaint of any delay was made at the time.
  MR. HEALYasked if it was the habit of the Governor of this gaol to use the chief and other warders for his own purposes, and if the business on which Sharpley was absent on the day in question related to the private affairs of the Governor himself?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the actual words of the Report made to him were—"No complaint was made by either visitors or prisoner." The delay must have been very trivial.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—REMOVAL OF SUSPECTS FROM LIMERICK GAOL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the reason which led to the removal of all suspects from Limerick Gaol; and, whether it was anything connected with their complaints against the governor?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the number of persons detained under the Protection Act is considerably less than it was, and steps have been taken to reduce the number of prisons for the detention of those remaining in custody, with a view to diminishing the heavy expenditure. Consequently the prisons of Armagh, Grange Gorman, and Limerick have been discontinued as prisons for the detention of such persons. The complaints against the Governor of Limerick Prison had nothing to do with its discontinuance as a prison for the detention of "suspects."

  ADULTERATION OF FOOD ACT—LARD CHEESE.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the President of the Board of Trade, What steps he proposes to take to protect the public from imposition in the matter of the new "wholesome and cheap" Cheddar and other cheese, which is composed of skimmed milk and various fats, and if he will compel the vendors of such substances to affix notices in their shops, and upon the articles, stating plainly that they are imitations, and, if possible,
  20
  what they are made of, and where they are made?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, I have undertaken to answer this Question, and I do not know that the Government can take any steps to protect the public from imposition in the matter of the "wholesome and nutritious" Cheddar and other cheese referred to, nor does it seem necessary that they should be empowered to do so, as proceedings are open to every purchaser in regard to the sale of adulterated articles. If a shopkeeper sells as cheese an article which contains foreign ingredients, and the purchaser is prejudiced thereby, the shopkeeper can be proceeded against—for penalties—under the Sale of Food and Drugs Act, and the seller can only protect himself by delivering to the purchaser, at the time of sale, a notice to the effect that the article is mixed.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PATRICK O'BRIEN.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will be pleased to direct the release of Mr. Patrick O'Brien, who was arrested as a suspect on the 3rd of April of the present year, and is now confined in Enniskillen Gaol, other persons who were arrested at the same time and place, and on the same charge, having been liberated some weeks ago?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency considered this man's case on the 30th ultimo, and decided that he should be detained for the present.

  DOGS REGULATION (IRELAND) ACT—EXPENDITURE OF LICENCE DUTY.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the Account of Receipts and Expenditure under the Dogs Regulation (Ireland) Act, from which it appears that the amount of Licence Duty received for the year 1881 is £32,321 4s. 0d., and the amount expended £27,607 8s. 4d., leaving only a balance of £5,268 15 s. 9d. payable to the several counties and towns, after deducting expenses; and, whether he can inform the House how it is that so large an expenditure is incurred in the collection of this Tax?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the explanation is that a portion of the amount collected goes to the Petty Sessions Clerks' Fund as part-payment of their salaries, as the hon. Member will find if he consults the Petty Sessions Clerks' Act of last Session. I may remind him that the Dogs Regulation Act was not passed for the purpose of raising a tax, but for the protection of sheep.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—SALE OF THE HAMILTON PICTURES.
  MR. BUCHANANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Government has given the National Gallery of Ireland an extra grant of £1,000, over and above the sum inserted in the Estimates for the present year, to enable the Director to make purchases at the sale of the Hamilton pictures; and, if so, whether, considering the historical associations which connect the Hamilton Collection with Scotland, the Government will make a substantial grant to the National Gallery of Scotland, in order to retain within that Country some of these important Scottish national treasures?
  MR. COURTNEY: Yes, Sir; it is the fact that an additional grant has been made to the Irish National Gallery in view of the Hamilton sale. The patriotic zeal of my hon. Friend has made him a little precipitate in suggesting that a similar grant should be made to the National Gallery of Scotland. The Trustees of that Gallery have made no application for such a grant. The truth is that they are an endowed Body, and receive an annual grant in aid, the unspent portions of which, unlike the Trustees of the National Galleries here and in Dublin, they are enabled to accumulate; and with the most laudable thrift they have, according to the last accounts I have seen, saved a not inconsiderable sum.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—OPENING OF SUSPECTED LETTERS.
  MR. DILLONasked the Postmaster General, Whether letters are still being opened in the Irish Post Office; and, if so, what precautions are taken to insure that they are not opened by subordinate officials for curiosity or with a dishonest purpose; whether a letter addressed to Eugene O'Callaghan, of Clifton Villa,
  22
  Limerick, and containing very important documents, was delivered to him opened, and a day late, on May 29th; and, whether, in such case, the Post Office authorities in Ireland refuse any satisfaction?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, for reasons which have been often stated, the first part of the Question should be addressed either to the Home Secretary or to the Chief Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the latter part of the Question of the hon. Member, which refers to a letter addressed to Mr. O'Callaghan, I have asked for information, which, I believe, will reach me in a day or two.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—REMOVAL OF PLACARDS.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether a placard calling on the people of Innishowen to encourage home manufacture was torn down by the police in Carndonagh, County Donegal, on May 28th; and, if so, on what grounds did the police act?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I find that a constable of the Royal Irish Constabulary did take down such a placard in Carndonagh; but on reconsideration he posted it up again within a space of half-an-hour. He has been told by his superior officer to act with more discretion in future.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—DANIEL GRANT.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that Daniel Grant, an artizan in the town of Castle-blayney, has been placed under police supervision, and for the past three weeks has been constantly followed by two sub-constables; whether he is aware that, in consequence of being watched by the police, Grant has got into trouble with his employers; and, whether there is any special reason for the action of the police?
  MR. TREVELYAN: There is no person named Daniel Grant placed under police supervision in Castleblayney. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) asked me a similar Question on Monday last with regard to Bryan Grant of that place, and I must refer the hon. Member to the answer I then gave. The

  23
  Sub-Inspector is unable to ascertain that Bryan Grant has got into any trouble with his employers.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT 1881—ARMS' LICENCES.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that, after the passing of the Arms Act, the Hon. M. J. French, R. M., Cashel, called a meeting of the magistrates attending the Cashel Petty Sessions at a club-room, known as the Rock Club, Cashel, at which he (the Hon. M. French) issued to the justices there assembled a request that they should abstain from signing certificates for licence to have arms where demanded, thereby completely nullifying the fourth section of the Arms Act, and whether such request has been strictly adhered to, save in one case, where the signatory happened to be the sole absentee on the occasion referred to; whether it is a fact that, at a petty sessions held at Fethard, county Tipperary, on the 22nd of May, a magistrate sitting on the bench, Major Purcell, Rowan, applied for a gun licence for his brother-in-law, Charles Blackmoor, Esq., Montlestown Castle, a gentleman holding fee simple property over £400 per annum; whether the stipendiary magistrate, the Hon. Mr. French, asked if applicant had paid his rent; and whether, on being informed that Mr. Blackmoor had no rent to pay, the application was refused, on the grounds "that he (Mr. French) had heard that Mr. Blackmoor had attended Land League meetings;" whether it is true that a farmer, named John Quigley, tenant to Richard Pennefather Lloyd, county Roscommon, who holds property in the county Tipperary, applied for a gun licence at the Fethard Petty Sessions held on the 22nd May; whether, in a catechetical examination, which the Hon. M. J. French has adopted, it was elicited that the applicant had paid his rent, but, owing to an error of deducting the poor rates on the valuation and not on the rent paid, a trifling sum of three shillings and fourpence remained due; and, whether, until such trifling sum was paid, the stipendiary magistrate refused to grant a licence, notwithstanding that the tenant and landlord are on the most friendly terms, as appeared from the letter of the landlord to tenant, produced?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have called for an answer to this, but have not yet received it. Notice was given on the 19th instant, and the Question appeared in the Votes on the morning of the 20th instant.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he would repeat his Question on Monday.

  ARMY—SALE OF GOVERNMENT RIFLES.
  MR. FINDLATERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether between one and two hundred thousand Government rifles were sold by the War Department in the year 1878 to a person of the name of Hill, in Sheffield, and by him shipped to Ireland and sold in the course of the year 1879; whether the Irish Government urged the War Department to repurchase these arms, so as to prevent their unadvised distribution in Ireland; and, what reply was made by the War Department to that application of the Irish authorities?
  MR. CHILDERS: Yes, Sir; between 100,000 and 200,000 muzzle - loading rifles were sold by the War Department in 1878. There were 21 purchasers, but I do not find the name of Hill among them; nor has the War Department any knowledge as to what became of these rifles after delivery to the buyers. As to the two last Questions, there was some correspondence between my Predecessor and the late Irish Government on this subject after the sale; but as it resulted in nothing I do not think that any public advantage would be gained by describing what passed.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—COLONEL FORBES, R. M.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, when Colonel Forbes, R.M., was stationed in Kildare, he was in the habit of sending forward from his court to the assizes all sorts of petty cases; and, though it was part of his official duty to attend the assizes, that he charged for the expense of his attendance in these cases, and thus procured large sums to which he had no right; whether at this time the witnesses' expenses for Kildare Assizes became so large that the attention of the Government was directed to the matter, and an investigation was instituted;

  25
  whether such investigation resulted in the discovery of the practice of Colonel Forbes, whose conduct was reported; and, whether he has ever been called upon to refund the money so obtained?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Seed, Crown Solicitor for Kildare, one of the most experienced Crown Solicitors in Ireland, informs me that he never remembers Colonel Forbes having sent forward any cases of a petty nature to Assizes, unless in the event of any difficulty arising as to the evidence; or of the Quarter Sessions not being held at a period in which such cases might have been tried, and the Assizes being the first available tribunal. In some instances it was considered necessary to allow Colonel Forbes moderate expenses when he was detained at the Assizes, and in only one instance does the Crown Solicitor recollect Colonel Forbes being called on to refund some £3 or £4, to which it was considered he was not entitled. The motive of the investigation referred to in the latter portion of the Question was not such as there indicated. In 1878 the system of auditing the accounts of county treasurers throughout Ireland was changed by Order in Council. They are now audited by the Local Government Board auditors, and the witnesses' expenses for the county have been greatly diminished; but this had nothing whatever to do with Colonel Forbes. I always endeavour to answer these Questions in a business-like and unargumentative way; but I must point out to the House that there is an increasing practice of putting Questions which imply personal discredit on able and zealous public servants engaged in the maintenance of order in Ireland.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that, in view of the arbitrary powers about to be conferred upon Irish officials, he deemed it his duty to press the matter further, and to ask some further Questions upon it.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SEARCH OF SUSPECTED PERSONS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on Sunday the 11th instant, Constable Moloney, of Murroe, in the county of Limerick, stopped three young men on the public road and searched them,
  26
  without producing any warrant or other authority for so doing; and, if so, under what authority the constable acted on this occasion?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On Sunday, the 11th instant, Constable Moloney, of Murroe, county Limerick, did stop three men, and searched them, with a view of ascertaining whether they had masks or other disguise in their possession. He was, at the time, in search and pursuit of five disguised and armed men seen at the place, who, on the same evening, had presented double-barrelled rifles at the Rev. Mr. Howard, Roman Catholic curate, and other occupants of an outside car on the public road, near Cappamore.

  EGYPT—ENGLISH MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL SERVICE—SALARIES.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If his attention has been called to the rate of pay secured to English and other Foreign members of the Egyptian Civil Service, as compared both with the remuneration of similar functionaries in their Native Countries and with the limited resources of Egypt; whether he has noticed, in the Paper, Egypt, No. 6, of the present Session, that, besides the English Controller General, who receives nearly £4,000 a-year, the English member of the Committee of the Survey Board receives £1,500 a-year, the English Inspector General of Lighthouses receives nearly £1,700 a-year, and an English Deputy Inspector General nearly £1,100 a-year, an English President of the Railway Board £3,000 a-year, there are many other highly paid officials in the Egyptian Service; whether these posts are unnecessarily multiplied, and capable of being filled by much fewer officials; whether Government could select trustworthy English officials, who would discharge the necessary duties for one-third or one-fourth of the above emoluments; whether the high salaries of European officials in Egypt are a source of grave dissatisfaction among the native population; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, with a view to peace and tranquillity in Egypt, will set the example of diminishing the number of Foreign functionaries as much as possible, and choosing as functionaries a less expensive class of officials?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the English officials in Egypt, with the exception of the Controller, were selected by the Egyptian Government, who, in a few cases, asked Her Majesty's Government to recommend fit persons. I am not in a position to state whether the posts referred to by the hon. Member are capable of being reduced in number. There is reason to doubt whether efficient and experienced men could be found to give up their prospects in England and take service under the Egyptian Government, unless the inducement of higher rates of salary than they can obtain in this country were offered to them. Articles have appeared in some Egyptian newspapers, objecting to the high salaries of European officials; but I have no official information on this point. Her Majesty's Government, as I have already stated, have no control over the number or salaries of the foreign officials employed in Egypt.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the European population of Egypt have been practically exempt from the payment of taxes; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have recommended the cessation of this exemption?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As regards taxation, the foreigner in Egypt stands, legally, in the same position as the Native inhabitant, except that the Capitulations exempt him from the capitation tax or tribute. This tax is, however, no longer levied in Egypt; but, in regard to the rest, there can be no question as to his liability, and this liability can be enforced by the Egyptian Government in the International Courts. I believe attempts have been made by foreigners to evade the payment of their land tax, and that the Egyptian Government have occasionally had recourse to vigorous measures to recover the amounts due. Her Majesty's Government have uniformly supported the Egyptian Government in their endeavours to resist the pretension of British subjects claiming exemption from taxation.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether complaints have been made to Her Majesty's Government of the manner in which some of the British officials in the Egyptian Administration have been accustomed to treat their
  28
  Egyptian colleagues; and, whether he will inquire into the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not heard of any such complaints, and I do not consider it necessary to make any inquiry on the subject.

  LOCAL MANAGEMENT ACT, 1855—ELECTION OF VESTRYMEN (PADDINGTON).
  MR. FIRTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether it is the fact that at the recent election of Vestrymen in Paddington the provisions of the Local Management Act, 1855, were entirely disregarded by the authorities of the parish, both as to the secrecy of the ballot and the method of voting, and whether, notwithstanding such irregularities, the authorities refuse to permit a scrutiny; and, whether, since the provisions of the Act are being violated all over the Metropolis, he is prepared to suggest the establishment of any authority able to control the action of these local bodies and to insure the enforcement of the Law?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, representations have been made to me that at the recent election of vestrymen in Paddington the provisions of the Local Management Act, 1855, were disregarded by the authorities of the parish; but I have not inquired into the facts, as the Local Government Board have no jurisdiction whatever as regards these elections. No doubt, if, as alleged, the provisions of the law are generally violated all over the Metropolis, it is desirable that steps should be taken to remedy the evil; and the most fitting opportunity for doing this would appear to be when a Bill is introduced dealing with the question of the Local Government of the Metropolis.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RESIDENT MAGISTRATES.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the period for which the special resident magistrates were appointed expires on the 24th inst.; whether it is the intention of Government to renew these appointments; and, whether they have failed to effect the object in view, namely, the pacification of the country?
  MR. TREVELYAN: NO, Sir; the period of these appointments does not expire until the 1st of July. It is the intention of Government to continue the appointments for the present, and they would not have arrived at this determination were they not satisfied that such appointments are useful in the present condition of the country.
  MR. HEALY: Does that remark apply to Major Bond?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Major Bond is not a Special Magistrate.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—RETURNS OF OUTRAGES.
  MR. BELLINGHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would have any objection to lay upon the Table of the House a Return of all murders of tenants, herds, and caretakers; also of all cases of mutilation of men and beasts since the month of June 1880?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I do not quite understand whether the hon. Member wishes the information to be given in detail, or whether he wishes it to be confined to agrarian eases. If he merely wants a numerical Return I can give it him now. Since the 1st of June, 1880, there have been 19 cases of murders of tenants, herds, and caretakers; there have been 213 cases of cutting or maiming the person, including non-agrarian cases; and there have been 598 cases of killing, cutting, or maiming cattle, including non-agrarian cases. If the hon. Member wishes to have the agrarian cases taken out, I will do so, and give the Return on Friday. I interpret the expression "murder of tenants" to mean murder of occupiers of agricultural holdings, from agrarian motive.

  ARMY—DRUNKENNESS—LEGISLATION.
  MR. CAINEasked the Judge Advocate General, If it is his intention to introduce any Bill dealing with those "low public houses," to which he ascribes the lamentable fact that 23,255 men, out of a total of 180,000 constituting the British Army, have received 43,656 punishments for drunkenness in a single year, besides many other punishments for crime and insubordination committed under the influence of liquor?
  THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL (Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN)said, that, however desirable it might be to suppress "low public-houses" where adulterated spirits were sold to soldiers or other people, he was not aware that it was part of his duties as Judge Advocate General—which he could assure his hon. Friend were quite heavy enough, as it was—to bring in a Bill for that purpose; and he must, therefore, leave that task to his hon. Friend, and to those Members who made it a part of their Parliamentary mission to control that kind of property.
  MR. CAINEsaid, he would bring in a Bill to deal with the subject.

  POLYNESIA—KIDNAPPING IN THE PACIFIC.
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether Her Majesty's High Commissioner in the Pacific has made any specific allegations, against Queensland labour vessels, of complicity in kidnapping or other outrages in the South Seas; and, whether he has complained of the inadequacy of the means placed at his disposal for the detection and punishment of such outrages?
  MR. METGEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the terrible state of affairs in Northern Queensland as described by Mr. Wisher in the current number of the "Fortnightly Review," and further noticed by the "Pall Mall Gazette" for Saturday last; to the process of colonisation by massacre carried on by English pioneers of civilisation; the system of labour traffic, "little better than organised slavery;" the ruthless and brutal murders committed on the native population; the wholesale violation of the native women; a brutal crusade openly and deliberately preached by the newspapers of the North; and, whether he could take any steps to prevent the slavery and extermination of the Aborigines of the Antipodes?
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to the prevalence of a system of impressing South Sea Islanders as "indentured voluntary labourers" in Australia, which is stated to be practically identical with most cruel slavery; whether the indentured labourers are in many cases kid-

  31
  napped from their native islands; whether the remuneration due to them under their "contracts" is only paid on the termination of the same, and whether, in the case of the death of a labourer previous to the termination of a "contract," his employer saves the amount of his wages for the term of years; whether this practice acts as a premium upon working the "indentured labourers" to death within the term for which they would otherwise be paid; and, what steps he intends to take in reference to the matter?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, I regret that it is impossible, within the compass of an Answer to a Question, adequately to treat the series of complicated subjects contained in the three Questions of the hon. Members. I only mention this, in order that, if I pass quickly over many points, it may not be supposed that the Colonial Department view with any indifference the painful and pressing matters involved. I have seen the Paper referred to in the Question of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge). There is much that is true, although official information does not bear out by any means to the full extent the statements made. The Paper and the Questions embrace three different subjects of inquiry—(1), the treatment of the aborigines in Queensland; (2), the recruiting of labourers in Polynesia; (3), their treatment when brought to Queensland. As to the first and third, I would remark that their regulation rests with the Government of Queensland; but Her Majesty's Government have been constantly in communication with the Colonial Government, urging them to take and strengthen measures for the protection of the natives. The local instructions to the coloured police, who are in the Paper referred to credited with a great amount of the outrages, are to the effect that they should—
  "As much as possible avoid collision with the aborigines, and pursue generally such a line of conduct as will convince them that, although punishment for depredations committed will surely and quickly follow, to live peaceably with the settlers will always insure their protection."
  With reference to the evils, gross and crying, which have in the past arisen from the mode of payment of wages indicated in the Question of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell,) I am happy to state that Section 21 of
  32
  the Queensland Pacific Island Labourers' Act of 1880 provides that the wages of every labourer shall be paid at the expiration of each six months of his engagement. If this is observed many of the abuses referred to will be stopped. In Fiji almost all abuses are absent, owing to the action of Her Majesty's Government. As to the recruiting of labourers by labour ships in Polynesia, Her Majesty's High Commissioner, Sir Arthur Gordon, has not made any specific allegation against Queensland labour vessels; but he has complained of the inadequacy of the means placed at his disposal for the repression of these outrages, and the Colonial Office are only awaiting his arrival in this country, which is very shortly expected, to confer with him and settle what new or further measures shall be adopted.
  MR. METGEwished to know whether Queensland was not a Crown Colony, and, therefore, under the control of Her Majesty?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: No, Sir.

  AFRICA (SOUTH)—ZULULAND—REPORTED FIGHTING.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he can give the House any information as to the War which is reported to have broken out in Zululand; and whether he can explain how it is that the Zulu Papers lately delivered gave no account of the interview between Sir Henry Bulwer and twenty-one chiefs, which took place on 7th May last?
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the accounts of the disturbances in Zululand are substantially correct; whether it is true that the British Resident has been compelled to leave his official residence; and whether it is intended that he should remain in Zululand?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, we have had no information corroborating the statement that war has broken out and fighting begun. On the 7th instant, Sir Henry Bulwer telegraphed that Mr. Osborne reported that Oham and Umyamana were arming; that he feared a collision between them, and that he thought the movement proceeded from the ex-King party. Sir Henry Bulwer had instructed Mr. Osborne to mediate and endeavour to avert a collision. On

  33
  the 17th Sir Henry Bulwer telegraphed that Mr. Osborne's reports were still unsatisfactory, though not hopeless. Mr. Osborne was of opinion that the movement was directed by the Cetewayo party against the two Chiefs, with the view, if successful, of setting up Dabuko as King or Regent. And on the 20th Sir Henry Bulwer telegraphed that he had received a report from Mr. Osborne, dated the 13th instant, which was more hopeful, but that the position of affairs was still serious. I think we may presume that the newspaper accounts are inaccurate as to fighting having actually begun, as the official telegrams are later. It does not appear to be true chat the British Resident has been compelled to leave his official residence, and he will, of course, remain in Zululand. The Papers to which the hon. Baronet refers were accidentally omitted.
  MR. DAWNAYsaid, that in consequence of the answer of the Under Secretary for the Colonies he would postpone the Question of which he had given Notice until further information was received.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked, as a point of Order, whether the following sentence in the Question standing in the name of the hon. Member for the North Hiding of Yorkshire (Mr. Dawnay) was in accordance with rule? The hon. Member asked whether Her Majesty's Government—
  "Will take those speedy and active measures to support the authority of John Dunn and the other loyal chiefs which can alone avert a general Civil War in Zululand?"
  The Question also contained an expression of opinion, the last clause asking for the appointment of Colonel Gordon as Administrator of the Zulu country,
  "Taking into consideration the frequently-expressed wish of the Zulu people that they should be brought under the direct control of the British Government."
  It appeared to him (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) a Question of that nature ought not to appear on the Papers of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that the remarks in question are not regular.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PATRICK M'GINN.
  MR. GIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland,
  34
  Whether inquiry has been made into the charge on which Patrick M'Ginn, who is now a suspect in Dundalk Prison, was arrested; and, whether there is any reasonable grounds for his further detention.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this man has been let out for a week on parole on his own application.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—DENIS MULLIGAN.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Denis Mulligan, of Kilrea, in the county of Longford, imprisoned as a suspect in Kilmainham Gaol since the 17th of January last; and, whether, considering the character of the man and the peaceful condition of the county, he will not recommend Mr. Mulligan's release?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Denis Mulligan's case was considered by the Lord Lieutenant on the 8th instant, who decided then that he should be further detained for the present. The case will be soon again reconsidered.

  ARMY—CLERKS OF ARMY AGENTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has had before him an application for an allowance to be made to the members of the Clerical Staff of Messrs. Cane and Sons, until recently Army Agents, in the same manner as an allowance was made to the gentlemen similarly situated at the termination of the agency of Boroughs and Co.; and, whether he will make any representation to the Treasury on the subject?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that there is no analogy whatever between the case of Sir Edward Boroughs' clerks in 1872, and that of Messrs. Cane's clerks now. When certain changes were formerly made in Sir Edward Borough's duties under special circumstances, described in Parliamentary Paper 135, of 1872, and 331, of 1874, gratuities were given to some of his clerks; but both Sir Edward Borough and Mr. Cane were distinctly informed in 1875 that on their deaths the agencies they held would cease. At Sir Edward

  35
  Borough's death, in 1879, his clerks petitioned my Predecessor for gratuities, but they were refused. Mr. Cane has sold his business to another firm, and if he has not provided for his clerks, it is no affair of the War Office. I have no intention to make any application to the Treasury on their behalf.

  INDIA—NATIVES OF INDIA—EXCEPTIONAL LAWS.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the exceptional laws passed against natives of India, in the first years of this century, still remain unrepealed, by which, on a warrant from the Governor General of India, or a Lieutenant Governor, or Governor of a Presidency, any native of India can be imprisoned during the pleasure of the Government without trial, and the property of any native of India may be seized and sequestrated by the Government similarly during pleasure; and, whether, if so, he intends to propose the abolition of such measures?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Question does not specify the regulations in respect of which information is asked for; but it is the fact that under laws which deal with political offences the Governor General and the Governors of Madras and Bombay in Council possess a power of imprisonment, without trial, for political offences. The property of such prisoners may be taken charge of and be administered by the Court of Wards; but there is nothing of the nature of confiscation in this proceeding; and the Court accounts for the proceeds to the proprietors of the estates. I am not prepared to say that these powers could be safely abandoned.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it was to be understood that any native of India could be deprived of his liberty and property by the simple order of the Viceroy, or of the Governors of Provinces, without being entitled to demand a trial?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he believed that that was so; but he could not undertake to answer without Notice as to the cases in which this power had been exercised. The power existed under a regulation passed at the beginning of the present century. It was proposed to repeat this power in the Statute introduced lately for the codification of the general law; but on repre-
  36
  sentation to the Home Government, it was considered that the matter could not be appropriately introduced into that consolidating Statute.

  EGYPT—THE POLITICAL CRISIS.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If the Government have received information of the formation of a new Egyptian Ministry; and, if they have recognised it; and, if the Government can state how many British subjects have left Egypt since the riot in Alexandria?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have not recognized the new Egyptian Ministry, but have instructed Sir Edward Malet, while carefully abstaining from any engagement or any expression which could be understood to constitute one, to limit his communications to questions affecting public safety. The French Consul General will act in the same way. I am not able to state the number of British subjects who have left Egypt.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Have the majority gone to Cyprus?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The majority appear to have gone to Malta. I have not received figures on the subject.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I should wish to ask the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs whether anything has occurred to induce Her Majesty's Government to alter their view as to the number of persons who were murdered in the disturbance at Alexandria? It was originally stated that the number was 50.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had sent for further information on the subject, but had not yet received a reply. He understood, however, that, in addition to the six British subjects stated to have been killed in that disturbance, there were two others.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether the hon. Gentleman would have any objection to state the exact number and the religion and nationality of the persons killed during the disturbance?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; I am afraid it would be almost hopeless to do so. For instance, there are in Alexandria a great number of Greeks, who are Greeks by race and Christians by religion, and that wear either European or Greek dress, and who are Turk-

  37
  ish subjects, and who could not be included in any return of foreigners, although very likely they would take the foreign side in any riot.
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether the hon. Baronet was able to state that the information published in the newspapers to the effect that several hundreds of persons were killed during the disturbance was incorrect?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he had already stated that he had received no precise information on the point, but that he had reason to believe that the number of Europeans killed did not exceed 50.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What is the text of the Protocole de Désintéressement which is to be signed by the Powers taking part in the Conference; and, whether Her Majesty's Government, by signing that document, would not jeopardise the preponderance which, having in view the fact that English interests in Egypt are far greater than those of any other nation, England should possess in that Country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the draft of the proposed Protocol is in the same sense, though not in precisely the same words, as the Protocol signed at Constantinople on the 21st of September, 1880, and presented to Parliament in Papers—"Turkey No. 3, 1881." With regard to the concerted action of the Powers for the execution of the Treaty of Berlin, Her Majesty's Government do not consider that it would in any degree weaken the position that this country is entitled to in Egypt. A similar Protocol was signed in 1840 by Lord Palmerston, as Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, and by the Plenipotentiaries of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, at the time of the pacification of the Levant and the settlement of the future condition of Egypt.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the following statements, viz.:—From the Correspondent of the "Times" in Constantinople:—
  "In the course of conversation with each of the Ambassadors, Said Pasha gave an unequivocal, categorical refusal to the Conference proposal, on the grounds that such an assembly is unnecessary, inopportune, and inconsistent with the interests of Turkey. The Egyptian Question, he added, might he considered as settled by the compromise which had been accepted by the
  38
  Khedive and Arabi Pasha, and approved by Dervish Pasha;"
  whether the compromise referred to was made under the pressure of the Consuls General of Austria and Germany; from the Correspondent of the "Daily Telegraph" describing an interview with Said Pasha, the Turkish Foreign Minister, in which the latter said:
  "If not interfered with we can yet settle everything quietly and easily. Why should we accept a Conference, having seen so many held with no good results, but rather intrigues and ambitions which have only caused fresh trouble. We desire to be treated justly, and to have our rights recognised, as we are ready to recognise the rights of others. We have said that England and France committed an error (bêtise) in twice sending fleets to Alexandria without first consulting us; if they hazard this last blunder (i.e., a Conference) it will be 'le couronnement de la bêtise;'"
  whether Her Majesty's Government will now carry out a clearly defined and independent British policy in order to secure the influence of England in Egypt and the security of the lives and property of British subjects, and to preserve the friendship of Turkey and of the Mussulman populations of the East?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes, Sir; I have seen the statements in question. It was on the advice of the Austrian and German Consuls General that the Khedive sent for Ragheb Pasha and intrusted the formation of a Ministry to him. Probably they had in view the temporary protection of European life and property. Her Majesty's Government are carrying out a clearly-defined policy in order to secure the influence of England in Egypt, and the security of the lives and property of British subjects.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that Her Majesty's Government are promoting a Conference against the strong opposition and protest of the Sultan, who is Sovereign of Egypt and head of the Mahometan world, and who has undertaken to restore order and the status quo ante in Egypt; whether, out of the six Powers who would take part in a Conference two, Austria and Germany, have, through their Consul-Generals in Egypt, pressed upon the Khedive the formation of a Ministry in which Arabi Pasha holds both the Ministries of War and Marine, notwithstanding the fact that Her Ma-

  39
  jesty's Government and that of France have formally demanded the deposition and exile of Arabi; whether it is a fact that the Italian Government are strongly opposed to French intervention or to the control by France of Egyptian affairs, and that the Russian Government are opposed to British influence in Egypt; and, whether, in view of these considerations, Her Majesty's Government will abandon their project of holding a Conference of the Powers, will adopt a resolute and independent British policy, and will revert to the traditional alliance with the Ottoman Government in order to end the crisis in Egypt and to secure the great interests of England in the East?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, except so far as I have already answered portions of this Question in reply to the hon. Member's preceding Question, I am quite unable to reply to the interrogatories now administered to me, which raise many points of controversy. Her Majesty's Government are going into Conference with a clearly-defined policy, as will be seen when the instructions which have been addressed to Lord Dufferin come to be laid before the House. The Papers up to the 15th of May will be distributed to-morrow, and the Papers up to the end of May are now in preparation, and may, I hope, be distributed early in the week after next.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BABTLETT: When will the instructions to Lord Dufferin with regard to the Conference be laid before the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: There are two sets of instructions to Lord Dufferin with regard to the Conference. The later set it would not be desirable at present to lay on the Table. Probably we shall be able to produce them in a short time.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: When will the Conference be held?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It was stated on Tuesday that the Conference would meet to-day, and I have no fresh information on the subject.
  MR. GOURLEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What provision has or can be made by Her Majesty's Government for the hearing of causes pending before the Consular Court in Egypt, and which, but for the disturbed condition of the country, should already have been heard?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, we have not received any special report from Mr. Cookson; but I am happy to say that he is now nearly recovered, and the hearing of causes will, no doubt, be proceeded with as soon as the state of affairs will admit.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.
  MR. D. GRANTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, If he will state what steps have been taken with respect to the future position of Cetewayo; and, whether the idea of permitting him to visit England has been altogether abandoned; and, if so, is it the intention of Her Majesty's Government to retain him in his present position?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY, in reply, said, that no new steps had been taken to change the position of Cetewayo. With reference to the second part of the Question, the Papers were already on the Table, which showed that his visit had been merely postponed, and not altogether abandoned.

  INDIA—SOUTHERN MAHRATTA RAILWAY.
  MR. FRESHFIELDasked the Secretary of State for India, If he has any objection to produce and lay upon the Table, any Correspondence which has passed between himself and the Government of India and the promoters, with reference to the formation of the Southern Mahratta Railway Company, including a letter from the Viceroy of India in Council, in the Railway Department, to the Secretary of State, dated the 1st October 1881?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: No. Sir; I have no objection if the hon. Member will move for it

  PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—REPORTS OF SELECT COMMITTEES.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, as Chairman of the Select Committee on Railways, If he can account for the publication by the daily newspapers of the Draft Report of Mr. Barclay, before it had been read a second time by the Committee on Railway Rates, &c.; if he can state in what newspapers that Report had been, in the first instance, pub-

  41
  lished; and, if he can inform the House by what means the "Times" and "Daily News" were enabled on Saturday morning last to publish the proceedings of the Railway Rates Committee on the previous day, and a summary of the grounds upon which that Committee rejected the Report of the Chairman of the Committee in favour of that of the honourable Member for Forfarshire?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEYsaid, he could only answer the Question of the hon. Member in the same terms as those of his answer to a similar Question on Tuesday.

  NAVY—COLOUR SERGEANTS OF MARINES.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the case that the maximum pension of Colour Sergeants of Royal Marines is only 2s. 3d. whilst that of Colour Sergeants of the Army was fixed by the Royal Warrant of June 25th, 1881, at 2s. 6d.; what is the reason for this; and, do the Admiralty contemplate assimilating these two pensions in the two services?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, I find that the main fact stated in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question is correct; but the conditions under which the maximum rate of pension is attained are not identical in the two Services, and it must be borne in mind that the marine is eligible for all the benefits of Greenwich Hospital, while the soldier has nothing but his pension to look to. Moreover, the Admiralty do not recognize any rule of absolute uniformity between the two Services, but consider each case on its merits.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—AMERICAN CITIZENS DETAINED UNDER THE ACT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any of the suspects now in Kilmainham, or any other prisons in Ireland, are citizens of the United States; and, if so, whether the United States Government refuses to agree to their expulsion from Ireland as a condition of their release; and, whether he is aware of any reason why the Government of the United States should object to the
  42
  proposal of Her Majesty's Government to expel from Ireland such American citizens as are suspected of treasonable practices there, although last year it ordered, at the request of the Porte, an American citizen, Mr. W. S. Stillman, correspondent of the "Times" at Crete, to "leave this island and never return to it," merely on the ground that his presence was a "cause of agitation" there?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I believe, Sir, that there are United States' citizens imprisoned in Ireland; but the previous Questions upon this subject have been addressed to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant or to the Home Secretary, to whom I must refer the hon. Member. There is no information in the Foreign Office with regard to Mr. Stillman's expulsion from Crete. Almost all Foreign Powers, including Turkey, have the power to expel aliens.

  THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. BROMLEY DAVENPORTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, When the Report of the Military and other authorities appointed to inquire into the question of the proposed Channel Tunnel will be laid upon the Table, and whether it is likely that the opportunity will be given to Parliament of expressing its opinion on this important subject?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, my right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this Question. The Report of the Scientific Committee was received some days ago, and has been referred, with the previous Papers, to the Commander-in-Chief, as the military adviser of the Government. The Duke of Cambridge informed me to-day that his Report will be ready soon. As soon as it is received the whole question, in all its bearings, will be considered by Her Majesty's Government, and they will communicate to Parliament the opinion at which they may arrive with reference to the Bills now before the House. Until then those Bills will not be proceeded with, and without further legislation no powers exist under which the Channel Tunnel could be constructed. When the Papers are complete, we will consider which of them can with propriety be laid before Parliament, but some are necessarily of a highly confidential character. The question is an extremely serious one,

  43
  upon which no hasty decision should be arrived at.

  EGYPT—THE SUEZ CANAL—THE FRESH WATER SUPPLY.
  MR. CHAPLINasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the case that the maintenance of the stations upon the Suez Canal, the regulation of its traffic, and, practically, the use of the Canal itself, is absolutely dependent upon its fresh water supply; whether that supply is not mainly, if not solely, derived by means of a fresh water canal from a point on the Nile adjacent to Cairo; whether the continuance of that supply is within the power of the authorities (for the time being) at Cairo; whether fresh water in adequate quantities can be provided from any other source; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or are taking, measures to command the necessary fresh water supply, and to insure the protection and maintenance of the Canal?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, a supply of fresh water is, of course, indispensable for the administration of the Suez Canal. My reply to the second and third branches of the Question is in the affirmative. In case of a temporary interruption of the supply from this source, means can be taken for insuring a sufficiency of water. This matter has been considered by Her Majesty's Government and the Directors of the Suez Canal Company.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Will the hon. Baronet inform us by what means?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I do not think it desirable to answer that Question. I have no objection to inform the hon. Member privately.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Then, Sir, I must take a course which I regret—that of moving that this House do now adjourn. I am bound to say that this question appears to me to be of such vital importance to the interests of the whole Empire that the House of Commons has a right to know how and by what means the supply of water which the Government authorities tell us is absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of the Suez Canal can be supplied. The Government have just informed us—[Interruption.]—I entreat the courtesy of hon. Members, for it is very seldom I have taken such a course as this, nor should I think of doing so except under a sense
  44
  of great responsibility. [Ironical cheers.] I can assure hon. Members I shall feel it my duty to press upon the House what I have to say on this question. Now, Sir, the Government have informed us that means can be taken with which they are satisfied; but I am bound to say that the results of the Government policy in Egypt up to the present time have not been such as to give me overwhelming confidence in them, and I ask permission to place before the House what I believe to be the facts of the situation. I am quite sure hon. Gentlemen on both sides will agree with me that this is a matter of immense importance. Sir, the Suez Canal runs from sea to sea, through a sandy waste, in which not one single drop of fresh drinking-water can be obtained except from a great distance many miles from one side, and not less than 500 miles from the other; consequently, Port Said, Ismailia, and Suez, and all sidings and stations on the Canal, are absolutely dependent for their supply on water conveyed to them from a great distance. These stations, with their staff and regular officials, are stationed at intervals all along the banks of the Canal, and they are absolutely dependent on this water which is conveyed to them. It is not too much to say that the use of this Canal would be practically destroyed if anything happened to the supply of fresh water to these stations. The sole supply at the present moment is obtained by means of the fresh water canal, through which water from the Nile is supplied direct to Ismailia and Suez and to the stations between those two places, from a point on the Nile quite close to Cairo itself. The remaining stations between Port Said and Ismailia are supplied in this way. There is a large pumping station at Ismailia, and from there the water is pumped into iron pipes, which, I am informed, can be easily injured or broken, and conveyed by these means to Port Said and from thence to other places. This fresh water canal, upon which the whole of the supply depends, itself receives, as I have said, its water from a point upon the Nile, a place called Boulak, quite close to Cairo itself. There are gates across the mouth of the Canal, which can be opened or shut at pleasure. There also are six locks on the Canal. But, whether that be so or not, it will be the easiest thing in the world, either by cutting the banks

  45
  of the Canal or by making an embankment across it, to divert the water upon which Port Said, Ismailia, Suez, and all the intervening stations, some 10 in number, absolutely and entirely depend. It is quite obvious that whatever Power is dominant in Cairo can, by cutting off the supply of fresh water, practically control and render impossible the working of the Canal. ["No, no!"] If hon. Gentlemen are prepared to dispute those facts, let them get up and do so; but if they are true, it is a matter of the most absolute importance. Arabi Bey is dominant at Cairo at the present time, and I believe the plain fact at the present time to be this—that with regard to the Suez Canal he is absolutely master of the situation, and that so far as British interests are centred in that great highway to India they are absolutely dependent on him. I may be wrong—I hope sincerely it is so, and if I am wrong, the Government will be able to point it out; but if I am right, we are now beginning to perceive some of the first results of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) appears to be desirous to dissociate the question of the Suez Canal from the question of Egypt, and I quite agree that, if possible, it would be most desirable to do so; but if it be true that the maintenance and working of the Canal is dependent on the supply of fresh drinking-water, and that that supply is dependent on Cairo, it seems to me to be obvious that the two things are inseparably interwoven and bound up together, and that, so far as British interests are concerned, the Suez Canal is Egypt and Egypt is the Suez Canal. In these circumstances, I wish to ask the Government three Questions. In the first place, I wish to ask whether I am not substantially correct in the facts I have placed before the House? ["No, no!"] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to get up and point out wherein I am wrong.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: The hon. Gentleman asks what explanation can be given for the contradiction. ["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire is in possession of the Chair.
  MR. WILLIAMSONagain rose amidst renewed cries of "Order!"
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member
  46
  rises to a point of Order he is entitled to do so.
  MR. WILLIAMSON: I rise to this point of Order, that the hon. Member is occupying the time of the House. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. CHAPLIN: Perhaps the hon. Member will do me the favour to cease his interruptions, which are not very courteous. The second Question which I wish to put is, How and why and in what manner it is that the Government have led us into this position; and if, which I suppose probably will be the case, they refer us to Papers for information, then I would ask them how they propose now to get us out of that position? The Government may depend upon it, if they are not careful to preserve for England the use of the Suez Canal without let or hindrance from any quarter of the world, they will raise a storm throughout the length and breadth of the country against which they would not be able to stand for a moment. I am doubly anxious to know on what conditions we are to enter into the Conference, which I do not hesitate to say I regard both with aversion and dislike? Supposing the decisions of the Conference are hostile to British interests and views in regard to Egypt, what then will be our position? When we invite the Powers of Europe to a Conference on the affairs of a country in which the interests of England have been acknowledged hitherto to be primary and paramount, I think we are treading upon very dangerous ground; and I hope that even yet, even at the eleventh hour, and after the announcement of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that we shall hear from the Government a full and frank explanation of their views. I must say that my anxiety with regard to the subject-matter of these Questions is not lessened when I remember how greatly in former days the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government depreciated the importance of the Suez Canal to England. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] I admit this—that the right hon. Gentleman stated the other night, in answer to a speech of the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry De Worms), that it was a mistake to suppose he had ever done so, and informed the House that, according to the opinion of the authorities whom the Government had consulted, it would be very difficult in-

  47
  deed, and almost impossible, to injure the banks of the Canal. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] Well, I must say that utterance affords a most remarkable and striking contrast, not to what the right hon. Gentleman said, but to something which he deliberately wrote when Lord Beaconsfield was struggling with the difficulties and complications of the Eastern Question. At that time the right hon. Gentleman told us, in a speech at Oxford, which I well remember, that his great purpose and object for 18 months, night and day, week by week, month by month, had been to thwart and overthrow the policy of that great Statesman, whose foreign policy, I venture to think, is becoming at last, in the mind of the country, to be contrasted, not at least unfavourably, with that of the right hon. Gentleman. Perhaps the House would like to hear the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I refer? ["No, no!"] Well, if hon. Members opposite do not like to hear it, I must try to make them. Here are the right hon. Gentleman's sentiments in regard to the Suez Canal—
  "It seems to me to be very doubtful whether confident reliance can be placed upon the Canal for our military communication with India under the varying and shifting contingencies of war … Given four-and-twenty hours"
  —and then the right hon. Gentleman quotes a great authority, Mr. Dicey—
  "And a company of sappers and miners in undisturbed possession of any portion of its sandy banks"—those banks that it was impossible to injure—"and damage may be done which would not only render the Canal impassable for the moment, but which could not be repaired for weeks or for months; and even if it were possible to hold a line of 100 miles of continuous fortification, it does not appear how the Canal could be secured against the furtive scuttling of ships. If it cannot, what becomes of all the costly care for the military custody of its banks? … Upon the whole, it would not surprise me to learn that the authorities of our War Department, aware of all the difficulties of the case, have already discounted them by laying their account for a return to the old route by the Cape."
  If that be so, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether they have now laid their account for a return to the old route by the Cape in case of war? I leave it to the House to say whether I have been correct or wrong in saying that in former days the right hon. Gentleman did to that extent depreciate the importance to England of the
  48
  Suez Canal. In regard to the present position of affairs, we have been told over and over again that we ought to wait for Papers, and I am glad there is a chance of such Papers being presented. No doubt Papers are essential to a judgment on the past policy of the Government, and it may be the duty of the House of Commons, when it has those Papers, to pass a censure on them. I pass no opinion on that point; but we have to deal with the present situation, and it is the exigencies of that situation that we have to consider. The facts are these. In a country where the interests of England have been acknowledged by all the nations of Europe as well as all the populations of the East to be primary and paramount, Englishmen and Englishwomen and English subjects and servants of the Crown—nay, more, even the Representative of the Sovereign herself—have been insulted, massacred, or outraged, without a finger being raised to defend them, within sight of Her Majesty's flag, within gunshot of her Fleet which floats to-day in the waters of Alexandria, a symbol no longer of power and might, but—alas! that we should have to say it in the English House of Commons—of the weakness and impotence of England. I might say much as to the fearful loss to British capital and industry which the continuance of this anarchy in Egypt must inevitably entail, and which, to a great extent, has already been entailed; but these interests, great as they are, are even of less importance than the blow to the prestige and fame of our power, which in itself constitutes, to my mind, a peril of enormous magnitude to our fortunes and to our Empire in the East. I think the House would do well to remember that this great massacre which horrified us all so much took place a fortnight ago. Since then we have been seeking from day to day for information from the Government—information only of the most legitimate character—and we have demanded a distinct and explicit assurance from the Government that protection shall at least be given to the subjects of the Queen. Our demands and inquiries have been made absolutely in vain; and following upon this day by day we have had accounts still more alarming and serious, and we have been met by empty nothings—by I will not say foolish, but the unmeaning phrases

  49
  from the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but I think he and his Colleagues will discover ere long that there are limits to the patience and the tolerance even of the House of Commons. I want to remind the House that all these things are happening after months and months of warning to the Government, during which they have had more than ample time to meet any contingency that might arise, and to decide upon what was the wisest policy to pursue. There had been months of anxiety and alarm which have been felt by all sections of the people; and, although it may be true that they have been deluded from time to time by the specious assurances of the hon. Baronet and Members of the Cabinet, yet they are now beginning to discover that those assurances have all been worthless from the first. The right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) raised the question just now. He asked whether the Government had any correct information as to the number of people who had been massacred? I followed the right hon. Baronet; and I asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs if he was able to say that the number of people massacred as given in the newspapers was not correct? He said he had no information. [Cries of "No, no!"]
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I said nothing of the kind. I said I had nothing to add to the information which we have already given. I have already stated that the Representative of Her Majesty's Government had inquired as to the number of persons massacred, and the report sent to us puts the number at 50.
  MR. CHAPLIN: You have no further information?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The hon. Member asked me how many persons were killed? The answer was that, according to the best information, 50 were killed. We inquired how many British-born subjects were murdered, and we were answered six. We then asked whether any Maltese or other subjects not covered by the phrase British-born subjects, and the reply was that there were two others—Maltese. All that information has already been given to the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Either the Government have information or have not in-
  50
  formation on this point. I want to know have the Government ascertained from those with whom they have been in communication that the numbers quoted in the newspapers of the people murdered—amounting to from 200 to 300—is correct or not?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It has been reported to us from Alexandria that the number killed was 50.
  MR. CHAPLIN: When?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The day on which I stated it to the House—nine or ten days ago, as well as I can remember. [Cries of "No!"] Well, three days after the massacre occurred; and I have no doubt that if there had been reason to modify the number, we should have received the modification.
  MR. CHAPLIN: It is evidently quite useless for us to ask information from the Government, and it appears to me to have come to this—that the influence of the Government has sunk so low in Egypt, that in a country with which we are at peace, and which is within two hours by telegraph from London, Europeans may or may not be murdered by hundreds and the English Government know nothing about it. What we want to know, and what we must insist on knowing, is this—has the Government, apart from the protection given by the Fleet, and which seems in a time of massacre to have been no protection whatever, and apart from the protection given by the Egyptian troops, which could not be sufficient, satisfactory, or reliable protection—has the Government taken any other measures to protect the lives and property of their fellow-countrymen in Egypt; and, if so, will they state what those measures are? If they have not taken such measures, they are deserving of the greatest blame; and, in my opinion, it is their bounden duty, without a moment's loss of time, to repair that terrible omission. I know not, I am sure, what may be the condition of our Army and Navy at the present moment under a Government professing a false and, I think, a foolish system of economy, but who, in reality, I must say, do not practice any economy whatever; but I have been confidently informed—and I believe on pretty good authority—that within something like a month large reductions have been made in our Indian military establishments. ["No,

  51
  no!"] That is exactly the question I want to know—whether that is so or not? I might have been misinformed, but I am told that nine batteries of Artillery—I think that is the number—four regiments of Cavalry, and no less than 13 regiments of Infantry have recently been disbanded. I want to know if that is true? and I put the question to the Government—to the Prime Minister, to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to the Secretary of State for War, or to any other Member who can answer it. I ask if it is correct? and I can only say, if it is correct, a more gratuitous or grosser act of folly at the present time has never been committed in the annals of our military administration. But I presume that even this Government are able to provide troops sufficient to protect the subjects of the Queen in Egypt from massacre and death, and I hope the Government do recognize this duty as absolutely imperative upon them. I trust we shall to-night hear from the Government something in clear and decided language, so that all the world may know that the English Government do recognize and understand still that the interests of England in Egypt are primary and paramount and must remain so; and that, with or without the consent of any other nation, they are determined to so maintain them. I beg to move that the House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Unless, Sir, I very much mistake the general feeling, and what I think I may call the evident sense of the House, it is not their pleasure or desire that I should follow the hon. Member who has just sat down through the long list of great subjects which he has raised in the course of his remarkable oration. But this I am bound to say, that of all the occasions on which this irregular Motion for adjournment has been made, taking into consideration the manner in which it has been supported by the hon. Gentleman, I do not recollect one that appears to me so unfortunate and, I would venture to say, so little discreet. I think, Sir, the hon. Member will have understood that when I speak of the evident sense of the House in this matter, I
  52
  mean distinctly to refer, not only to the sense of the majority of the House sitting on this side, but to the sense of the great body of those among whom the hon. Member himself sits. The speech of the hon. Gentleman divides itself into two parts, neither of which do I mean to do more than notice in a sentence or two. My hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had replied to a Question put to him to the general effect that the allegations implied in the former part of that Question were not on this occasion disputed; and that, with regard to the closing portion of the Question—whether water in adequate quantities could be provided from sources other than the fresh-water canal?—my hon. Friend was ready to give private and personal information to the hon. Gentleman. To the first portion of that answer—that there is no contest about the general statements implied in the first part of the Question—I adhere. But with respect to the readiness expressed by my hon Friend to give personal information to the hon. Member with regard to the other quarters from which a supply might be derived, I hope, after the exhibition of judgment and discretion made by the hon. Member, and after the rejection of the offer of my hon. Friend by the hon. Member—[Mr. CHAPLIN: I did not catch that]—who treated it as so unsatisfactory that it required him to move the adjournment of the House, that my hon. Friend will think himself justified in reconsidering that portion of his answer and in exercising his own discretion in regard to it. With respect to the whole of that portion of the speech of the hon. Member which related to the condition of the Suez Canal, I must say that, while I firmly believe in its innocency of motive, any speech more unfortunate in point of discretion, or more suggestive and descriptive of the means of mischief, I never heard. As to the latter portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he entered on the wide field of the Egyptian Question, the foreign policy of the Government at large, the state of the Naval and Military establishments of the country, and the condition of those establishments in India, I remarked that he expressed an anxiety that Papers should be laid upon the Table; but I am bound to observe that it seems to me that he, at least, is in very little need

  53
  of any such. Papers, because without them his mind is made up on every subject. The incapacity and the folly of the Government appear to his eyesight in such glaring colours that they cannot possibly be heightened; and although I trust these Papers will soon be presented to the House, yet it appears to me that it would be a waste of time on the part of the hon. Gentleman to read them. When we do, Sir, enter upon that subject, there will be free and large discussion, without doubt, possibly much variety of opinion; but I must say that I hope the temper in which that subject will be discussed by all portions of this House will be a temper very different from that of the speech of the hon. Member. Sir, it is not possible for us to give countenance to a Motion of this kind, by entering upon the questions raised by the hon. Gentleman. He put to us a great number of Questions, some of which may be perfectly legitimate to address to the Government; but if he desires information in regard to them, he must be content to put them in the usual manner, with, the usual Notice, and according to the Rules, and not in contempt of the Rules of the House. With regard to the immediate subject with which his speech commenced, and which forms the pretext of his Motion for adjournment, I am compelled to adhere to the declaration of my hon. Friend (Sir Charles W. Dilke), and I believe the whole House will see that nothing could be more grossly or culpably imprudent on the part of the Government than for us in this place and at this time to indicate what are our views or what is our state of knowledge as to the security of the supply of water for the Suez Canal. One word only I say in conclusion. The hon. Member referred to a speech of mine delivered four or five years ago, in which I stated, citing from a high authority, that temporary injury or destruction might easily be brought about on the banks of the Suez Canal, and he thinks that that citation of mine is in contradiction to the answer I gave the other day. But the answer I gave was that, according to the intimations of the best engineering authorities and the information in our possession, we were advised that either the destruction of the Suez Canal, or even probable permanent injury to it, was extremely difficult to accomplish. As to what might be done
  54
  in the way of temporary injury or obstruction, I never spoke a word. I hope the House will not consent to make this Motion an occasion of entering into a desultory debate on a subject of great importance, which deserves to be treated with greater respect and attention, and with a greater prospect of profit than could possibly arise from any countenance given to a Motion like the present.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I do not enter into the question of the advantages of a Motion for the adjournment of the House at this moment, and upon this question, because I feel there is a difficulty with regard to the disclosure of matters of military importance; but, at the same time, the question was one which I think it was quite natural and reasonable that my hon. Friend should bring forward, and if the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had been different from what it was, undoubtedly I should have said it was our duty, at all risk, to press it. But I understood the hon. Baronet, speaking on behalf of the Government, to say that they were alive to the difficulties of the situation, and that they took upon themselves the responsibility of affirming that there were means of supplying water which they did not think it wise to disclose, but upon which they could rely. Therefore, I think, so far, the answer is one which has put us in a better position upon that important question. It is also something to draw from the Prime Minister even the modified expressions which he has used with regard to his change of opinion as to the value of the Suez Canal. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no!] I have no doubt that the words that have been used, either written or spoken, on former occasions, can be more or less explained to mean that there is no change; but everybody who has watched the opinions of the Prime Minister upon this subject must feel—although I do not deny that the right hon. Gentleman was one of those who opposed Lord Palmerston's Government, which has been called a Conservative Government, by the way, upon the original proposal for the making of the Canal—that during the discussion that took place during the time the late Government were in Office, the opinions of the Prime Minister were generally felt to be that we were overrating alto-

  55
  gether the importance of the Canal, and that we should look to some other means of access to India. I am happy to think that that has now been disclaimed. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I did not say so.] Of course, I understand that if the sense of mankind is one way, and the sense of the right hon. Gentleman is the other way, it is mankind who are in the wrong. His opinion has been so far explained, but the error of the world is now corrected. But what I wish to point out is this. We have now had from the Government one or two most important statements—first, that they consider the importance of the Suez Canal established; secondly, that they see their way to the protection of the Canal in the event of an attempt being made to destroy it, by cutting off the supply of water; and thirdly—and the House must never forget what was stated by the right hon. Gentlemen a few days ago, in answer to a Question I put to him—that the Conference which is about to take place excludes any consideration of questions affecting our position and rights as regards the Suez Canal.
  MR. GLADSTONE: That, Sir, was not the Question. It was the subject of the Suez Canal. Questions as to the Suez Canal, its neutralization, and all other questions relating to it specially, were not referred to the Conference; but naturally it is impossible to say that in a Conference which is to consider the question of legality and the security of peace in Egypt the condition of the Suez Canal, which, as hon. Members know, is part of Egyptian territory, is to be entirely excluded.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: That is a very important statement.
  MR. GLADSTONE: What I mean is as a part of Egyptian territory.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Yes, undoubtedly that opens up a field of consideration, but I do not pretend for a moment to enter upon that now. I rather rise to say, with regard to all those matters, and with regard to the question of the policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued in all this matter, that while we feel that it will be necessary to have a full discussion of it, we are, of course, restrained from going into it until we are in possession of proper information. I do not in the least wish to anticipate what will happen when that information
  56
  is given to us. With regard to the policy which Her Majesty's Government have pursued, I only say that I hope these Papers will be produced in time for us to discuss that policy while some advantage is to be gained in discussion. But a point we have also to consider is not only what has been the policy of Her Majesty's Government in the past, and in its bearings on the future of this great question, but what is the position of affairs at this moment, and we have a right, I think, to have as full an explanation as the Government can give us. We are naturally anxious to know what has been the exact amount of loss of life and other outrages committed in Alexandria—the loss of life and property during those riots in Alexandria, as to which, I think, more information might be given to us than has been afforded. We are also anxious to know what is the exact condition that we stand in with regard to the safety of life and property at this moment. I give Notice at an early part of the evening that I will ask the Prime Minister these two Questions—From whom we are demanding, or are about to demand, reparation for the loss of life and property that has occurred, and on whom it is that we now rely for the security of life and property? These are important Questions, to which we shall, no doubt, have an answer. They bear very closely on the present state of affairs, and on the present state of this question. If the responsibility of order rests with the Porte or Dervish Pasha, as the Emissary of the Porte, or anyone connected with the Sovereign of Egypt, then, I think, it becomes a very serious question what is the relation of the Porte to the Conference, and whether our hands will be strengthened or weakened when the Porte objects to it. These are questions on which we might and ought to have information, without waiting for Papers of a considerably earlier date, which will be important to enable us to judge of the whole policy of the Government, but which may be long in production, and ought not to stand in the way of full information, and an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are aware of the very great injury that has been done, and is being done, to British interests, as well as life and property, the feeling of great insecurity of life which exists amongst our fellow-subjects in that country, and other

  57
  matters which are of obvious importance, and upon which. I think we ought to have reassuring statements as soon and as freely as possible.
  MR. WILLIAMSONsaid, he rose somewhat irregularly during the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and he desired to apologize for having done so; but he wished to explain that he did so in response to the challenge made by that hon. Member for any hon. Gentleman to deny the statement he was making as to the danger of the Suez Canal being deprived of fresh water supplies. He simply wished to inform him, and to point out to him, that the use of the Canal was not at all dependent on the supply of fresh water from the Nile. It was a well-known fact that all steamers passing through the Canal had got tanks containing a sufficient supply for the wants of the crews and passengers or men on the stations on the banks. It was also a fact, of which probably the hon. Member was not aware, that in a large tract of country on the West Coast of South America, large communities were supplied with fresh water distilled from the sea water. It would be an easy matter to send out, in five or six days, apparatus to distil a sufficient supply of water from the sea. He was sure if the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had known these facts he would not have ventured to make the assertion he did, or to have wasted the time of the House.
  MR. M'COANsaid the Suez Canal was as well known as the Rhine, and he had listened with much amusement to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). As, however, the speech of the hon. Member might create a scare about the Canal, he would state some facts within his own personal knowledge. The hon. Member seemed to think that though the Canal connected two seas it was fed by fresh water. The Canal was fed by salt water. The fresh water canal ran from a point near Cairo down to Ismailia, at the centre of the Canal, and supplied the inhabitants of the town. It then ran on to Suez, which it supplied, and it also went to Port Said, where there were tanks which contained several weeks' supply for the whole town. At Ismailia there were tanks which contained several days' supply, and at Suez
  58
  there was a considerable supply in the tanks, so that if the fresh water canal stopped to-morrow, there would still be a supply in those places for some days. It was true that considerable inconvenience might result from a temporary stoppage of the Canal; but the navigation need not be stopped for one hour, as it was no more dependent for its supply upon the source suggested than the Thames was upon the sea. Therefore, to attempt to raise a scare about the matter was one of the wildest and most childish things he had ever heard. As for the insult that had been offered to the British Crown, in the person of Mr. Cookson, that gentleman did not represent the Crown at all, and the whole idea was little better than a "mare's nest."
  SIR GEORGE ELLIOTsaid, he would not occupy the attention of the House more than a few minutes; but he wished to say that he approached that subject with great diffidence. The House was, no doubt, aware that he had spent a great deal of his time in Egypt for the last 15 years. He had taken much interest in the subject of the construction of the Suez Canal, which he saw in its inception, during its construction, and since its completion. He did not share the apprehension of many of his hon. Friends as to the extent of the injury which might result from any interference with the fresh water supply. It had been correctly stated that the Canal was supplied with fresh water by a canal which proceeded from the neighbourhood of Cairo, down to Ismailia, then to Suez, and from Ismailia to Port Said. The population of Port Said was not large, and it need really be no secret, and he did not see why the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs need hesitate to say, that even if the fresh water was cut off, there was no difficulty in getting fresh water from the river which flowed into the sea close to Port Said. Therefore, he did not share any apprehension that could arise of permanent injury being inflicted on the Canal by mischievous persons. It could only be temporary, because it was not carried over large aqueducts, but through the bed of the desert; and if a ship was sunk in the channel they had nothing to do but to find their way round it. No obstruction could be of a permanent character. He thought it was really but fair on all sides that the public mind should not be

  59
  too much disturbed. There was another point he could speak upon from knowledge, and that was the situation at Alexandria at that moment, which he had no doubt was occupying the minds and attention of the Government as well as other Members of the House. There were very large masses of mixed population in Alexandria, who were now out of employment. They had been very hungry, he knew, and when they had large masses of unfed people, and an army behind them, there was very great peril. He assured them that he should have spoken on this subject if he had had anything to suggest; but the position was peculiar. It was a combination of difficulties. He did not believe Her Majesty's Government, or anybody else, could very well define what ought to be done. They must judge from time to time, and from day to day. In interviews he had had with persons who were taking part in this situation, no longer ago than February, they one and all expressed themselves very much opposed to a French soldier being seen on their soil. Arabi Bey had been allowed to go from step to step, until he had acquired the actual mastery of all authority in Egypt; and if they would keep that steadfastly in their minds, they would be able to see the great difficulty in dealing with this question. Arabi was a Mussulman. Could the Sultan send his soldiers to contest with one representing the interests of Mussulmans? He would find great difficulty in sending his army there, because the jealousy and the feeling of the Mussulmans would be roused against him. In his opinion, the Sultan ought to exercise his authority; but he saw very great difficulty in his doing it. On the other hand, were we to do it, how were we to do it? What were the conditions? Could we set to work to land soldiers? If we did, all our European subjects would be like so many hostages in the hands of the enemy. That was the danger he had seen and felt throughout, and he could not sit and hear the Questions that were put in the House and remain silent. It must be left to the hands of those who were responsible; and if he were asked to advise as to what steps should be taken to deal with the situation, he should prefer to reply in the negative. Having been recently in Egypt, and having heard the views of persons in
  60
  authority, and those who were endeavouring to upset things, he told the House that the situation was one that he could not tell how to deal with; they must trust to the measures of the Government; whether they blamed them for having got into this mess or not was another thing. He was satisfied the condition of Egypt was enormously improved, and all that was wanted was that we should be able to continue the work we commenced; but in order to do that we must have some civil or military power behind those who were employed to do the work, so that they could not be upset by the interference of the army. He trusted that the Government, in setting their hands to this work, would effectually put it on such a footing, whether by a Conference or otherwise, as to prevent a repetition of this mischievous conduct on the part of Arabi. However much he might disapprove—as he did disapprove—the conduct of the Government in not taking some earlier measures, and in dissenting from instead of approving some of the acts of Arabi Bey—for it was therein that the evil began, and there-from that it had grown to its present dimensions—he had to acknowledge, as he had indicated, that in its present form the difficulty was one for which he had really no solution to offer.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERwished to ask whether there was any truth in the statement that a Convention had been concluded between England and Turkey, and approved of by Germany, by which English troops were to take charge of the Suez Canal?
  MR. CHAPLINsaid, that he wished to say a few words in reply to the speeches that had been made on this subject. He could not help contrasting the speech of the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway on his left with those which had been made by hon. Members opposite. [Cries of "Order!" and "Spoken!"] He had been charged by hon. Members opposite with having said that which was childish and ridiculous, and with a desire to create a scare. [Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. BAXTERrose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member had the right of reply?
  MR. SPEAKER: As the hon. Member has made a substantive Motion, he is, according to the Rules of Debate, entitled to a reply.
  MR. CHAPLINshould have thought that hon. Members opposite would have learnt something with regard to the Rules of the Procedure of that House by this time. He had been charged with saying that which was childish and ridiculous, and with a desire to create a scare; but if that were so, why did not the Government dispel all fears of a scare at once by giving full information on the subject? The hon. Baronet had said that the suggestion he had made was a mischievous one; but was it to be supposed that Arabi Pasha was not aware of what was going on in Europe? The fact was that it was in England, and not in Egypt, that ignorance prevailed. He had put certain Questions to the hon. Baronet which had not been satisfactorily answered, and he begged to give Notice that he should persist in pressing those Questions until they were answered. Hon. Members had the right to know, and it was their duty to know, that measures were being taken for the protection of English subjects in Egypt; and when it was stated in that House that great reductions in the strength of our Army were in contemplation by the Government, it was of the first importance for them to know in what manner Her Majesty's Government intended to provide for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects abroad. ["Hear, hear!" and Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman the Member for Frome (Mr. H. Samuelson) thought fit to interrupt him; but he could tell the hon. Member—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he must address himself to the Chair.
  MR. CHAPLINbegged to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair to the fact that he had been interrupted by the hon. Member for Frome by un-Parliamentary noises. He asked the Government why it was that we had got into this desperate position? and he hoped that before long Ministers would be good enough to make an explanation to the House on the subject. Only one word more. He would commend to the notice of the Government, to the notice of the Premier, and the Members of the Liberal Party generally, some few observations which he was certain they would respect when they knew the source from which they were taken. They referred to delay in pre-
  62
  senting Papers to Parliament, and they ran—
  "Appeals were made to the Government to supply Parliament with full and authentic information in lieu of the scanty and unauthentic information which can be got from newspaper sources. But the papers were left unprepared, precious weeks were lost, and the House of Commons has, in the main, been ousted from the legitimate jurisdiction which it exercises over such matters."
  Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) might recognize the quotation? It was from a very remarkable document called Bulgarian Atrocities, and the language was the language of the present Prime Minister.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of associating his name with the alarms which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. He had himself put some Questions to the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, with the view of showing that the effects of the riots in Alexandria had been greatly exaggerated; and he was glad to find that, deplorable as was the loss of life, it had not been a fourth part of what was reported in the sensational paragraphs which had appeared in the newspapers. He was unable to find any report of the slightest weight which put the number of Europeans killed higher than 58 or 60, and he was led to believe that the number of Arabs killed by Europeans was not far short of the same number. When the matter was carefully examined, he believed it would be found that there was nearly as much blame upon the one side as upon the other. Unquestionably, the first murders seemed to have been committed by so-called Europeans. He had seen letters from eye-witnesses of what had taken place, in which it was explained that the bayonet wounds which were found in the bodies of several of the killed were caused by old bayonets which were carried by the Arabs tied to sticks, and were not inflicted by the Egyptian police. The result of Her Majesty's Government determining to set itself in opposition to Arabi Pasha, and to insist, in their so-called Ultimatum, on his being exiled, would lead us into untold complications and great dangers. If they persisted in thus opposing the leading man in Egypt, and the one who was the most popular with the Egyptian people, they would have to deal not only with that people,

  63
  but with, the entire Mussulman population of the East. In regard to the neutralization of the Suez Canal, the Prime Minister said the European Conference would deal with it in one sense, but that in some other sense it would not do so.
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member has entirely misunderstood me. I have already distinctly stated that no question relating to the Suez Canal has been referred to the Conference.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that he had thoroughly appreciated the effect of the language which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman. Doubtless, the Suez Canal—that great engineering marvel of the age—was to be kept outside of the purview of the Conference; but the Suez Canal, as so many miles long and as so many yards broad of Turkish territory, would, according to the words of the right hon. Gentleman, fall within that purview. Upon that point all he had to say was, that the one thing that the British Government and the Imperial Parliament had to pray for was the failure of this Conference, because if the Conference came to a definite conclusion on the subject, and if it assumed a control over the Suez Canal, not many years would elapse before the British Empire would find that no transport of British troops through the Canal would be permitted without the permission of the European Powers. If Her Majesty's Government, therefore, could still break off from this Conference, let them do so, even at the cost of being inconsistent, and of the loss of some prestige; and let them make friends with Turkey or any other Eastern Power rather than run the risk of taking part in this Conference.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: I think, Sir, that the point which the hon. Member who has just sat down has referred to at the end of his speech is of such vital importance that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will lose no time in making it clear to the House and to the world what limits will be placed upon the power of the Conference to deal with the Suez Canal. The right hon. Gentleman the other day, in reply to a Question put to him by my right hon. Friend, as to the limits within which the discussion of the Conference would be confined, and as to whether they would include the Suez Canal,
  64
  stated most distinctly that they would be confined to the Egyptian Question proper; and, subsequently, the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) said that the neutralization of the Suez Canal would be outside of these limits. That statement, however, has been, to some extent, qualified by what the right hon. Gentleman has told us this evening. Now, Sir, I cannot conceive anything of more importance than this subject, because nothing could be more dangerous to the interests of this country, and, indeed, of the whole world, than that it should be within the power of a majority of the Powers taking part in the Conference to limit, in any way, the use of this high road between England and India. I hope that Her Majesty's Government have been alive to the great importance of this matter; and what I would ask them is this—Have they definitely expressed to the Powers the limits within which they consider the discussion at the Conference must be confined on this point? Have the Powers accepted these limits, and, if so, what are they? I must repeat that I do trust there may be no delay in replying frankly and fully to these Questions.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Government have already stated that they deprecate and will do all in their power to pass by and refrain from taking part in debates on Motions for the adjournment of the House, At the same time, I wish to take advantage of the Motion just introduced, in order to reply to the direct appeal that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure the House, in the most definite terms, that the question of the neutralization of the Suez Canal is entirely outside the purposes for which the Conference meets, the bases for the meeting of which I have already on three occasions described in this House. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asks me to state for himself that the answers previously given by him and by me on former occasions are not to be considered as in the least qualified by anything which has been said.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS - BEACH: What I want to know is, whether that view has been communicated to the Powers and accepted by them?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It is not in the least necessary to make such

  65
  a communication. The Powers are perfectly well aware of the opinion of the Government that the question is entirely outside the bases of the meeting of the Conference.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he should not have troubled the House if it were not for the references which had been made in the course of the debate to the importance of the Suez Canal in enabling us to maintain our communications with India. He thought that hon. Members had very greatly over-estimated the ultimate importance of the Suez Canal. When the Suez Canal shares were purchased by a former Government, he felt it his duty to state at length what he was about now to state very shortly. He did not for a moment depreciate the great saving in distance by the Suez Canal to our mercantile communication with the East; but he might state to the House that so great had been the engineering advances of the country within the last few years, especially in regard to the speed of vessels intended for ocean purposes, that more than one steamer recently constructed was capable of conveying troops from London to Calcutta, viâ the Cape, in as short a time as the Peninsular and Oriental express service, viâ the Canal. The Canal only allowed the passage of vessels with a draught of about 23 feet. The necessity of storing a large quantity of fuel for the consumption of enormous engines rendered it impossible to construct vessels able to make exceedingly rapid passages and, at the same time, to carry large cargoes of the dimensions necessary, if they were required to go through the Canal. He was prepared to say that such ships as the Arizona, of the New York Line, would make the passage to Calcutta in about 26 days, under steam, while it was well known that the merchant ships of the present day which passed through the Canal took a much longer time. No doubt there would be some advantage in reference to the passage to Bombay in going through the Canal; but the difference was susceptible of being reduced to something like three or four days. He had no desire to depreciate the commercial value of the Suez Canal, nor the views of the Government in their desire to maintain it for the advantage of communicating with India. He was ready to acknowledge that the closing of the Canal, even temporarily, would
  66
  be a source of great inconvenience and loss to the country; but he maintained that it would not be so heavily felt as some hon. Members were disposed to assume, and that in two years it would be possible to carry the trade of the country by way of the Cape quite as well as it was carried now by way of the Suez Canal. Therefore, on patriotic grounds, and in view of keeping up our prestige in India, he denied that the keeping open of the Suez Canal was of absolute vital importance to this country.
  Question put, and negatived.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—SALE OF THE HAMILTON PICTURES.
  VISCOUNT LYMINGTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any means have been taken to put the Trustees of the National Gallery in possession of funds for the acquisition of works of art in the Hamilton collection?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, the Treasury had made known their views to the Trustees of the National Gallery upon this matter; and though the disclosure in the House might not be so serious as the disclosure of some other matters, there was no advantage in making those opinions known.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—PROCEDURE RESOLUTIONS—THE FIRST RESOLUTION (CLOTURE).
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If there are any of the Amendments on the Notice Paper to the first of the proposed new Rules that the Government will accept, or if they remain resolved to insist on obtaining the power to close a debate by a bare majority?
  MR. LABOUCHEREasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Times" of June 21st:
  "We know as a matter of fact that, immediately before the assassination in the Phœnix Park had thrown Parliamentary business into confusion, the Government had come to acknowledge the expediency of making a concession to those who have distrusted the absolute power of a bare majority. The Prime Minister and his colleagues were then prepared to adopt Mr. Gibson's amendment, or rather addition to the

  67
  Resolution, leaving its arithmetical refinements untouched, but providing that in no case should clôture he carried by a majority of less than two to one;"
  and, whether it is a fact that he and his colleagues either ever have acknowledged, or do now acknowledge, or contemplate acknowledging, the expediency of making a concession to the Junior Member for the University of Dublin, and those who like him have distrusted the absolute power of a bare majority in regard to clôture, the effect of which would be to provide that in no case clôture would be carried by a majority of less than two to one?
  MR. BAXTERwished to ask another Question on the same subject—namely, Whether, with a view to arriving at an early settlement of this vexed question, Her Majesty's Government would consent to omit Part II. relating to Standing Committees, seeing that it was likely to be strongly opposed, and to alter the 1st Resolution by accepting the Amendment of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), or the Amendment which stood in the name of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson)?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDwished to know, also, whether, in the opinion of the Government, the interruptions which took place by Motions for the adjournment of the House—[Cries of "Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman proposes to ask a Question as to the opinion of the Government. That is an irregular form for a Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I understand these Questions to be as follows:—The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen) refers to a supposed intention of the Government to accept an Amendment which stands upon the Paper, and recommends its acceptance. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) refers to the same subject, and deprecates that acceptance; and my right hon. Friend behind me refers both to this question and also to the dropping of what is called the second part of the entire subject—namely, what is known as the delegation or devolution. The time for entering into these details will be when we come nearer to the discussion of Procedure. There can be no advantage in entering into details at present. About six weeks ago I made a communi-
  68
  cation to the right hon. Gentleman opposite in anticipation of a statement which I was about to make in this House to the effect that in view of a rapid and early settlement of the entire matter, the Government were prepared to accede, by way of trial, without compromising their opinions, to the Notice of Motion given by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). That, I am bound to say, was in reference to the then state of things, and it is a matter with regard to which the Government feel themselves perfectly at liberty to reconsider their position if the public interest should seem to require it under a different state of things. I think that I should mislead my right hon. Friend and the House if I were not to state that Her Majesty's Government have never entertained the idea of dropping what is called Part II. of these Resolutions—the part which relates to devolution or delegation. Whether the particular proposals we have made are right or wrong, sufficient or insufficient, too narrow or too wide, my own personal conviction is, that unless the House is prepared to deal with the subject of devolution or delegation in some effective manner, it is idle to go to work on measures merely penal and restrictive. No penal and respective measures could ever restore this House its capacity to deal efficiently with the Business of the country. I will enter into no details at present; but I will promise the House that it shall not be taken by surprise, but that, when we see our way, we will give full Notice to the House of whatever course we think right to recommend.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENbegged to give Notice that in the event of the clôture being accepted on the French system, he should move that the selection of Speaker in the discussion be also conducted according to the French system.

  PARLIAMENT—PUBLIC BUSINESS.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is now prepared to give any indication of the period at which it will be possible, without serious danger to European life and property in Egypt, to discuss the policy pursued by the Government, and the efficacy of the steps taken to support the Khedive, in pursuance of the engagement tendered to His Highness in the

  69
  Joint Note of the 8th January; and, as to the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government with reference to, and in maintenance of, the demand made upon the Egyptian Ministry on the 25th May by Her Majesty's Consul General, at Cairo, of "conditions" which, in the name of Her Majesty's Government, he asserted "to be necessary for putting an end to the disturbed state of the Country," and with respect to which he announced that, "in case of necessity, Her Majesty's Government will exact their due fulfilment?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, inasmuch as, according to our latest information, the Conference has not met until to-day—it probably has met to-day—it is impossible for Her Majesty's Government to forecast the future in such a way as to enable me fully to answer the Questions of the right hon. Gentleman. Our duty is to place the right hon. Gentleman, as soon as we can, in a position to form a judgment for himself, and to make any proposal which he or his Friends may think fit, and which we will be prepared to meet according to the best of our ability and the circumstances of the time. It has been already stated by my hon. Friend near me (Sir Charles W. Dilke) that we are preparing Papers, with respect to which I wish it to be understood that it is impossible to bring them up to the actual moment. We desire to place the House in possession of those up to the 31st of May, and we are inclined to believe that they will enable the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends to form an adequate judgment upon the retrospective portion of the subject, and on the conduct of the Government. These Papers will be delivered in the course of next week, and we hope that they will be distributed in the early part of the week after. The right hon. Gentleman naturally wishes to know in what position he will be placed when we come to consider this question, so as to be able to decide on any course that he may think fit to take. It will be necessary for the Government to ask the House to go into Committee of Supply on Monday. The immediate and urgent reason for going into Supply, even though it may involve the interruption of the Crime Prevention Bill, if that Committee should not then be closed, is the necessity of taking Votes for the Navy. We shall also ask the
  70
  House for a further short Vote on Account of the Civil Service, which will be absolutely necessary shortly after. It will be more convenient to deal with it as one subject. I will now tell the right hon. Gentleman what we further intend. Sunday week will be the 2nd of July, and soon after that the Papers up to the 31st of May will be in the hands of hon. Members. By the middle of July—say, about 10 days after the issue of those Papers—I will engage, on the part of the Government, to propose going into Committee of Supply, so as to enable any hon. Gentleman opposite to raise the question of Egypt if he thinks fit. That is as much as I can say at the present time. I hope that will be deemed satisfactory. I trust that hon. Gentlemen, viewing the urgency of the case with respect to the Irish Bills, and especially with respect to the Irish Bill on which we are now engaged, will not, on Monday, make such use of their privilege on going into Committee of Supply as to cause inconvenience to the necessary Business of the House.
  MR. W. H. SMITHasked whether Supply would be the first Order on Monday?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Certainly.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Sir, I understood the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, to say that the first batch of Papers would be in our hands to-morrow.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: That is the second batch.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, with the view of obviating the disagreeable necessity for Motions for the adjournment of the House, that as soon as the Prevention of Crime Bill has passed through Committee, he will afford the House an opportunity of considering the Papers as far as they have been delivered.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: While the Conference is sitting, of course, the Government can take no part in an exhaustive discussion; but if the right hon. Member, when he has read the Papers, sees any cause for blaming the Government, and makes a Motion to that effect, of course, that would be a different matter; but a generally vague discussion during the sitting of the Conference would be extremely inconvenient.
  MR. GORSTasked what course they proposed to take on the Admiralty Votes on Monday?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We propose to go on where we left off.
  MR. GORST: Will the Dockyard Vote be proceeded with?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I shall propose to go straight forward with the Votes in the order in which they come.
  COLONEL MAKINSasked whether it would be convenient to deal with the question of the Marines on Monday; or whether there would be another opportunity given for the discussion of the question in the way indicated by the present Chief Secretary for Ireland?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANbelieved it was understood there should be a general discussion on Vote II., seeing that there was a limited discussion on Vote I. At any rate, he would confer with the right hon. Gentleman. (Mr. Trevelyan) on the subject.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: Is it to be entirely Naval Votes on Monday?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Yes.

  EGYPT—THE BRITISH REFUGEES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF (for Mr. ONSLOW)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he can now state what arrangements have been made to provide free passage and free living for the British refugees from Egypt, or whether it is the intention of the Government to provide no free rations for these refugees; and, what is the ultimate destination of these refugees, and at whose expense they will be victualled, now that they have been forced to leave Egypt for their own personal safety?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to this Question, I think that the hon. Member who gave Notice of it must be under some misunderstanding. He can hardly suppose that a matter of this kind, a sudden necessity arising at a distant point, can be dealt with by correspondence between Departments. It must be dealt with by the authorities on the spot to the best of their discretion in communication with the authorities at home as rapidly as possible. My hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has given all the information he can, and we at the Treasury possess no
  72
  information whatever. No communication has been made which enables us to give any further information.

  ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL—THE IRISH CHURCH FUND.
  MR. ANDERSONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, seeing the success of the new proposal for making the Irish Church Fund bear the whole liability under the Land Arrears Bill depends so entirely on the unpaid income, not exceeding the five per cent estimated, he has good reason to suppose that the impoverishment of landlords, and other causes, are not likely to affect the income more seriously in the future than they have done even in the worst year of the three last?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, I venture to say to my hon. Friend, in answer to this Question, that we have very carefully considered, as well as the nature of the subject admits, this question of a possible deduction in defection in the revenue of the Church Surplus Fund. We have gone into it in a spirit to endeavour not to mislead the House on a dangerous side. We entertain very great confidence that, the law remaining as it now does, our calculations are reasonable and safe.

  EDUCATION—INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN WALES.
  MR. RICHARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether there is any objection to refer the Bill prepared by the Government, for Intermediate and Higher Education in Wales, to a large Committee of Welsh Members, after the manner suggested by him of dealing with the Scotch Educational Endowments Bill and the Agricultural Holdings Bills?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must inform my hon. Friend that the Bill relating to intermediate education in Wales is not so far advanced as he seems to suppose. The Bill is based upon the double idea of local rating and public grant. So far as the machinery for local rating is concerned, there is no reason why the Bill should not be now introduced, and, if introduced, referred to a large Committee. I am bound to say, however, that I do not think the

  73
  House will be disposed to accede to the appointment of an exclusively Welsh Committee, although, no doubt, on such a Committee Wales would be largely represented. The measure, however, is not sufficiently advanced to deal with it as a whole, and therefore the Bill could not be introduced. The Bill is only prepared so far as regards the machinery of local rating.

  WAYS AND MEANS—THE FINANCIAL PROPOSALS—SUBVENTION TO ROADS.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, With reference to the proposed subvention to roads, whether he can now state in what mode it would be applied, namely, whether according to mileage of disturnpiked roads in a county or borough, or according to mileage of main roads, or expenditure, or how otherwise; and, if not now, whether he could inform the House on what occasion such a statement would be made?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE), in reply, said, he thought that, with respect to that question, one of two courses would be taken. He could not say which would be the more convenient. His right hon. Friend the President of the Local Government Board might, when in Committee on the Tax Bill, state his proposal as to the mode of distribution; or it might be postponed until his right hon. Friend proposed it as a substantive plan.

  PARLIAMENT—PARTNERSHIPS BILL.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYasked the honourable Gentleman the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) whether he intended to proceed with the Partnerships Bill that evening?
  MR. MONK, in reply, said, that he intended to ask the House that evening to make as much progress with the Bill as possible.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—OMAGH GAOL—WIDOW OF CAPTAIN DISNEY.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What provision the Government intend making for the widow of the late
  74
  Captain Disney, Governor of Omagh Gaol, county Tyrone, who lost his life through the defective sanitary condition of that prison?
  MR. TREVELVAN: Sir, I am in communication with the Treasury upon this matter. If the hon. Member will repeat his Question on Monday, I hope then to be able to answer him.

  THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—APPLICATIONS FOR FIXING A FAIR RENT IN CO. LONDONDERRY.
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, taking into consideration that three thousand applications to fix a fair rent await hearing in the county of Londonderry, and that up to this date only seventy-six cases have been decided, the Government will arrange with the Land Commissioners that separate Sub-Commissions be given to each of the counties of Londonderry and Antrim?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this matter has urgently been brought to my notice by my hon. Friend the Solicitor General for Ireland, and, chiefly in consequence of his representations, I have been in communication with the Land Commissioners and the Treasury upon this subject, and have made arrangements by which an additional Sub-Commission may be appointed in September next to enter on its duties on the 1st of October, when the vacations shall have terminated. By this means, if it is still deemed necessary, separate Sub-Commissions can be assigned to the counties of Londonderry and Antrim.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he hoped that the Chief Secretary would take care that no Assistant Commissioner should sit in his own locality.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. BRODRICK.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If any necessity exists for the further detention of Mr. Brodrick, Poor Law Guardian of Athenry?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, His Excellency considered Mr. Brodrick's case on the 16th instant, and decided that he could not, consistently with his duty, order his release at present.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 21st June.]
  [SEVENTEENTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

PART III.

  GENERAL POWERS.
  Clause 12 (Application of Alien Act to aliens in Ireland).
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 6, line 36, to leave out from the word "for," to the word "Act," in line 37, and insert the words "one year,"—(Mr. Healy,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words 'the same period as this Act' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. DILLONsaid, that this Amendment was under discussion when the hour for adjournment arrived yesterday. He did not think Her Majesty's Government could charge the Irish Members with having unduly procrastinated the discussion upon the clause. The Alien Act, which the clause provided should be applied to aliens in Ireland, consisted in itself of a variety of clauses, and whenever its renewal had been proposed on previous occasions it had always been discussed at considerable length. It was originally proposed in 1793, and on that occasion gave rise to a long debate; and on every occasion since it had been opposed by all the most honoured names of the old Whig Party. The Home Secretary informed the Committee the other day that he was a follower of the Whigs of old, and that he was proud to call himself so. He (Mr. Dillon) wondered what the right hon. and learned Gentleman would say if he were to read to him the speeches of the Whigs of old on the Alien Act. Every name honoured in the annals of the Whig Party had protested in the strongest terms against this Act. On one occasion, when Lord Castlereagh introduced the Alien Act,
  76
  he was met with a dogged determination on the part of the Whig Party not to discuss its details at all, and one and all declared that, no matter What the details of the Bill were, they objected to it on principle, and under no circumstances would they condescend to enter into any criticism of its details. He (Mr. Dillon) intended on a proper occasion to quote the authority of all these great men, and he thought the Irish Members were entitled to ask, at least, that the Government should not add anything to the provisions of an Act which had been so strongly opposed by their own Party. When Mr. Pitt introduced the Alien Act of 1793, he asked for one year, and one year only; and he hoped, if Lord Castlereagh might be compared with Herod, that Her Majesty's Government were not prepared at the present moment to out-Herod Herod. Of course, if the Government were determined to carry the present clause, all the Irish Members could ask was that it should not create a precedent for doing what the British House of Commons had never done before. The appeal to the Government was not unreasonable—not to re-enact the provisions of the Alien Acts of 1793 and 1848, at all events, for a longer period than one year.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had boldly and proudly avowed himself a Whig the other night. But he was in no respects like the Whigs of former days, because, although the Whigs of old entertained the greatest repugnance to discuss even the smallest details of this measure, there was no single detail of it which the Whigs of the present day were not prepared to enforce without the slightest repugnance. The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to reenact the Alien Act without giving any details at all, knowing very well that those who would follow him into the Lobby would not take the trouble to make themselves masters of its details. His hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had referred to the opposition given to the Alien Acts when they were first brought in, and had pointed out how one and all of the Members of the Liberal Party had refused to discuss their details. He (Mr. Leamy) thought it was most desirable that the details of the Act should be before the Committee. He was satisfied that many

  77
  hon. Members would vote for the Home Secretary's proposition who had not read those details; and it was the first time in the history of attempts at legislation of this character that an Act which was not in existence now, and which was not to found in the Codified Statutes, was proposed to be re-enacted without any specification being made of what its precise details were. Of course, he knew it would be said that everybody was supposed to know the law; but he would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman how the people whom the clause would affect—namely, aliens residing in Ireland—were to know the law? Where were they to find it? They were unable to find it in the present Bill, and they could not find it in the Codified Statutes.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that it was proposed to print the Alien Act in the Schedule to the Bill, and he had stated so already.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he was not aware that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made that statement. He certainly thought that the Act should have been set forth in a Schedule before the Committee came to discuss the Schedules, so that in discussing this clause they might have been able to make themselves acquainted with the details of the measure. They knew that the Bill was not intended to apply to England. This country would not be affected by it at all. It would apply only to Ireland, and hon. Members were hardly likely to look up old and musty Acts of Parliament for themselves in order to make themselves acquainted with the details of the measure. When the Act was last before the House—in 1848—it was pointed out that the powers proposed to be given to the Secretary of State were very large indeed, and that there was very little check upon the exercise of them. It was pointed out that accusations would be made in anonymous letters addressed to the Secretary of State, and that the Office of the Secretary of State would, in point of fact, have a backdoor for the reception of accusations and calumnies against individuals, upon the plausible pretext of securing the public safety, but, in reality, for the gratification of personal spite and vindictiveness. Hon. Members must feel that this was even much more likely to happen in Ireland than in England. In Ireland there
  78
  were men who had excited the hatred of some of their neighbours, and, under this Bill, they would be liable to be arrested and ordered out of the country if anyone chose to send a letter to the Secretary of State containing accusations against them. He was sorry to find that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) was not in his place. In 1848, among the minority who opposed the application of the Alien Bill, were the names of Richard Cobden and John Bright; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) opposed the introduction of the Bill of 1848, the circumstances were very much different from what they were now, because Sir George Grey, in introducing the Bill, did so, not merely on account of the condition of Ireland, but on account of the condition of Europe and of the revolutionary tendencies which were exhibiting themselves in every part of Europe. Sir George Grey stated that Republican principles were spreading, and that the Government were anxious to put a stop to their spread in this country. At that time it was very well known that there was actual insurrection in Ireland against the Sovereign. Not only were there men in Ireland, but Irishmen in America, who were prepared, if they could, to overthrow the power and authority of the Queen, in Ireland, and, notwithstanding the fact that they had actual insurrection in Ireland, and that Thrones were tottering all over Europe, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to support the introduction of the Alien Act. He should like to know upon what grounds the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to defend the introduction of the same measure now? He (Mr. Leamy) repeated that he was extremely sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had not already set forth the Act in a Schedule to the Bill. If the Bill were examined carefully, it would be found that it was a codification of all the Coercion Acts which had hitherto been applied to Ireland, with the addition of the abolition of trial by jury. The Alien Act was one which the country was familiar with for some years. For something like 30 years from 1793, it was renewed every year, and every Whig statesman of note, and every man con-

  79
  neoted with the Liberal Party, gave it a most determined opposition. Yet they now saw the Liberal Party coming in to-day to propose a re-enactment of the law at a time which was not to be compared, as far as danger to public safety was concerned, with 1848 or 1793. He knew perfectly well that the Government would succeed in carrying this clause, as they had succeeded in carrying the other clauses of the Bill. But the Irish Representatives felt that they were justified in making some kind of stand for the preservation of rights which were conferred upon the Irish people by Magna Charter.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, he was strongly opposed to the principle of the clause, and would support any Amendment that proposed to limit its operation. He was glad that his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) had called the attention of the Committee to the strenuous opposition the Bill met with in 1848 from every Leader of the Liberal Party. They were now considering the question whether they should limit the operation of the Bill to one year, and it was important, he thought, that he should bring under the notice of the Committee the emphatic and stirring words which were made use of in 1848 by the late Sir William Molesworth, and the well-considered opinions then expressed by the right hon. Gentleman who now filled the Office of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright). Mr. Milner Gibson was also one of the most strenuous opponents of the Bill in 1848, both on the second and third reading, and he divided—as far as he (Mr. P. Martin) could recollect without referring to the volumes of Hansard—against it in Committee, on the Amendments which were brought forward with the view of endeavouring to mitigate the rigour of the Bill. And, now, had they one single argument brought forward on the part of the Government which was not used when the Liberals opposed the Alien Act in 1848? It was said that they ought to trust to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in 1848, criticized that contention, with much vehemence, as a contemptible and a childish argument. He (Mr. P. Martin) would not occupy the time of the Committee by referring to the pages in which the opi-
  80
  nions of the Leaders of the Liberal Party might be found recorded. He thought it was quite enough that the House should have full knowledge of the opposition the Act met with from Liberals of note and eminence in 1848. Nevertheless, it was only proposed on that occasion to pass the Act for one year. At that time a provisional Government existed in France, and he believed that there was a rumour, which was well founded, that some 40,000 or 50,000 Frenchmen in London were prepared to enter upon the path of revolution. It was under such circumstances, with a panic of this description existing at the time, that the Act was passed, but not without strong and energetic protests from the Liberal Party. Would anyone suggest for a moment that such a state of things existed at present in Ireland as existed in 1848? They all knew that at that time there were American cruisers, the captains of which absolutely announced their intention of landing on the Irish Coast, and the American and Irish journals openly and boldly announced their intention of uprooting the Government by force of arms. And in 1848 it was under circumstances of this kind that the Act was only passed for a period of one year. Then what ground was there for passing it now during the entire continuance of the present Act? He thought it was an unnecessary and arbitrary course on the part of the Government. They knew that the Alien Act was particularly abhorrent to the Irish mind, because Irishmen could not remove from their recollection the fact that under the old Alien Act of 1793 the first person upon whom the measure operated was a defenceless woman, the widow of Lord Edward Fitzgerald. Although the Government of 1793 made great pretensions that the Act would not be put into force so as to inflict hardship upon anybody, that lady was the first person deported from Ireland. He asked why the Government should insist on introducing a clause of this kind, that could only create irritation and ill-feeling in Ireland? The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department complained of the way in which the Bill had been procrastinated in its consideration by the Irish Members. But who were the persons who had in reality obstructed

  81
  the passing of the measure? It was Her Majesty's Government themselves by introducing clauses of an unnecessary kind, and refusing to listen to any proposals for mitigating their severity. What benefit was produced by passing the Act of 1848? There were Returns furnished after the passing of that Act to show the number of aliens who had been deported under the provisions of such an extremely stringent measure. It was a very valuable Return indeed, and was made to the House of Commons in the year 1850, on the Motion of Lord Dudley Stuart. It showed the number of aliens deported from England and Ireland under the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 20; and how many were there? None. Mr. Redington, the permanent Secretary, answered the Return by reporting that the number of persons deported under the Statute, in order to pass which all Constitutional liberty had been ignored, was exactly—nil. He (Mr. P. Martin) therefore thought that he was justified in protesting against the clause as altogether unnecessary. The Act of 1848 having proved so inoperative, what reason was there for thinking that the present clause would have a different result?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the observations of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the County of Kilkenny (Mr. P. Martin), both on account of the arguments they contained and the facts they had brought under the notice of the Committee, deserved the respectful attention of the Government. He thought the right hon. Gentlemen the Chief Secretary would not venture, after perusing the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, at some future time to make the remark he was constantly in the habit of making, that the clause was a well - tried and well - proved weapon. He should like the right hon. Gentleman to apply that phrase to the present clause, seeing that, after it had been in operation for two years—in 1848 and 1849—the permanent officials in Ireland testified that nobody had been deported under it. If, therefore, it were said to be a well-tried and well-proved weapon, that would be the way of proving it to have been inoperative and useless. References had been made to the opinions of the Whig statesmen of the last generation. He believed that they did not object to coercion in general;
  82
  but the Whig statesmen of the last generation, and, perhaps, of two generations since, opposed the Alien Act on account of its interference with public liberty. He regretted that Liberals of the present day were pursuing an entirely different course. On a measure which struck a serious blow at public liberty and at the liberty of the individual, a Liberal Government even declined to reconsider their proposals, although it was abundantly proved that they were unnecessary, and that they had been inoperative when carried out on other occasions. In 1848, Parliament, not forgetful of its old traditions, only passed an Alien Act for a period of one year, although, as had been pointed out by his hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy), in 1848 Ireland was in a state of open insurrection, and a fierce and desperate armed revolution in Ireland was momentarily apprehended. It was because a revolutionary wave had passed over Europe that Ireland was considered dangerous, and it was thought that no alien from any country whatever should be allowed the right of residence there. What comparison was there between the present state of Ireland and its condition in 1848? Of course, he admitted that a very fierce conflict was being waged in Ireland between those who owned the soil and those who tilled it; but the utmost the Government could allege was that it was a social movement that was taking place in Ireland, and that there had been a popular combination. That was all the Government could allege, and he challenged them to show what parity there was between such a state of things and the state of things which existed in Ireland in 1848, when the Alien Act was last passed. He thought they ought to give some better reason for the introduction of this clause than that which had been given by the Home Secretary yesterday. In 1848 the Act was limited to one year; but in 1848 it was said the House of Commons was in the habit of behaving more reasonably than it did now, and that it did not take an entire Session to pass an Act of Parliament. That was a very good epigram on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, but it was altogether destitute of truth. He (Mr. Sexton) was not aware that, as a matter of fact, it did take an entire Session to

  83
  pass an Act of Parliament. In regard to this very measure, the Committee had only been engaged in discussing it for three weeks, notwithstanding the fact that it was a Bill which destroyed the entire liberties of a whole people. He invited the Home Secretary, therefore, to reconsider his statement, and to make it perfectly plain how it was that it took an entire Session to pass a single Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Sexton) was of opinion that there were very important reasons which should induce the Committee to pass this Amendment. What were the powers of the Alien Act? It was not all clear what an Alien Act was, and it might affect persons who were the children of Irish emigrants in America and who were not aliens at all. It would require a very strict legal inquiry in order to find out whether a man was an alien or not. In the case of Michael Boyton, now in Kilmainham Gaol, it was necessary to enter into a strict legal inquiry before the Government could satisfy themselves whether he was an alien or not. The Lord Lieutenant might make an order for the removal of an alien, and if the man did not obey it he might be imprisoned for a month under this Bill, or be placed in the hands of a Queen's Messenger and forced to leave the Realm. Now, this was so extreme a power that he was satisfied it would create great heart-burning between this and other countries, and it was only reasonable that such a power should be limited in its operation to one year. Considering that the foreign relations of the country in regard to Egypt might lead to a European War, it was surely not desirable, in view of the incapacity of this country to face any European Power in war, that the Government should complicate the state of affairs by provoking hostile relations with the United States. In 1848 the Irish element was not very powerful in the United States. Since that time 3,000,000 of Irishmen had been driven there, and now the Irish vote was too strong to be disregarded either by Republicans or Democrats. By passing this clause for a period of three years they would allow it to be in operation at the time of the next Presidential Election, and the question of the removal of aliens would be certain to come up at that Election. The Irish, vote was capable of turning the next Presidential Election, and it was
  84
  for the Home Secretary to consider whether he would or would not, by insisting on this clause being passed for three years, embitter the feelings of exasperation which the Irish in America entertained towards this country.
  MR. GOSCHENsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down said that hitherto the Committee had been only three weeks considering this Bill. He would remind the hon. Member that although they had been only three weeks upon the Bill, the Notice Paper showed as large a number of Amendments as those they had been able to go through during the whole time they had already been at work; so that they might presage from the Amendments that it would require a period of the same length to dispose of them. Unless Members, therefore, took a different course from that they had hitherto taken, much time would still be absorbed before the Bill passed into law. Then, again, he might point out that the three weeks spent upon the Bill had not been ordinary Government weeks; but they had been gained by sacrificing the rights of private Members, by occupying Tuesdays and Fridays, by occupying both morning and evening, by taking the whole of Wednesday, and by continuous labours which interfered seriously with legislation on every other subject. He, therefore, ventured to submit to the Committee that they must not merely consider the number of weeks they had been engaged upon the Bill, but that they must also very seriously consider whether in other Sessions they wished all other subjects to be excluded from consideration as they had been this Session by questions connected exclusively with Ireland. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had that day, as he had done before, drawn a comparison between the state of things in 1848 and the state of things existing now, and the hon. Member had pointed out that at that time they had to deal with a political revolution, while now they had only to deal with a social revolution. If he understood the hon. Member rightly, his contention was that in 1848 the situation was infinitely more serious than it was now. But there was one great contrast between the two movements. In 1848, no secret associations, no plans for operating with dynamite, none of those crimes which threatened us now in

  85
  secret had been developed, or, at least, developed to the same extent. If the movement in 1848 was a political movement, it was in many respects a movement more easy to deal with than the present one, which certainly was not merely social, but was also political. If the hon. Member maintained that the movement he was connected with was only social, there was another movement with which, he hoped, only a small minority of Irishmen were connected, and that was a political movement. Those assassinations which had been regarded with so much sorrow in Ireland were the result of a political and not of a social movement. Hon. Members would not dare to say that those assassinations were connected with a social movement. If they were so connected, with what movement were they connected? They were connected with a political movement, operating possibly through Irish-Americans or through aliens, but he hoped not through Irishmen themselves. Then, let them see whether they could not strike at these aliens through a clause like that which had been introduced by Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member had dwelt on the danger which existed in 1848, and contrasted it with the danger which existed now. He (Mr. Goschen) believed the opinion of the majority of the people of this country was that we had now to deal with even a more serious state of things than that which existed in 1848, precisely because the movement was working through aliens and in the dark by heinous plots and base organizations, which might or might not be in combination with other organizations in other parts of the country. He wished he could accept the opinion of the hon. Member that this was simply a social movement, and that there was no political danger in it. But it would be idle on the part of the Government and the Committee to conceal the political danger, and they would be blind not to take all the measures they could to strike at the organizations against which the Bill was chiefly directed—organizations which he hoped for the credit of Ireland, as well as for the credit of Great Britain, were mainly conducted by aliens. If they could reach these aliens through this clause, they would do much to relieve themselves and Ireland of a great danger which
  86
  Irishmen themselves, he was sure, deplored as much as Englishmen.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, for the second or third time, had complained of the waste of time which the Irish Representatives had occupied over this Bill. While the right hon. Gentleman was speaking, he (Mr. R. Power) took up the Paper now in his hands, and in the first page of it he saw there were eight Amendments, and out of these five had been put down by English Members. The English Members had taken up a very considerable portion of the time of the House up to the present moment, and on two or three occasions they had consumed by far the largest part of it. The right hon. Gentleman appeared to think that the state of Ireland to-day was considerably worse and of a graver and more dangerous character than it was in 1848; but he did not think the right hon. Gentleman could have very closely studied the history of Ireland or the character of the very powerful revolutionary movement which existed in that country at that time. To show the difference between the state of things then and now, he would read for the information of the right hon. Gentleman accounts of some of the proceedings in some of the Clubs of that time, and some of the resolutions which they had passed. He found that in Tipperary there was a meeting of five Confederate Clubs at Carrick-on-Suir, numbering 600 members in all. No persons, unless they were members, were admitted to the meeting, the object being to ascertain their strength in the event of an insurrection. At that meeting a resolution of the most revolutionary kind was passed, and the right hon. Gentleman could not, among all the speeches which had been made on Irish platforms during the last two or three years, and among all the resolutions passed at meetings in Ireland, point to a single speech or a single resolution as strong and as dangerous as the speeches that were made and the resolutions which were passed at that meeting. In another important county of Ireland the Irish Clubs met at Trim. Fifty persons were present. The usual speeches were made, and one member said he would endeavour to put down the Government unless they put him down, and if he were transported, there was others to put them down after he

  87
  had left. At Wexford there was a meeting on the 7th of July, at which very violent resolutions were passed, and Messrs. Dillon and Duffy urged the people to provide arms, and said they expected to see the police in the van of the Irish National Guards. At the same place a specimen of "a cheap pike for poor people" was produced, and modes of attack were suggested. In Cork it was reported that about 15 Confederate Clubs had been formed, and it was probable about 2,000 names would be enrolled in them; and he found the Lord Lieutenant writing at that time to the Government to say that he had nothing satisfactory to send, and that the accounts from the country were as bad as they could be. Surely the right hon. Gentleman, in the face of these resolutions and proceedings, would not say that the state of Ireland was more serious or more dangerous to England than it was in 1848. He had often heard quotations made from the speeches of his hon. Friends in Ireland, but none of them could be compared for an instant with the resolutions and proceedings which he had quoted. In fact, the strongest speech quoted in that House by the Home Secretary was the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), in which his hon. Friend had said something about a Unicorn. He (Mr. R. Power) contended that the present movement was entirely a social one. Ireland was by no means in the fierce and dangerous state that it was in 1848. He could not understand, therefore, why the Government of 1848 should have been content to pass this Alien Act for one year, and yet that it should be considered that three years were required now. The right hon. Gentleman said that it took a shorter time in 1848 to pass a Coercion Bill through the House of Commons than it did now. He (Mr. R. Power) was very glad that was the case, and he would explain to the right hon. Gentleman why it took a longer time to pass a Coercion Bill in these days than it did formerly. In former days the people were not represented in that House. Irish Conservative opinion was represented, and Irish Whig opinion was represented, but Irish popular opinion was not represented at all. He was glad that that state of things no longer existed, and trusted that his hon. Friends would use every power they possessed
  88
  within the Forms of the House to prevent the clause standing part of the Bill.
  DR. COMMINSthought he was entitled to say that amongst all the objectionable proposals made in the Bill there was none for which so little case had been made out as the proposal to renew the Alien Act, nor did he think there was one which would be more inoperative when the Bill passed into law. To begin with, what case was made out for the clause by referring to the Alien Act of 1848? The two situations were entirely different. At that time, and in the year 1793, there was no difficulty in recognizing as aliens the Emissaries of the French Republic who were trying to stir up rebellion in England. Their tongue, their dress, and associations, alike betrayed them, and the Government of the day had no difficulty in getting at them. Again, there was then something like open rebellion in Ireland. There were Confederate Clubs, numbering, as was supposed, 3,000 or 4,000, spread over Ireland, and their only need was that someone should come to drill them. The Mexican War had just terminated, and there was a number of Yankees who had learned a little of war in Mexico, some of whom did come over to Ireland and undertook to drill these Confederate Clubs. Therefore, at that time, there was not only a more pressing necessity for a measure of this sort, but there was no difficulty in ascertaining the men against whom it was to be carried out. But here the case was entirely different. He asked what statistics had been given to the House to justify the re-enactment of the Alien Act. They had not been told how many aliens there were in Ireland. Could the Government give the slightest information as to whether there were more than 100 aliens there? There was not a single piece of evidence before the Committee that there were any aliens of a dangerous character in Ireland at all. They had two questions to consider. Were there aliens in Ireland, and were they dangerous to the State? No doubt, there had been six or seven men of this class, who, on Land League platforms, propounded some peculiar social and economic theories; but these had all been looked up, and he failed to find evidence that there were any more of them. But supposing there were some of these Americans still in the country, how were these aliens to be identified? He had

  89
  shown, with regard to the aliens of 1790 and 1848, that there was nothing in the world easier than to identify them. But the alien who took part in an illegal society now, how was he to be identified? His dress would not betray him, nor would his speech do so, because he might be a man like Michael Boyton, of Irish birth, although an alien in law.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he must point out that the hon. and learned Member was discussing the principle of the clause and not the Amendment, which proposed to limit the re-enactment of the Alien Act to one year.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask a question on a point of Order. The Amendment proposed to limit the application of the Alien Act to one year instead of the period of three years. He asked whether that did not involve the whole question as to the Alien Act? He was unable to see how they could discuss the proposal with regard to one year without entering upon the question of the Alien Act as a whole.
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Dr. Commins to proceed.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he was urging upon the Committee that the Act of 1848 was of such a kind that the shorter the time for which it was re-enacted the better. He would, however, conclude that argument as briefly as possible. There were difficulties in the way of the operation of the Alien Act which never existed before. That had been proved. And it would be almost impossible to put the Act in force without running the risk of complications and embarrassments between this country and America too shocking to contemplate. He repeated that the provisions of the Act were so difficult of execution, and so dangerous in themselves, that the shorter the time the better for which it was to be re-enacted. He could not admit that there was any necessity for the Act at all; but, on the supposition that it would be useful for the purpose of clearing dangerous foreigners out of the country, it would do that as completely in one year as it would in three, and, therefore, the longer period was, in his opinion, unnecessary. His view of the matter was, that the moment these dangerous foreigners—if any such existed—found that the eye of the police was upon them, they would clear out of the country without waiting to receive
  90
  any notice; and further, that they were not likely to come back again. That being so, it would be quite unnecessary to continue this Act unless it was intended to make it a prohibition against foreigners entering the country by making it dangerous for them to do so. There had been a most unfair argument adduced in support of this clause. References had been frequently made to events recently occurring in Ireland—to assassinations, the authors of which, together with their motives, were unknown. It was assumed, without an atom of evidence, that these acts were committed by Irishmen, and the assumption was pressed into the argument, by hook or by crook, by Her Majesty's Government, and almost every hon. Member who supported this Bill. It was used by the Government to show that they had information that they did not wish to disclose, and it was put forward by hon. Members, as it had been by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who, in speaking of the recent mysterious murder, said, in effect, to Irish Members on that side of the House—"Oh, you know all about it; and you know against whom this provision is directed, although it does not suit your purpose to admit it!" Now, he protested against this unfair and unmanly style of argument. If the right hon. Gentleman had any evidence to show that any hon. Member on those Benches had any cognizance of these murders, and was favourable to those unhappy occurrences, let him, like a man, say so; but he condemned this practice on the part of hon. Members, of insinuating what they were afraid to state openly, and, so to speak, sapping the reputations of others. He should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wexford, on the ground that even if the re-enactment of the Alien Act were necessary, it would probably do all that was required to be done in a week, certainly in a year; and it was therefore unnecessary to keep it in force for a longer period.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he repudiated the charge brought against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), that he had attempted to insinuate more than he said. He was certain that the right hon. Gentleman would always state boldly what he had to say without having recourse to insinua-

  91
  tion. It was most unfair to put forward such, a charge in the absence of his right hon. Friend. With regard to the Amendment before the Committee, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down had answered his own arguments. The hon. and learned Member said it was unnecessary to re-enact the Alien Act for a period of three years, because the persons against whom it was directed would make their escape very soon after the Bill passed into law. Well, if that were so, it would not be put into operation, because there would be no aliens in Ireland to operate upon. For his own part, he regarded the clause as the most valuable in the Bill. It was valuable both for Ireland and England, and it would save the honest and loyal people of the former from the presence of those whom in their hearts they would be glad to get rid of. The clause would only operate against those foreigners who had no ostensible, or, at any rate, no honest way of getting a living, and, that being so, it would constitute a benefit rather than an injury to the persons concerned. It appeared to him that the clause would never really come into operation, because the persons it was intended to operate upon were not sufficiently brave to meet it, and, therefore, it would seem that there was no necessity for continuing the discussion as to whether it should remain in force for one or three years. If, however, the Alien Act required to be re-enacted in the present exceptional circumstances, he thought it should continue to run for the same length of time as the Bill of which that re-enactment was to form a part; nevertheless, he hoped, for the sake of Ireland, that all action under the Act in question would lapse before the Bill expired, and that, he felt sure, was also the desire of Her Majesty's Government.
  MR. WARTONsaid, it was only fair to Her Majesty's Government, who had come forward with a scheme for the repression of crime in Ireland, that their scheme should be looked at as a whole. Her Majesty's Government having declared on their responsibility that a certain provision was absolutely necessary for the repression or diminution of crime in Ireland, it was incumbent upon hon. Members to accept that declaration. It was absurd to say that the Government
  92
  were to be trusted with all the exceptional powers of this measure but one for a period of three years, but that in the matter of that one they were only to be trusted for one year. He repeated that it was only fair towards the Government that their complete scheme should be carried out. Now, with regard to the position taken up by hon. Members on that side below the Gangway, it seemed to him—having no inclination to judge Ireland more harshly than it ought to be judged—that, as an act of charity, one ought to assume that the crime committed in Ireland was the work of aliens. And that being his view, he could not understand why hon. Members below the Gangway were so anxious to espouse the cause of aliens. That they should do so seemed a mistake, because it might be supposed to be their interest to show that the crimes committed were committed by aliens. He knew that the horrible murders done in the Phœnix Park were repudiated by Irish Members on behalf of their fellow-countrymen, and that alone should be a reason for making them as careful as possible to throw the odium of them upon aliens. Why they did not do so he was at a loss to see. But again, from their own point of view, if the re-enactment of the Alien Act was to be for one year only, it would result, when that period expired, that in the event of trouble continuing in Ireland, districts which would otherwise not be proclaimed would have to be proclaimed, in order to bring suspicious strangers under the 9th section of the Act. He put it to hon. Members to consider what the effect of that would be. He agreed in the view expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), that some of these aliens would run away when the Act was passed. On the other hand, he had a strong opinion of his own that when the limited period of one year had expired they would come back again. He did not like the idea of the Irish people being punished by this Act while aliens went free, and, therefore, recommended his hon. Friends not to persist in their opposition to the clause.
  MR. METGEsaid, hon. Members on those Benches had been accused from every part of the House of repetition in their arguments. It was not often that he occupied the time of the House; but

  93
  he was compelled, even at the cost of repeating some of the arguments already used, to reply to English Members who had just spoken. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had risen a short time since, and, with all the authority and weight which attached to him as a leading Member of the Liberal Party, had argued at length that they were not in the face of a social but a political revolution in Ireland, and that this Act was to be extended, and its operation looked forward to with the hope of success in putting down that political revolution. He contended that, before the right hon. Gentleman got up to make that statement, and cause it to be transmitted throughout the length and breadth of the land, he should, at least, have furnished himself with some facts wherewith to support it. That argument had again and again been put forward by the occupants of the Treasury Bench, without a shadow of proof. Under such circumstances as these, he thought the charge that Irish Members repeated their arguments unnecessarily was somewhat inconsistent. He said, if the Government proved that there was a political revolution in Ireland, he would vote for the Bill at once. Again, the Chief Secretary had said that the persons whom it was wished to exclude were centres of political agitation. But, if that were so, why could the right hon. Gentleman not put his hand upon them at once? The hon. and learned Member for Roscommon had pointed out that there was now no means, as there had been formerly, of recognizing the persons whom it was said this clause was directed against. Did the Government mean to say that they intended to use the clause against a man because he was an alien apart from any suspicious circumstances that might surround him? His hon. and learned Friend had said that the clause would have the effect of preventing foreigners visiting the Dublin National Exhibition; but, in reply to that argument, the Government had stated that it was not to be supposed that the Act would be put in force in any tyrannical manner—that it would be used only against those aliens who were regarded with suspicion. But, if that were the intention of the Government, he asked why they could not avail themselves of the full powers which they already pos-
  94
  sessed of proceeding against aliens suspected of treasonable intent? Then the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Heneage) repeated the old and fallacious argument that a bad law might be justified by its being executed in a mild and considerate manner; and, further, that it might be also justified if it could be proved that it would only be used to a certain extent—that the whole of the power given to the Government would never be required. Those arguments had been repudiated over and over again by hon. Members on those Benches; nevertheless, they were as constantly repeated by the Members of the Liberal Party. Again, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had just told the Committee that they were to depend on the Government in this matter, and take this legislation as a whole. But, if that were so, why did the House go into Committee at all? They were in Committee for the purpose of improving the Bill, and trying to limit the powers demanded by the Government, as far as they considered it proper that those powers should be limited; and there could be no stronger proof that this was necessary than the argument adduced by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. R. Power), who pointed out that eight of the 12 Amendments to this clause, which appeared on the Notice Paper, were in the names of English Members. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) had, as usual, blamed Irish Members for the length to which the discussion on this Amendment had been extended; but he thought he was justified in answering that oft-repeated statement by the hackneyed argument that this Bill contained within itself at least five or six separate Acts, any one of which, if brought forward by a Conservative Ministry, would have been opposed tooth-and-nail by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. There was not one of those Acts which had not been opposed at different periods of our history by the Liberal Party to the fullest limit which the Rules of the House permitted. They had before them in one Bill a most drastic measure of coercion—an Insurrection Act—full powers to suppress public meetings in Ireland for whatsoever purpose they might be held; then they had the establishment of a practically absolute censorship of the Press; and

  95
  now they were asked to re-enact the Alien Act of 1848. Why, if they were to carry on the discussion to the end of the Session, he thought they ought not to be blamed. Irish Members were justified in using every means in their power to secure ample consideration of a Bill which, as he had already shown, contained within itself the substance of five or six Acts of Parliament.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had stated that after the passing of the Alien Act of 1848 no one was deported. Allowing that statement to be correct, it must be borne in mind that the object of this clause and the Act of 1848 were very different, and especially so in the minds of the public men who proposed them. The Alien Act of 1848 was passed under the influence of political apprehension and political feeling. No one who remembered Punch, and the other comic papers of the time, could doubt what that feeling was. The belief was that there were 50,000 French Democrats in London who might attempt to overthrow the Constitution and upset the Monarchy. In the course of the speeches which had been made in condemnation of the re-enactment of the Act of 1848, the Government were asked why they wanted to expose Englishmen to the machinations of these people? But it was not for political reasons that the present Government proposed that the Alien Act should be re-enacted. They believed that the crime committed in Ireland was hatched abroad; that those who brought the funds which subsidized the most serious crimes were aliens; and that those who had actually perpetrated, and intended to perpetrate, crimes of the blackest dye were aliens. He held in his hand a copy of The United Irishman, a paper which he had carefully avoided quoting when the clause relating to the Press was under consideration, because it would have been unfair by such means to raise the feeling of the House against papers published in Ireland. But the case was entirely different when it was a question of keeping out of Ireland people who really believed in The United Irishman. The issue of that paper which came to this country yesterday, contained absolutely the most atrocious piece of writing that he could conceive as coming from the human brain. It was stated in verse that the people who committed the
  96
  dreadful murders in Phœnix Park were Americans, and then, turning from poetry to prose, the editor said deliberately that if the English would not quit Ireland peaceably, every one of them should meet the fate of Cavendish and Burke. That was the sort of hideous balderdash which was actually published and read by the small knot of people who, on a distant shore, concocted the crimes committed in Ireland. He did not say that The United Irishman had got a public in Ireland. He believed and hoped it was not so. But it certainly had a public in America, and part of that public came over here for the purpose of carrying the sentiments which it proclaimed into execution. Her Majesty's Government, then, were persuaded that this clause was necessary, and that, being necessary, there was no reason for abridging the period of its operation. It seemed to him preposterous that the duration of the clause for the deportation of foreigners should be abridged, while the rest of the Bill, which affected the liberties of our fellow-citizens, was to remain in force for two years longer. The hon. and learned Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), who argued at some length against the clause, had said that all the good which could be got out of it could be obtained in 12 months—he believed the hon. and learned Gentleman said it might be in a month or a week—because as soon as the Bill passed into law with this clause in it, the people against whom it was directed would clear out of the country. That might be perfectly true; but what guarantee was there that they would not come back as soon as the clause expired? Again, if there was one part of the Bill which ought to be continued for the full period asked by the Government it was this clause, because they earnestly hoped that, the Act being wisely and justly administered, by the end of a certain time there might be a change for the better in the feeling of the class amongst whom agrarian crime was rife. But there was no means whatever of influencing the handful of scoundrels who subsidized and planned these horrible crimes; and, therefore, the best way of dealing with them was to keep them out of the country.
  MR. DILLONasked if the right hon. Gentleman knew whether O'Donovan Rossa was an alien or not?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, at that moment he could not pretend to say if he were an alien or not. He believed he was not an alien by birth. The Government knew that a certain number of the most dangerous characters in and about Ireland were aliens.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 33: Majority 39.—(Div. List, No. 169.)
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he rose to move an Amendment in page 6, line 38, to leave out from the word "Act" to the end of the clause.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he was obliged to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Gill) for procuring him an audience, although he was afraid the hon. Member had not done it with the object of facilitating his (Mr. Morgan Lloyd's) moving his Amendment. The action of the hon. Member was, no doubt, a part of that system of opposition and obstruction which had notoriously prevailed on the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway during all their proceedings on this Bill.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Member was entitled to say that a system of Obstruction had prevailed amongst the Members on the Opposition side of the House below the Gangway.
  MR. GILLsaid, he would ask the Chairman to request the hon. and learned Member to withdraw the statement he had made. He (Mr. Gill) had not drawn attention to the fact that there were not 40 Members present for the purpose of Obstruction; but, seeing that this was a very important Amendment, and that there was a very thin attendance of hon. Members, he thought it right to move that the Committee should be counted, in order that the hon. and learned Member might obtain a proper audience. As a proof that he had not acted in this matter with any intention of obstructing the progress of the Bill, he might say he had not left his place after moving the count, as was generally done when hon. Members wished to delay the progress of a Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. and learned Member imputed Obstruction to the hon. Gentleman who has just risen, it is wrong, and he should withdraw the imputation.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he desired to withdraw any expression that, in the opinion of the Chairman, was one that he ought not to have made use of. He would accept the assurance of the hon. Member, and would repeat what he had said to his credit—namely, that he had moved that the Committee should be counted, in order to increase the audience to listen to the very short speech which he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had to make in moving this Amendment. There were two Amendments standing in his name—the first being in line 37, after the word "effect," to insert "throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland." This Amendment he did not propose to move, as he thought it altogether unnecessary; but what he did propose to move was in line 38, after the word "Act," to leave out to the end of the clause. The object of the Amendment was to provide that the Alien Act should be revived in its entirety, without any limitation to Ireland—that the Act should come into operation over the whole of the United Kingdom. From the discussion that had already taken place on this clause, it appeared that strong objection was made by some hon. Members, particularly by hon. Members on the other side of the House below the Gangway, to the renewal of this Alien Act at all. The hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) yesterday, whilst objecting to the revival of the Act, suggested that it would only be fair, if the Act was renewed at all, that it should be renewed with regard to England and Scotland as well as Ireland. Well, for once, he (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) was entirely agreed in opinion with the hon. Member for Wexford. In this instance he was agreed that the law applicable to England should be the same as that applied to Ireland, and he maintained that opinion for reasons which he should give immediately. But before he gave those reasons, perhaps the Committee would allow him shortly to explain the provisions of the Act. The Alien Acts, from time to time, passed by the Parliament of this country, were really Acts that were passed more for

  99
  the purpose of limiting the prerogative of the Crown than extending the power of sending aliens out of the country; because, in his opinion, there was no doubt that the Sovereign of the country had at all time power, by the Common Law, and by virtue of his Prerogative, to order aliens out of the Realm. That, he believed, was the old Common Law of this country. No doubt there had been a great and very proper disposition on the part of the people of this country to admit aliens to trade with us, and to live amongst us as freely as possible; and, for this reason, no Sovereign in modern times had exercised the Prerogative without the special sanction of Parliament. When Parliament had, from time to time, interfered it had passed Acts authorizing what the Sovereign had already the right to do, with certain limitations. Referring to the Alien Act of 1848, which was the only Alien Act they had to deal with at present, that Act, they would find, contained provisions which were most reasonable with regard to aliens as well as to the people of this country. It provided that the Secretary of State might, under certain circumstances, in England, and the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, order an alien out of the country. But what were the conditions? They were, first, that an information should be laid. The person who gave the information had to sign that information and give his address; and on that information the Secretary of State in this country, and the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland, had to form his own opinion, and come to a conclusion as to whether the continuance of the residence of the particular alien who had been allowed to come to England or Ireland would be dangerous to the public tranquillity of a particular district. He must come to this conclusion, and, if he did not, he had no right, under the Alien Act of 1848, to issue his warrant in the matter. There was another condition, that the Act should not apply to any alien who had been resident in the United Kingdom for three years. That was another limitation of the ancient Common Law and the Prerogative. There were still further limitations—for instance, under certain circumstances, the alien, if he had reason to complain, or thought he was aggrieved, might apply to the Privy Council for redress. Under cer-
  100
  tain circumstances, the alien might, and, in fact, in all circumstances where the Secretary of State or the authorities had gone so far as to order an alien out of the country, the alien had a right to appeal to the Judges of the land. He (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) asked whether those provisions were not fair, and whether any alien or any Foreign Government would have any reason to complain against the law of this country if that Act had been a permanent Act? It seemed to him that, even if it were a permanent Act, it would not go beyond the law existing at the present moment in almost every Continental country. Well, it was proposed to extend that law to Ireland. Why, he would ask, should it not be also extended to England and Scotland? Wherever there was no reason to the contrary, the laws of the three countries should be similar—there ought to be no difference whatever between the law of England and the law of Ireland, except when it was absolutely necessary. He based his Amendment, first of all, upon that consideration. He saw no reason to think that there was any essential difference between the necessity for this Act in the one country and the necessity for it in the other. What was the object of reviving the Alien Act at all? There had been conspiracies on the other side of the Atlantic, conspiracies to commit crime in this country and in Ireland, and, for aught he knew to the contrary, to commit crime in Scotland. And attempts were believed to have been made by aliens in all the Three Kingdoms to commit outrage and crime. There were associations of men living on the other side of the Atlantic—men who were not fit to be named as members of the human family—who were concocting the worst crimes imaginable to be carried out by the worst and most dreadful means at the disposal of man, regardless of the innocent persons that might suffer through explosions and other outrages. Such men, he contended, were worse than pirates. Pirates had been called the enemies of the human race, but these men were worse than pirates; and, if it were possible for the human race to show that these people were not members of it, it would be a good thing, for they were a disgrace to humanity. These were the men who sent emissaries to this country, using

  101
  the inventions of modern science, using the various explosives that had only been recently invented against everybody who might stand in their way. These people expressed themselves at public meetings on the other side of the Atlantic as determined to get rid of the English Government from Ireland by every means in their power. They declared themselves the enemies of the English Government and the enemies of the English people. They expressed their intention to strike a blow against the English Government wherever they could. They threatened to burn London; they threatened to destroy the shipping of Liverpool, and they had used other threats of a similar description. And why these threats had not been carried out, or attempted to be carried out, was because those who made them had been unable to fulfil them. He asked, with those associations on the other side of the Atlantic in communication probably with some of the fraternity in Ireland and in London, and, he had no doubt, in other large towns—with all those communications going on, and all those threats—was it reasonable for the Government to give an opportunity to those foreign emissaries to come here and carry out their designs so far as they possibly could? It was the duty of the Government to protect the Queen's subjects against such attempts, and to assume the power necessary to enable them to do so; so that if they thought there was an emissary coming from New York to commit outrages here or in Ireland, they might be able to meet him on his way coming in, and send him back to the place from whence he came. The power had not been abused when in operation before, and he did not think it would be abused now. It would be less likely to be abused in England than in Ireland; but he did not think there was the slightest possibility of its being abused in either country. He should think the clause would be more perfect if extended to the whole of the United Kingdom. He believed that the effect of reviving the Alien Act, and limiting it to Ireland, would be more injurious to England and Scotland than if it had never been revived at all, because the result would be that foreigners coming over for the purpose of committing offences would know that they would have no chance of landing in Ireland.
  102
  They would know that they would be sent back immediately, and would, therefore, land in England and carry out in this country the very purposes they would otherwise have carried out in Ireland. It would lead to foreigners flocking into this country in order to effect their nefarious designs. If the Act were revived at all, in justice to the people of England, it ought to be revived so as to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom.
  Amendment proposed, in page 6, line 38, to leave out from the word "Act," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Morgan Lloyd.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had very little to add to the arguments which had been so well put before the Committee by the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just moved the Amendment. Without consulting with anybody else, he (Sir John Hay) had given Notice of an Amendment of a similar kind. He represented the Scotch constituency which lay nearest to Ireland. They were within 20 miles of Ireland, and if the Bill was passed without that Amendment, they would become an Alsatia—they would be the place where all the aliens who had designs upon Ireland, and who were expelled from that country, would take refuge, with a view of returning to it when they could to perpetrate their evil designs—to carry out the object for which they had crossed the Atlantic. He, for one, would be perfectly satisfied with giving the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt) power, through the Lord Advocate or the Procurators Fiscal, to make the necessary arrangements under this Act; but it must be borne in mind that serious delays would occur through the necessity for communication on the subject of those aliens between the Irish Government and the authorities of the Home Office. He (Sir John Hay) respected the right of asylum, and the hospitality offered by England to all foreigners; but when that right and that hospitality were used by all the miscreants of the earth, in the interest of the country and for the restriction of crime, it was desirable that those people should be expelled from the country under the Alien Act that

  103
  was now about to be revived. For these reasons he would urge most strongly upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary the adoption of the Amendment, believing, as he did, that Scotchmen of all opinions would agree with him that that portion of the clause which the hon. and learned Member had just moved to omit should be left out, and that the Alien Act should be extended to all three countries alike.
  MR. HENEAGEsaid, he supported the Amendment because he believed that if there was any excuse for re-enacting the Alien Act the re-enactment ought to be made, like a blockade in time of war, complete and effectual. He believed that if the re-enactment were confined to Ireland it would never be either complete or effectual. This Amendment, if it were adopted, would do more to relieve the Irish people—the loyal and poorer classes—from the effect of the other stringent clauses than all the Amendments moved to other parts of the Bill, because he believed the great cause of all the evils they suffered from were those aliens who were imported into the country. If these people were effectually got rid of, a great deal that Ireland was now suffering in consequence of their action would be removed. He thought it desirable that the clause should be extended throughout the United Kingdom for these reasons, and because it would not in any way affect the peaceable and well-disposed. It was said that foreign merchants and foreign traders would be driven away from the country by this clause; but that he did not believe. The well-disposed would remain, and would not be interfered with here or in Ireland, the people in both countries would be a great deal happier, and feel greatly relieved by those who lived on disorder being driven from their midst. He did not believe the clause would be effectual in the case of Ireland unless it were applied to the Three Kingdoms. As it now stood, it would only really affect mischievous desperadoes who had evaded warrants there, and would drive them all to England, where they would be free to commit their misdemeanours. If these people evaded warrants in Ireland they would come over to London, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow, and hide amongst the teeming thousands in these places, there to conspire treason and keep
  104
  Ireland, through their paid instruments, discontented and unquiet, besides disturbing the peace of England. He did not think it would be a kindness to the Irish people to ask them to endure this exceptional Act, and, at the same time, suffer the misery of having these idle and ill-disposed aliens—who subsisted on outrages, who promoted scares, and destroyed confidence—living close to them in another part of the United Kingdom. If we in England asked the Irish people to endure something for the benefit of their country we ourselves must not shrink from bearing any share of the inconvenience that might fall to our lot. He would put it on grounds which, though somewhat lower, still were fair and reasonable grounds. At the present moment it could not be denied that the extra duties the police were called upon to perform tended either to increase the numbers of the Force or to a large amount of extra pay being given to them. This was a question for the English taxpayer, and for those who were anxious to bring about a reform of the local burdens of the country. He believed that if these ill-disposed aliens, who, whilst themselves contributing nothing, increased, not only the Imperial, but local burdens of the country, were turned out of the United Kingdom, our local taxation would be beneficially affected. It would be a great relief to us, and he believed that the people would be received back with a very bad grace by America, or whatever country they belonged to. At a time when our Royal Family, our statesmen, and our public buildings had to be guarded, when it was notorious that sentries round the Government buildings, barracks, and military and naval depôts were doubled; when the police were put on extra duty, and the soldiery, in addition to double duty, were kept under arms in reserve; when Fenians were enlisting in our regiments, and large stores of arms were discovered having no ostensible owners, it was necessary that something should be done to reassure the public. It might be that we were under a scare; but whether or not that was the case, these things should not be tolerated if they could be put a stop to. He believed that a great deal of the present unsatisfactory condition of affairs could be terminated, and very easily, by extending the pro-

  105
  visions of this clause to England and Scotland. It was desirable for all parties that they should be so extended, and he trusted the Irish Members would agree with the Amendment before the Committee, as it was to the interest of the people of Ireland that they should do so. He believed that the English people were so anxious that peace and order should be restored in Ireland, and were so utterly ashamed of the present condition of affairs in that country, that they would readily submit to some inconvenience to bring about a more satisfactory state of things. All loyal and patriotic persons would gladly welcome the Amendment in the interests of their Queen and country, and for the preservation of law and order.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he did not share the views of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He did not approve of this Amendment. The hon. Member who had just spoken had said English Members were anxious to make the law of Ireland the same as the law of England. Then, why not apply the whole of that Bill to England? He would take the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay) at his word, and withdraw his opposition to this clause if the Committee would include England and Scotland in the whole Bill. An hon. Member had said that there seemed to be an element of fear that if the clause passed in its present shape all the aliens expelled from Ireland would take refuge in England and Scotland—that England and Scotland would become places of refuge for all the desperadoes at present in Ireland. Did not Government know that there was hardly a revolutionary society in the whole of Europe that had not its head-quarters in this City of London? Would the Government be prepared, when they had this Act in operation, on representations being made by the Governments of foreign countries that revolutionary agents were at work against them in London, to expel the foreign emissaries who were domiciled in England. Russia, Italy, Germany, and France would ask them to expel from this country persons who were troubling them with plots and schemes infinitely more dangerous and deadly than the schemes of Irish-Americans in London, and in other parts of the United Kingdom. He was astonished to hear a Member of the Liberal Party speak of
  106
  the Alien Act as though, in his opinion, it ought to be made part of the permanent law of the United Kingdom. He did not wish to insinuate anything against that hon. and learned Member (Mr. Morgan Lloyd); but if he had not been a Member of that House whose character was above suspicion, he should certainly have thought that he had been unduly indulging in a course of conviviality. The hon and learned Member seemed to be of opinion that England and Ireland were overrun by desperadoes, who were plotting every kind of horrible crime, and that we were all of us in danger, at any moment, of being blown up. The hon. and learned Member said that these foreign emissaries in this country made use of explosives which had only recently been invented. What explosives did he mean? He (Mr. Dillon) had not heard of any of these things. He had heard of proceedings in Ireland which he very much regretted, and which he very much condemned. But when the hon. and learned Member spoke of explosives having been used which had only recently been invented in this country and in Ireland, his memory did not serve him as to what the hon. and learned Member meant. The hon. and learned Member had said that if the Alien Act were made part of the permanent law of the country, we should not in England be going further than the powers in force in every other country in Europe. Then, had England come to this, that she was willing to accept the laws in force in the Continental countries of Europe? If England were prepared to say that because the Continental Governments of Europe had acquired certain powers, therefore such powers should be conferred upon the English Executive, this country would have departed from the traditions of her past. But he could not help thinking that the hon. and learned. Gentleman was making a statement that any Englishman would, up to this, have been ashamed to make in that House, and that very few Englishmen would care, in the future, to endorse. What were the conditions under which the Home Secretary or the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to be entitled to expel an alien? They were, first of all, to have information laid by an individual who would give his name and address. But the hon. and learned Gen-

  107
  tleman forgot that that name and address was not to be made public. The letter or document giving information against an alien was, to all intents and purposes, to the man to be punished, an anonymous communication. How would the Lord Lieutenant be able to know, at the outset, the credibility of any person who chose to sign his name and give his address in giving information against an alien? Let them take an illustration of what would occur in Ireland under this clause. Take the letter which was sent by Lord Shaftesbury to Earl Cowper. Lord Shaftesbury stated that the late Mr. Burke had stated that Mr. Gladstone was responsible for all the crimes and outrages in Ireland. The late Lord Lieutenant (Earl Cowper), no doubt, would not credit that statement; but he said he knew the late Mr. Burke to have been a man of the highest respectability and honour. Supposing that person had written to Earl Cowper stating that a certain alien—whose whole means of living were connected with his residence in Ireland—was dangerous to the district in which he lived, would Earl Cowper have believed him? Unquestionably, and that unfortunate alien would, in all probability, have lost his means of living. There certainly must arise a very curious reflection in the mind of any English Member when he saw an hon. Member standing up behind the Treasury Bench of an Administration that called itself Liberal, and heard him speaking of the Alien Act in terms that he (Mr. Dillon) might almost describe as terms of affection—speaking of it as though he would have it the permanent law of England and Ireland. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) spoke of the Alien Act as merely a limitation in the Prerogative of the Crown. He spoke as though it were a Prerogative of the Crown which every Englishmen was ready to recognize to expel aliens. All he (Mr. Dillon) could say, if that were so, was that the Royal Prerogative had made a very considerable advance since the days of Fox. Speaking on a similar subject, Fox denied that it was the Prerogative of the Crown to expel an alien from the country; and, on the second reading of the Alien Act of 1848, some of the most honoured names of the Liberal Party had characterized that Act as almost identical with the hateful Law of Suspects passed in the Reign of
  108
  Terror. Sir William Molesworth had moved the rejection of that Act, and in the course of his speech had said that, as far as aliens were concerned, it would be a law analogous in principle to the famous Law of Suspected Persons of 1793, which for 33 years had been consistently and strenuously opposed by every man of eminence who belonged to the Whig or Liberal Party. Lord Lansdowne, Lord Grey, Mr. Fox, Lord Abercrombie, Lord Melbourne, Mr. Whitbread, Sir James Mackintosh, Mr. Baring, and a number of other men, including Lord Holland, all expressed their detestation of the measure, not in view of any particular clauses in it, but in regard to the whole principle of the power of expelling aliens under any circumstances and with any restrictions. In 1824, when the Alien Act was introduced for the last time, until it was introduced in 1848, Lord John Russell said he hoped that was the last time they should hear of such a Bill, convinced as he was that after the expiration of the Act they would look back upon it as a measure that ought never to have been passed. And Lord John Russell, it must be borne in mind, spoke at a time which, in the gravity of its dangers and its tremendous convulsions, was not to be for a moment compared with the condition of things at the present moment. ["Oh, oh!"] What he said was perfectly true. At the time at which Lord John Russell spoke, he was in face of the action of the Propagandists of the French Revolution, when the Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in England. Mr. Joseph Hume spoke against the Bill, and he found in the list of "Ayes" and "Noes" in the second reading of the measure—which no one would contend was less a necessity in 1848 than it was now—he found the names—not in the "Ayes," but in the "Noes"—of Mr. Richard Cobden and Mr. John Bright. The measure of 1848 was introduced at a time when there was open rebellion in Ireland, and when the revolutionary party was largely organizing abroad. How did it come, then, that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had so changed his opinion that he had now, when the times were much less dangerous than they were in 1848, fallen in love with the Alien Act? He (Mr. Dillon) was opposed to this clause for Ireland; and, for the same reasons, he

  109
  was equally opposed to it for England. English Members might suppose that Irish Members had as great a prejudice against Englishmen and English institutions as the English Members had against Ireland and its people. But that was not the case. He (Mr. Dillon) had a great admiration for England and English institutions. He had always believed that England was one of the first countries in the world; and he had no desire, although hon. Gentlemen representing English constituencies supported this Amendment, and expressed their willingness to forfeit their own freedom in order to punish Ireland, to be a party to that transaction. At the same time, he thought that nothing could be more preposterous and more absurd than to pass an Alien Act for Ireland whilst they left Ireland open. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members said "Hear, hear!" but his meaning was that there was but one way out of the difficulty, and that was, to revive the Alien Act for neither country. If they passed it at all, they would be in this difficulty—that they would have to free themselves from the assassins and members of revolutionary societies, who took refuge in this country from the Continental countries of Europe. For years past this country had afforded shelter to the scum of all nations, and England would find herself in an unpleasant situation if she attempted to alter her attitude in this respect. The best way out of the present difficulty was to abandon the clause altogether and leave Ireland and England free.
  MR. ARTHUR PEELsaid, that the hon. Member who had just sat down, and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), had on previous occasions asked the Committee to compare the state of things in Ireland at the present moment with the state of things in 1848, when the Alien Act was passed. The hon. Member himself had called attention to the fact that in Ireland in those days there was a political organization, and they were asked to compare the state of things then with the state of things now, when, according to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), there was only a social conflict between those who tilled and those who owned the soil. He (Mr. Peel), for one, like other Members, had watched that struggle, and
  110
  had come to the conclusion that, although the agrarian difficulty might originally have been the root of this matter, they had long passed out of the region of agrarian difficulties and had entered the region of political organization, which was dangerous to the interests of Ireland and of the Empire. He thought that those who were asked to compare these periods should not forget to take into account this great fact, that between 1848 and 1882 the whole aspect and condition of things had changed; that the powers of attack had increased, in a far greater proportion than the powers of defence; and that it was very easy for secret societies to organize their plots, and to take such steps as rendered it very difficult for the constituted authorities, unless they were armed with fresh powers, to meet them. This was not a time to talk of Constitutional rights. When they were fighting with these secret societies, as he believed they were fighting with them, they were practically fighting with one hand behind their backs. It would be an evil day for this Liberal Party or for any other Party in that House, if the Executive Government showed an incapacity or a weakness to deal with organizations which took root in foreign countries, and found their stimulus and aliment in the soil of Ireland. As he read the Amendment it amounted to this. As the clause at present stood, it provided that if an alien were required by the Lord Lieutenant to depart from Ireland, it was to be a condition precedent, before he should be called on to depart from Great Britain, that this order of the Lord Lieutenant should have been made. He could conceive nothing more stultifying than to say that the Home Secretary should not have the same power on this side of St. George's Channel as the Lord Lieutenant had on the other side. It would be idle not to displace the ruffians and miscreants who might come and organize their plots in this country—it would be idle to leave these people untouched in Great Britain after we had warned them off the soil of Ireland. He could imagine nothing more ridiculous than to allow O'Donovan Rossa, for instance, to remain located in one of our large towns, regulating all his secret plans and conspiracies after having departed from Ireland. [An hon. MEMBER: He is not an alien.] True, he was not an alien; but

  111
  he was talking not so much of a particular man as of the class of which he was a type, with his cowardly propensities and utter disregard of the lives and sufferings of innocent people. He must say that, while he thought it was necessary for the due security of the peace and tranquillity of the Realm—and he was quoting the Preamble of the Act of 1848, that these provisions should extend to England as well as to Ireland, and that the Home Secretary should be armed with the same powers of initiative as they proposed to give to the Lord Lieutenant in Ireland—he must say that there were some provisions of the Act of 1848 that he should like to see relaxed in the interest of the individual; and, probably, if the Home Secretary saw his way to accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), he might see his way to making some relaxation in the interests of individual liberty. He meant such a clause as this. In the Act of 1848 there was a clause which said that an individual was to be brought up before the magistrates, and, if he could not satisfy the magistrates as to his antecedents and belongings, he might be remanded from time to time and subjected to a month's imprisonment, or such longer period as the Judge—which term included Justice of the Peace—might award. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary might allow some limitation of the power of the Justice of the Peace to imprison at his discretion; but, with this exception, he thought it but a reasonable thing to say that on this side of St. George's Channel they should have the same power of dealing with and ferreting out all the ramifications of the secret conspiracy which they had on the other side. In this country, no doubt, the same arguments which were used in 1848 against the Alien Act would be repeated. He knew how difficult it was to argue on the side of repression, and how naturally all argument lent itself rather to the side of liberty, Constitutional usage, and freedom. That, he thought, must be admitted on all sides. The difficulty was to answer by argument objections to the course which everybody was convinced was necessary in the special circumstances of the case. Circumstances were not now what they were in 1848; and he must say that to talk of trampling on the rights and
  112
  liberties of the Irish people, and to speak of restricting their Constitutional freedom and liberty, as some hon. Members did, was an outrage upon ordinary language. When the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) asked them—"Why are you, and why is the Committee so generally in favour of this Alien Act; why do you look as though you loved it and cherished it, as though it were your friend?" He answered with the question—"Who have brought us to this?" They were not enamoured of these despotic proceedings. Yet, notwithstanding the authority of the 20 great names that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had read, they must be guided in their generation by the light of passing events, and they were not to be bound down by the dead form and absolute words of Constitutional liberty when they were, as he believed, face to face with a pressing danger, with a danger which threatened the peace and tranquillity of both Kingdoms. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) asked what was their reason for bringing in this Bill in 1882? Well, he could refer to no better authority in that House than the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself; for he took it that that right hon. Gentleman was the chief responsible officer of the Executive Government in Ireland. They had heard a great deal from the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) as to the state of things in which this severe Act had been introduced in the year 1882. But what were the words which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant used last night, and which he went out of his way to use? He said that those who were most responsible for the Executive Government in Ireland, those who were most behind the scenes—and the right hon. Gentleman used those very words—felt the most deep and serious anxiety in the state of things in Ireland, an anxiety that was growing in intensity every hour. In the face of a statement of this kind—a statement he was bound to accept—he could not hesitate to arm the Government with greater powers than they possessed, powers which he believed it was the right of every country to reserve to itself—namely, powers which would enable them to expel from their confines and frontiers everybody whom they be-

  113
  lieved to be animated, not with, mere hostility to the governing powers of the day, but animated with a desire to attain their ends by means which both God and man condemned.
  MR. A. ELLIOTsaid, he would ask the Committee to listen to only a very few words, in which he wished to ask the Government to resist the Amendment. In the eloquent speech they had just heard, the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) had concluded by referring to words used by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary had told them that only those behind the scenes knew what a dangerous state of things existed, and on that representation he came to the House and asked for exceptional measures. Had the Home Secretary, or any right hon. Gentleman on the part of England or Scotland risen in his place to state, on his responsibility, that the state of things was so serious in England or Scotland that they must have recourse to this most exceptional measure? He, at any rate, had heard nothing of this kind. He had heard rumours—they all had heard them—he had heard the right hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Sir John Hay) declare that he, as a Scotchman, and all other Scotchmen, would feel more safe for a protection of this kind. He (Mr. A. Elliot) would venture to say that throughout Scotland there was no fear whatever of the ordinary foreigner who lived in that country. The ordinary foreigner who lived in Scotland was subject to the ordinary law, was liable, if he broke it, to be taken up and tried by a jury, and was certain to be convicted if the evidence was against him. That law was surely ample in Scotland for all loyal law-abiding Scotchmen. He did not think it necessary to refer to the great Constitutional authorities quoted by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Dillon). The Committee had to look at the circumstances of the case. Again and again it bad been shown that the ordinary law in Ireland had broken down, that they could not obtain convictions or evidence, that the terrorism was such that the ordinary law was powerless. But had a similar state of things been shown to exist in England? Was it not notorious that the contrary had been the case? And, then, let them look at another point in the matter. They had reason
  114
  to believe that in Ireland there was a large scheme in contemplation by a certain set of foreigners—Irish-Americans—but in England was any such thing known to be the case? They had heard rumours about intended outrages, about attacks upon barracks and on docks; but how were they to know they were not in danger in these matters as much from French and German subjects as from any other? It would not be difficult, if it were made worth, his while, to get even a British subject to commit almost any crime in the world. His hon. and learned Fiend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had referred to the old Common Law. But surely it was of no use to do that. The hon. and learned Member had said that a King could expel foreigners by his Prerogative; but he (Mr. A. Elliot) was proud to think that foreigners had been able to live in this country, subject to the laws of England, for many years, and that the Sovereign had never exercised any Prerogative in the matter; and he believed that the laws which had been strong enough to protect us against O'Donovan Rossa and his people were strong enough to protect us still. As this clause had been brought forward on the responsibility of the Government, on good cause shown, it was their duty to support the Government; and if the Amendment had been proposed by the Government, it might have been their duty to support that also. But that was not the case. The Amendment had been brought forward by a private Member, who had given them no proof of crime being committed or attempted in England; and no English or Scotch Member could point to a case where a foreigner was prepared to commit a crime and could not be punished by the ordinary law. Some of their Irish Friends opposite were taking a somewhat peculiar view in this matter. They said—"Let British citizens see what it was to suffer from coercive measures." But, surely, in taking up that position, hon. Members were disregarding the real point. He ventured to say that not a clause of this Bill could be justified except by the exceptional condition of things in Ireland at the present day. It was on account of that exceptional condition of things that he had supported Her Majesty's Government all through. But that state of things did not exist in England; and

  115
  before an hon. Member attempted to apply the exceptional measures to England that were necessary for Ireland, it was essential that he should come forward with some proof that the circumstances of the case required it.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, he hoped the Government would be influenced by the eloquent speech they had heard from the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), who, unlike the hon. Member who had just spoken, seemed to have looked at the exceptional circumstances of the case. One thing which was said by the hon. and learned Member who had moved the Amendment had struck him very much. He had said that in this instance he thought that the law of England and the law of Ireland should be the same. Well, he (Captain Aylmer) was one of those who thought the law of England and the law of Ireland should always be the same, and that one of the greatest disgraces upon the House of Commons was that the Statute Book, from 1801 down to the present day, was full of enactments specially applying to Ireland. He felt convinced that all these troubles would have ceased long ago, if successive Governments had endeavoured to consolidate the Union, instead of legislating for the two countries separately. He was astonished to see the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) opposing this Amendment, because that hon. Gentleman had always been in the habit of posing in the House as an Irish patriot who was solely interested in Irish affairs. It seemed somewhat strange that he should object to an Amendment which only concerned England and Scotland, and had nothing whatever to do with Ireland. If the hon. Member objected to the Alien Act being revived in the case of Ireland, he (Captain Aylmer) could understand it; but his present objection certainly seemed out of place with the character he always assumed; unless, indeed, he agreed with the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel) that agrarianism was not the real root and origin of the state of things that this Amendment was intended to grapple with. The hon. Member for Warwick said that agrarianism might have been the beginning of the agitation; but he (Captain Aylmer), for his own part, believed that agrarianism had been pushed to the front by those who had purely political motives. If
  116
  the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had no sympathy with those who had ulterior designs, which were not agrarian, but were designs against law and order, he could understand him; but, under the last Coercion Act, they had seen newspapers which had been printed in Ireland, and which had been suppressed in that country, published in Liverpool within a few days of their suppression in Ireland. It had been said that foreigners had always been well received in England, and that was perhaps true. An asylum would still be found in England by respectable refugees. Any foreigners would be received into the country, and have the advantages of our English laws, as long as they did not interfere with law and order in the country. He did not believe that the Lord Lieutenant would be disposed to grant a warrant against any alien who conducted himself properly; but, as far as those aliens were concerned who did not conduct themselves properly, he (Captain Aylmer) should only be too glad if the Alien Act enabled the Home Secretary, or any other Minister of the Crown, to deprive them of the asylum they found in this country. It had been, and always would be, one of the points most against England on the Continent that our liberty in matters of this kind had run to excess. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had spoken of the many eminent men who, in 1848, spoke against the Alien Act; and, amongst others, he had referred to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Bright). Well, all he (Captain Aylmer) could say was, that he sincerely trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—and the right hon. Gentleman would excuse him for saying it—would not be so foolish on this occasion as he was in 1848. There was much more danger from foreign plotters now than there was in 1848, because the improved means of communication had rendered the country more easily accessible. A man who, in the present day, concocted his plots one Sunday in America could dine on the following Sunday in England. It would be impossible to put down revolution in Ireland—and he feared that there was something akin to revolution existing there—if they kept the door open for

  117
  revolutionists on this side of St. George's Channel.
  MR. WIGGINsaid, that, looking as he did, and always had done, on the Irish people as fellow-subjects, he desired to see the two countries governed on the same lines as far as possible; and he therefore supported the Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He would go further than that—he would adopt the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and say that he would support the whole Bill for England, if England were in the same demoralized state as Ireland, and if in England it were common to hear of cases of murder and outrage on human beings besides the maiming of cattle. If the whole country were permeated by secret societies, he was sure that every Member on the Liberal side of the House would be willing to support such a measure; and he would appeal to the patriotism of hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, if they were patriots, as they said they were, and say to them that if they wished to see law, order, and peace restored to Ireland, they should, in every way they possibly could, support this measure, in order to strengthen the hands of the Government and enable them to put down illegality and disorder. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) said he admired England and English institutions. Well, he (Mr. Wiggin) could say that he admired the Irish people—and he certainly admired the Irish ladies. However, he could assure hon. Members opposite that there was but one feeling in the country, and that was a desire to see Ireland in a state of peace and prosperity. There was no ill-feeling on the part of the English people towards Ireland. In fact, he ventured to say that if they were to go through the length and breadth of the land they would find that nine out of every ten people were admirably disposed towards Ireland. He was well acquainted with the political feeling in the neighbourhood of Birmingham. He represented a constituency in that district, and he could assure the Irish Members that gentlemen who were well known there as advanced Liberals, and who were staunch supporters of his right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) and the President of the Board of Trade (Mr.
  118
  Chamberlain) had within the last few days said to him—"Do all you can to support the Government, give them all the assistance you possibly can, and tell them to stick to their guns and carry their Bill." Of course, there were some exceptions; but he maintained that the vast majority of the people were with the Government in this matter. As he had said before, he had a strong affection for Ireland and the Irish people. He desired—and the English people desired—to see peace and tranquillity restored to that country. He disliked to see the two countries governed on different lines. He would give to Ireland as much local self-government as we had in England, if that was what the Irish people meant by Home Rule; but, at the same time, Parliament must strengthen the hands of the Government to put down crime, and as long as crime was rampant, the Government would, in their efforts to suppress it, have the support of the English people. He would not detain the Committee longer. He seldom spoke, but he felt strongly on this question. He knew that this question was animating the minds of the people of England of all classes; and he was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister present, because he could assure him that what he had said was perfectly correct. He (Mr. Wiggin) had the pleasure of meeting most of the leading men in Birmingham, and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that in all the feeling was strong that the hands of the Government ought in this matter to be strengthened in every possible way.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was sure the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had excited the gratitude of Irishmen by the compliments which he had paid to their country; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that, notwithstanding his professed admiration for the Irish ladies, if he visited Ireland he would do so without exciting any jealousy. [A laugh.] He simply made this observation to repel the insinuation that they were a jealous people, and certainly, so far as he was concerned, he was very much disposed to answer the appeal of the hon. Gentleman that they should consider the question before the Committee entirely on national grounds. He had listened very carefully to the discussion on the Amendment,

  119
  because he had felt disposed to be guided in his vote chiefly by what the majority of English and Scotch Members themselves thought on this question. He was considerably impressed by the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel); and if he could only agree with him as to the means to be adopted towards the end which he had in view, he should have no hesitation whatever in supporting, however feebly, his speech and walking in the same Lobby as the hon. Gentleman. But the Irish Members opposed the renewal of the Alien Act in Ireland on the ground that they did not believe that that was the best means for dealing with those aliens whose presence in Ireland might be calculated to endanger the peace and tranquillity of that country. From all he had heard from English Gentlemen of different political Parties, he was inclined to look on his own country with more hope than, perhaps, many descriptions of that country which they had heard in that House would warrant. He supposed it was generally believed that the atrocity carried out in the Phœnix Park some time ago was carried out by aliens. He was certainly one who shared that opinion; and he believed, from the cold-blooded audacity with which it was carried out, it must have been planned somewhere out of Ireland. He had heard it suggested that the wicked design was planned in the City of London. It might have been planned in London or in Paris, or in some other Continental city which was crowded with members of the International, the Dynamatic, or Communistic Organization, for he did not know what name to apply to it. It changed its name and its tactics, and that was the reason why it was dealt with by measures of this kind. Although, by this clause, they would enable the police officers to make a great deal of fuss, they would not enable them to lay their hands on the real criminals. It seemed to him that the only remedy for dealing with aliens, and dealing with all persons in the community in such a way as to strengthen the hands of the Government in the maintenance of public order, lay in an efficient police system. Take a look at the condition of Ireland. When the atrocity was committed in the Phœnix Park, the Government in Dublin was possessed, as it was
  120
  possessed now, with absolute power of arrest. It could arrest aliens as it could arrest ordinary citizens; and there could be no doubt whatever that if, through the inquiries of the police, the Irish Government at that time was made aware of the presence, in the City of Dublin, of persons who had come there to carry out this dreadful design, the Government would have exercised the power of arrest against them. Why did they not do it? Simply because they were not conscious of the men's presence. The revival of the Alien Act was simply a means of putting aliens on their guard; and the Government would have, in the last resort, to rely upon their police, and it was an efficient police, and it was an efficient detective force alone which could enable them to anticipate the machinations of these desperate people. They were told that the movement which the Government had to deal with in Ireland was no longer agrarian; they were told it was political. He ventured to think it was, perhaps, neither agrarian or political. As far as it was a dangerous movement, it was a Communistic movement; and it was the men who felt they were justified in allying themselves, no matter how remotely, with the Communistic associations on the Continent that were to be dreaded in Great Britain and Ireland—gentlemen who came forward with schemes for the regeneration of society, which schemes, he ventured to say, were just as impracticable as building a railroad to the moon. Some of the men, like the enthusiasts of all races and of all times, had grand ideas, undoubtedly, for the public welfare. Some of them were men who were actuated by pure motives; but men of that stamp were not aware of the terrible movement to which they were lending their support and sanction. That Communistic spirit, which was not exclusively agrarian, which was decidedly not political, had taken a strong hold of most of the nations of Europe, and an attempt would be made to propagate its doctrines. The way to cope with this spirit was not by repressive laws, but first of all by removing every just grievance of which the people of Great Britain and Ireland had to complain, and by winning the people to the side of the Government for the maintenance of law and order, by making them feel that the Govern-

  121
  ment was a part of themselves, and that its object was to promote their welfare and to faithfully represent their interests. For these reasons he was afraid he should have to wait for enlightenment as to the course he should have to pursue in the division on this subject. Perhaps it would not be unreasonable if an appeal were made to the right hon. and. learned Gentleman who was in charge of this Bill to announce what the policy of the Government might be in reference to this movement. He should be very glad to hear the Government's summing-up of the views which had been expressed on both sides of the House. He did not believe that the revival of this Act would increase the power of the Government over the aliens whom it ought to be their object to crush, and that while it would be calculated to create great irritation, and possibly to give offence to many foreign Governments, thereby involving this country in many complications, it would not materially or appreciably strengthen the power to get rid of desperate characters.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had made a very ingenious speech; but, strange to say, he was not convinced by his own arguments, and he concluded by saying that he should wait for further light before coming to a final decision. He (Mr. Gibson) could understand this question being regarded from an Irish point of view in reference to the whole clause, and he could understand Irishmen and hon. Members from Ireland saying that they were against the whole clause, that they would not deal, in any shape or form, with the restoration of law against aliens; but he must say he had seen very great logical objections in the way of hon. Members from Ireland now intervening on this Amendment, and saying that although it might be arguable to apply the law against aliens in Ireland, still they saw an objection to including England and Scotland within the prohibition. Was the case made out in any way that at present it was desirable there should be some restrictions upon allowing aliens to remain in Ireland? He ventured to think there were few people in that House who had listened to the arguments advanced during this debate, and who were acquainted with
  122
  the state of affairs in Ireland, who must not recognize that a vast proportion of the difficulties which now existed in Ireland arose from the presence of aliens. When appalling acts were committed in Ireland, it was at once said that they were the acts of aliens. It was the excuse that was used for endeavouring to free Ireland from the stain of crime; and, therefore, it was practically impossible to say that it was not wise and reasonable that there should be some restriction used for regulating the presence of aliens in Ireland. It had been pointed out by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) that no case had been made out for extending the Alien Act to England and Scotland. They must look at this question from a broad point of view; and, as was pointed out earlier in the debate, by the right hon. and gallant Member for Wigtown (Sir John Hay), were the Committee prepared to make the rest of the United Kingdom an Alsatia for the aliens who, finding it not safe to remain in Ireland, found it safe to withdraw to England and Scotland, and carry on their machinations here against the peace of Ireland? Had they no reason to complain after the very recent experience in England, and it might be in Scotland? Had they no reason to believe that those who were aliens in this country were somewhat abusing the right of asylum. The hon. Member for Roxburgh (Mr. A. Elliot) pointed out that the law had not broken down in England. That, of course, was a statement entitled to some consideration, if this was a criminal clause; but it was not a criminal clause—it was a preventive and safeguarding clause. This was a clause which merely expelled aliens whose presence might not be for the good of the country, and who might be a disturbing element in England as well as in Ireland; to expel men who did not exactly come within the grip of the Criminal Law—men who were not here for bonâ fide purposes, who were not here for asylum from their own country, who were not here for protection, who were not here for pleasure, who were not here for trade; but who were here for mischief. For the best purposes of the common Empire to which we all belonged, we would tell those aliens it was better for them to go elsewhere, where they might have possibly some legitimate pursuits. An expression had been

  123
  used more than once in the course of this debate that the right of asylum in this country should be protected. He hoped it always would be. He hoped that everyone who was acquainted with the history of this country would ever safely protect the sacred right of asylum that England had always held out to those who were compelled to leave their own country. But great care must be taken that this right of asylum was not abused, and that England was not made, and that Scotland was not made, and that Ireland should not be made a place for those who were aliens, retaining the right of their own citizenship, to break the law, and to encourage those who might otherwise live in peace to enter into lawless and treasonable courses.
  COLONEL NOLANasked if the Amendment was within the scope of the Bill? The Preamble of the Bill stated that the Bill was intended for the prevention and repression of crime in Ireland.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is rather late for the hon. and gallant Member to put this question. The Committee have already decided the following words:—
  "That the Alien Act is hereby re-enacted, and shall continue in force for the same period as this Act."
  We have reached the word "Act," in line 37; and when an hon. Member proposes the omission of all the subsequent words of the clause, the Chair has no power to prevent that proposal being submitted to the Committee.
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, that after all that had been said, and after the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), he should not have thought it necessary to say a word on this Amendment if it had not been for the speech addressed to the Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). He listened to that speech with deep interest. The power of speaking which the hon. and learned Member possessed compelled attention to him when he rose; and he would go further, and say that the manly independence the hon. and learned Gentleman had often shown during the last two or three years entitled him to the respect of the Committee. He listened with care to the hon. and learned Member's words, and he thought that upon the hon. and learned Member's words he could command his vote for this Amendment. What did
  124
  the hon. and learned Member say? He said—
  "The great dangers to which you in England and Ireland are subject are the conspiracies of those foreigners engaged in Communistic designs."
  And he went on to say that—
  "Your task should be, not to attempt to get rid of them, but to show to the people of Ireland that you make them part of the Government, that you are their friends, and that for them you would pass remedial legislation."
  Now, he asked the hon. and learned Member to be candid. What had this House been engaged in during the whole of this Parliament but in an attempt to give remedial legislation to Ireland? [An hon. MEMBER: Coercion.] Who was it who stood in the way of remedial legislation for Ireland? What was the great danger that was really foreshadowed, if they looked a little deeply into this question? [An hon. MEMBER: Coercion.] He would tell the hon. Member who interrupted him what it was. It was that the atrocities, the maimings, the murders, the disorder, and the disregard of all law in Ireland, might turn away from Ireland the feelings of England, which had been so lavishly, of late, poured out towards Ireland. Hon. Gentlemen might smile at that, but let them not mistake. It would not require very much to turn public feeling in England rudely against Ireland. They had seen the sacrifices that Englishmen and Scotchmen had made; how they, with grievances of their own, with questions of their own which had been long ripe for settlement, had consented to put them aside, year after year, suffering, as they had been, under bad trade and bad harvests—had consented to have their grievances set aside in order solely to do justice to Ireland. He had been a Member of that House longer, perhaps, than some of those hon. Gentlemen opposite who smiled at his words had seen the light in this world. He declared that never before had there been a Parliament so thoroughly determined as this one was, at the outset, to do justice to Ireland; and if hon. Gentlemen opposite were patriots, he appealed to them not to throw the good feeling of England away. There was a limit to the patience of England, and he entreated hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, if they valued their country, and if they

  125
  really set that store which they said they did upon the prosperity of their country, not to continue in the course, which he warned them was rapidly exasperating the people of England, and turning them from the Irish people. Parliament desired to give remedial legislation to Ireland; but who stood in the way? Why, those who were engaged in Communistic designs abroad; and in order that Parliament might remove any injustice that existed in Ireland, it was necessary that the Government should have full power to deal with those men. It was a sad blow to the Members of the Liberal Party that for one day, or for one hour, the proud boast of this country should belowered—namely, that these shores were open to the alien, and the foreigner, and the refugee of all countries. But they were prepared, in case of necessity, to make this sacrifice. They valued their House of Commons, with its Rules and its procedure, as they had known it all their lives. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had broken that down, and now the Members of the Liberal Party were prepared to alter that procedure, as they would be prepared to make a sacrifice of the proud boast he had referred to. He would tell the Home Secretary that, so far as his humble opinion went, if the Government should think fit to adopt the Amendment which had been moved, the people of this country would be ready to accept this Amendment. The hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) argued that the law was sufficient in England to deal with any crime that was committed in England. Yes; juries in England had no sympathy with crime, and happily had little fear of the consequences of doing their duty. But it was not against crime committed in England that this Amendment was aimed; it was against plottings in England. That was a point which his hon. Friend (Mr. A. Elliot) did not touch. He confessed it was painful to him to stand up and advocate the adoption by the Government of such an Amendment as this; but he had to remember that whilst they did not forget those Constitutional privileges, and those proud boasts of our freedom, they had a great task before them. They had set their hands to removing every injustice that could be complained of from Ireland; and they were determined, while they
  126
  would pursue this object to the end, they would pursue it with due respect to the maintenance of law and order.
  MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, his hon. Friend (Mr. Whitbread) had spoken of the sacrifice that he and others were called upon to make of one of the proudest boasts of England. For his part, he was quite prepared to make that sacrifice if it was necessary for the peace of the country and the repression of disorder. Provision ought to be made to meet the case of an alien who should come here from Ireland before the publication in that country of an order of the Lord Lieutenant for his deportation, and also for the case of an alien who should come to some town on the English coast from America or elsewhere, for the purpose of either engaging in plots against the peace in Ireland or in England. Looking at it from this point of view, he fully recognized the necessity for the Amendment which it was proposed to make. He was prepared to vote for the Amendment, because he thought if they were prepared to re-enact the Alien Act, as they proposed to do by so much of the Bill as had already been passed, they would be giving it a faulty and half-hearted application if they saddled it with the proviso which was contained in the clause as at present drawn. He exceedingly regretted the necessity for any reenactment of the Alien Act. He exceedingly valued the proud boast of this country that its shores were open to every alien of every Foreign Power. But while we admitted an alien to reside here for any legitimate purpose, England had never felt bound or entitled to admit or harbour aliens, once those aliens came here to plot against the peace of the country which had given them shelter; and it made no difference whether they plotted against the peace of Ireland, or whether they plotted against the peace of England, or whether they used their residence in England for the purpose of plotting against the peace of Ireland, or whether they used their residence in Ireland for plotting against the peace of England. Therefore, if he looked at the question from this point of view, he could not help thinking that the proviso to re-enact the Alien Act for a limited time in Ireland alone would greatly impair the usefulness of the clause. He could quite understand the Irish Mem-

  127
  bers objecting to a re-enactment of the Alien Act at all, on the ground that it was unnecessary, and that it was an infringement of their liberties, and an infringement of the principle recognized of admitting aliens; but that was not the question at this moment. He could understand their taking that view; but he could not understand their saying that if the Act was to apply at all it must not apply to the United Kingdom as well as to Ireland. The Committee had got to that portion of the clause which provided that the Alien Act should continue in force for the same period as this Bill, and what was now being considered was not whether the Alien Act should be in force at all, for that had been settled, but the question was, assuming that the Alien Act was re-enacted, was it to apply to the whole of the United Kingdom, or only to Ireland? He could understand English or Scotch Members objecting to its applying to England or Scotland; but he could not understand Irish Members objecting to it. He could understand Irishmen objecting to its applying to Ireland; but he could not understand their objection to its applying to Great Britain. A great deal had been said in the Committee against special legislation for Ireland; but here Gentlemen were found supporting, by opposing this Amendment, such special legislation. What the Committee were asked to do was to extend this provision to the whole of the United Kingdom, and although that was a great sacrifice for English Members to make, they were prepared to make that sacrifice; and, so far as he was concerned, he should vote for the Amendment, and he hoped the Government would accept it.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he thought this debate had been distinguished not only by speeches of far more than ordinary interest, but by far greater consensus of feeling than he had ever before seen yet on any Irish question. He thought he was not misinterpreting the feelings of the Committee when he said that the immense majority of the supporters of the Government were in accord with Members on the opposite side in hoping that the Government would accept the Amendment. Whether he looked at the political view taken by the hon. Member for Warwick (Mr. Arthur Peel), or the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr.
  128
  Whitbread), or recalled the cold passionless view of the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey), the speeches of all those Gentlemen tended to the same result, and showed that the feeling of the Committee was almost unanimously in favour of this Amendment. Seeing that agreement of opinion on both sides of the House, it would ill-become him to refer now to the individual political statements and prophecies made in March, 1880, by the great Rival of that day to the present Prime Minister. He did not refer to them to cast any reflection on his political opponents, but merely to remind the Committee that the great statesman who had gone from us, who most accurately described the actual condition of Ireland in 1880, was the statesman who, of all men, was most sensible of the condition of Ireland, and alive to the terrible fact that the danger of the present time would be what was known as International Societies—that was to say, a community of crime throughout the world, which had been very much increased by the additional means of communication that now existed, and by the invention of science in chemistry and electricity, which had been turned to the vilest purposes by the worst class of men. These additional facilities, which were pressed into the service of the agents of wickedness, made the position now very different from that in 1848, when the Alien Act was passed. It was not to the point to compare any speeches made now by Irishmen with speeches made at that time. If the speeches made now by Irishmen were not nearly so bad as those made in 1848, the power of aliens to do mischief was now infinitely more than it was then. He hoped all hon. Members below the Gangway who had studied the Alien Act of 1848—and he would only say that it was as mild as it could possibly be to meet the exigencies of the case—and, therefore, he hoped he should hear no more of such arguments as those advanced by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot). He would only add that the one great principle in every community which overrode all others was this—Salus populi suprema lex.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he was extremely sorry that the point of Order raised by the hon. Member for Galway had not been admitted by the Chairman,

  129
  and he could not for a moment but think that had there been any idea in the mind of the public that a part of the British Constitution was to be voted away in Committee without notice, half London would have been down at Old Palace Yard. [Sir JAMES LAWRENCE: No, no!] The hon. Member for Lambeth might say "No, no!" but he ventured to say that some thousands of that hon. Gentleman's constituents would have been the first to take part in such a demonstration. Nothing of the kind now proposed was necessary for this purpose. The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread) had said it was not a question of crime committed in this country, for which he admitted there was ample strength of law at present, but that it was against the plotting of crime in this country that that proposal was directed. But could not crime be as well plotted in Paris as it could in London, and in New York as well as in Liverpool? Experience had taught us that it could be as well plotted in those places as in London, and there was no necessity for anything of this kind in England. There was no sympathy with crime amongst any class of our countrymen, whether they were rich or poor. The home of a poor labourer was such a police barracks in favour of order and the protection of life and property in this country as were the homes of the rich, and to apply a clause of this kind to England would be a disgrace to the House of Commons. What was to be done in a case of this kind? Was the Committee going to vote away, without Notice from the Government, and without any proposal from the Government, but on the mere suggestion of a private Member, rights which had existed for centuries? Were they going to destroy the home of asylum which this country had afforded to legitimate and proper refugees? He did not like sailing so near the point as the adoption of this Amendment would be, and he would not agree to it for a moment. He did not like to make pledges, for it was always unwise to pledge oneself too deeply; but if this Amendment were inserted in the four corners of the Bill, there would be an opposition throughout the country as strong as in Ireland, for it would be an insult and a piece of treachery to the people of this country, and would bring about the ears of the
  130
  House of Commons and the Government a hornet's nest. He sincerely hoped the Government would oppose with all the power in its possession so unexpected, so extraordinary, and so monstrous a proposition.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he knew the hon. Member who had just spoken represented, to a considerable extent, the view of a very large portion of the trades unions and the working classes; but he thought he himself knew as much of the views of the working classes as the hon. Member opposite. The hon. Member was right in saying that the working classes had no sympathy with crime, or with any effort to create disturbance or disorder in Great Britain or Ireland; but he was also convinced that the people of this country would not regard any well directed effort to make crime impossible in Ireland with either indignation or any other feeling of anger. They would be entirely satisfied if those who made use of the right of asylum which was afforded by this country to persons in distress; but those people must be prevented from turning that asylum into a means of attacking the institutions of the country. The danger against which it was necessary to guard was the danger of conspiracy against our institutions, which were necessary to liberty. He desired to preserve that liberty, and to preserve the right of everyone to trade, to live and to work in perfect and absolute security; but the conspiracy which now existed in Ireland, and which was fomented by aliens from other countries, was a conspiracy against the liberties and the rights of the people both of this country and of Ireland. He did not believe there was a single workman in London who had the least sympathy with the men who resorted to London, not as a refuge for honest shelter from the consequences of political opinions which they might have held on the Continent, but for the purpose of concocting crime, and inciting those who were now concocting crime in Ireland. What was really the position of the case? It was proposed—and the Committee, he believed, were pretty nearly unanimous—to give powers to the Government to deport aliens from Ireland who might have resorted to Ireland for the purpose of conspiracy and wrong. As the clause at present stood, such men had only to slip across the Channel by one of the many

  131
  steamers passing between England and Ireland and so at once become safe, and by means of the telegraph and post-office they could carry on their business from this country. In London they could more easily be lost sight of; but they might be engaged in business respecting which it would be exceedingly difficult to obtain evidence. In this country he did not doubt that if charges could be brought against them, and established, English juries would convict; but the difficulty was to get evidence, although there might be abundant evidence to satisfy the Home Secretary that they were prosecuting business injurious to the safety of the country. Under these circumstances, it was for the good of the country, and for the good of honest and peaceable men, who desired to preserve the liberties of this country and the securities for honest labour and industry, that such men as these should be deported. He trusted that the Government would see reason to accept the Amendment.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he hoped the Government would do nothing of the kind. If there was one sad moral to be drawn from the present state of affairs, it was the saddening and demoralizing effect of necessary restrictions of liberty; and it was painful to him to see how hon. Members were discussing this matter, as though a great principle could be departed from with insufficient reasoning and mere shreds of discourse. The hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) had made a strong appeal, and he trusted much more to that hon. Member's knowledge of what the working classes felt than even to the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) who had given his view; and, at all events, the people of this country would feel that they were losing a principle which had been the proud boast of this country of giving asylum for the distressed all over the world—for those who were flying from oppression at home because of political offences. In 1848 the Alien Act was passed with the greatest misgivings, and this power was given for a year; but eloquent voices were raised against it, and the Representatives of the Whigs strongly defended this long-treasured principle of asylum being preserved. But now it was proposed, at this hour of the night, and by a side-wind, to gradually fritter
  132
  away this great principle, without warning to the people; and he hoped the Government, not having given any signs so far, would yet show that there were men on the Treasury Bench who still appreciated and would respond to the old feeling, and would say that what hon. Members were now pleading for was not merely a sentiment, or, at all events, if it was a sentiment, it was so ennobling a sentiment that it should be preserved. That sentiment gave the tone to all our feelings in defence of those institutions which we called liberty, and he hoped the Committee would stand by their old love of liberty, and not be deluded by reasons from the Conservative Benches into parting with what they so greatly valued.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had contended that the extension of the provisions of the Alien Act to this country might involve the Government in difficult complications with foreign countries. He (Mr. Gregory) could not see that it would in the slightest degree affect our relations with other countries. The object of the Alien Act was solely confined "to the peace and tranquillity of this Realm;" it had nothing to do with our foreign relations. The right of asylum had been abused, and he confessed he should not be sorry to see it restricted. The incorporation of the Alien Act in this Act would have that effect. The Secretary of State, or the Lord Lieutenant, as the case might be, would have the power to remove an alien who it was alleged was in any way disturbing the peace and tranquillity of the Realm; but the alien would have the right of protest against his removal, and the Secretary of State would be bound to submit the matter to Her Majesty's Privy Council. Under no circumstances could the Act operate prejudicially to an alien who was not guilty of any practices subversive to the peace and tranquillity of the Realm. What, he might ask, would be the effect if this clause in respect to aliens were not to operate here? Why, that any person who desired to disturb the peace and tranquillity of the Realm had only to cross St. George's Channel and carry on his nefarious designs here. It was said the people of England had nothing to fear from the operations of aliens in this country. If the people of Liverpool, or Manchester, or even Glasgow, were

  133
  consulted on the subject, it would be found they would tell a very different story, and that there were fears and apprehensions recently entertained in those towns in regard to the practices of aliens which would tend to make the people of those places very glad to see restrictions placed upon the presence of aliens in their midst. Even in London itself the people had not been free from apprehension. There was evidence of the presence in London of men who were animated by motives which were subversive of all law and order. He could not help thinking that it would add very materially to the peace and tranquillity of England, as well as of Ireland, if the Amendment were adopted.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, we have listened on this Bench with respectful attention and with great interest to this debate. Unhappily, all those who have addressed the Committee on this subject have spoken without any ulterior or collateral view of the merits of the case, and we thank the Committee for the assistance it has given us in that respect. From the moment that this Amendment appeared upon the Notice Paper, it was impossible that the Members of the Government should but feel that it had important claims to their favourable notice. It was evidently a flaw and imperfection in the operative character of the Act that it should be in the power of persons who had not been in Ireland, or of persons who, having been in Ireland, had not been the object of any initial process there, to come over into England, and from a position within a few hours of that country, and from which they might be in daily and almost hourly communication with Ireland, be enabled to prosecute their nefarious designs. With regard, therefore, to the efficacy of the Act, there is a strong primâ facie recommendation of the Amendment. I am bound to say I have always felt strongly and bitterly the force of the reproach which arises out of any inequality of the law, and especially of penal and restrictive law, between England and Ireland. To a certain extent, I have a predisposition rather to accept for England, if I can, a law which is necessary for Ireland, and which we intend to impose upon Ireland. I do not carry that proposition beyond a certain limit; but within a certain limit
  134
  it certainly in my mind exists. I abhor inequality of law in matters touching rights and liberties, and some length I would go, if I could, to avoid that inequality. I admit, however, that that cannot be made a determining consideration. Let me turn to the objections which have been made to the adoption of this Amendment. They have been three. The first was that the law was not required for our own internal purposes. No one can for a moment think of disputing that proposition. It was stated so clearly and so strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot). But then that argument, if admitted as a proposition, does not touch the case; because the whole strength of the case turns not upon the necessity of the proposed provision for any English purposes, but upon its necessity as an ancillary and auxiliary arrangement for the operative powers of the provision. So I must go further, and I cannot be deterred by that objection from the acceptance of the Amendment. Well, then I come to the point which has been so strongly put by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stock-port (Mr. Hopwood), and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). They have in warm terms—the warmth of which I cannot wonder at, and which I cannot complain of in the slightest degree—denounced the Amendment as one abandoning, in principle, what is called the right of asylum; but, Sir, I am bound to say that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gregory), who has just sit down, has shown in the most conclusive manner that although, undoubtedly, we may be called upon to make a certain amount of sacrifice, yet we are not called upon by the adoption of the Amendment to make the enormous sacrifice which my two hon. Friends pointed out. They appear to think that after the passing of this Amendment every alien coming to this country will remain here at the mercy of the Executive Government. Now, Sir, that is as far as possible from the fact. I have only to go a point beyond the hon. Member (Mr. Gregory), who has just spoken, and to call the attention of the Committee to the express words of the Act of 1848, which it is proposed to re-enact, and the Committee will perceive that every alien coming to this country will, if we adopt this Amendment, remain precisely as he was before

  135
  in regard to all his rights, in regard to his relations with his own Government, and to every foreign Government, excepting in the single case that he makes himself responsible for the machinations against the peace and tranquillity of this Realm. This has been declared by the legislators of 1848 in terms the most unequivocal—terms which are twice repeated in the Preamble. The opening words of the Preamble are—
  "Whereas it is expedient for the due security and peace and tranquillity of the realm that provision should be made, for a time to be limited, respecting aliens arriving or resident in the Kingdom."
  For the due security of the peace and tranquillity of the Realm and for no other object, not for the due security and peace and tranquillity of any other country. This is a domestic purpose to which every country must give the first place in its estimation, and the fulfilment and accomplishment of which were really the features which made this country so desirable for aliens, for if we could not offer to aliens the opportunity of coming into the country, to be guarded by law and secured by law, the privilege of asylum would be a poor privilege indeed. In 1848 Parliament was not satisfied with the general declaration I have read; but in a later portion of the Preamble it bound the Secretary of State, or the Viceroy of Ireland, as the case might be, to proceed upon written information, and that written information was to go expressly into the particular case. The words of the Preamble were to the effect that for the preservation of the peace and tranquillity of some part of the Realm it was expedient to remove a certain alien or aliens who might be in that part; and, therefore, I put it to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), and my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), that with the general right of asylum for aliens we are not called upon, by the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), to interfere in the slightest degree. But, Sir, I come to the third point which has been urged against this Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) has strongly urged that this is an Amendment which it is now proposed we should adopt without Notice. That is not intended, I am quite sure, as a reproach against the
  136
  Mover of the Amendment. The Mover of the Amendment had done everything in his power to give Notice of his intention; but it is certainly quite time that the people of this country at large believe that we are engaged in considering an Irish Bill; I do not believe that at the present moment they have the least idea that any principle affecting the law and liberties in England is contained in this Irish Bill. The Government arrive at this conclusion. We feel bound to acknowledge the force of the arguments in favour of this proposition; but we also feel that it might not be right to ask the Committee to vote upon it at this time. In giving that declaration, I do not wish to reserve any locus penitentiœ on the part of the Government. We have heard the arguments; we have tested and ascertained in debate the opinions of the Representatives of the people; we are satisfied that the judgment of the Committee is largely, and in a greatly prevailing degree, favourable to the proposal. We think, however, that it would be only fair that, as the subject is one new to the country, some time should be allowed before we vote upon it. [Mr. BIGGAR: Oh, oh!] The hon. Member says "Oh, oh!" That may be his opinion. I am not going to ask the Committee to postpone the question until the next Parliament, or the next Session, or some remote period. I mean to do nothing of the kind; nor do I mean there to be any doubt as to what I have said. We accept the Amendment; but we think it fair that as this is an Irish Bill, and as the Amendment is one referring to the whole of Great Britain, we should not adopt the Amendment without its being known. I do not share the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). I have the greatest respect for his authority; but I do not share his opinion as to the feeling which will prevail in the country. Still, we think we ought not to act in the dark, and our intention is to ask the Committee to allow the matter to be postponed until Report, which will arrive in the course of two or three days after the Bill has got through Committee. That is the course we intend to take, and, on the whole, we think that would be the best course the Committee could adopt.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I am sorry that I did not hear the

  137
  greater part of this debate; but I must say that, having listened to the speech of the Prime Minister, I have heard that speech with the most unfeigned surprise. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman, from the beginning to almost the close of his speech, seemed to me to be one of the most conclusive and powerful arguments that even he has ever produced on any question submitted to the House. The right hon. Gentleman showed very plainly what, I have no doubt, has been impressed upon the Committee by other speakers—that this was a proposal, not made directly or primarily with a view to the condition of England, but with a view to the superior efficacy of this Bill for the administration of Ireland. He showed that it would be impossible to apply the new Bill, which we are now discussing, with proper effect to Ireland, if you left a loophole which is left by the unrestricted communication with England. He answered, as it seemed to me, with great cogency of reasoning, the objections made to the introduction of this clause; but at the last moment, and after he had brought the mind of the Committee up to see the importance of the proposal, he tells us that we must pause, that we are not in the position in which we can give a decided vote on the subject; and that, although the Government accepts the proposal and is prepared to stand by it, yet, because it is new to the country, it is necessary we should stop and consider it when we come to Report. I think that is a very false position to take. It seems to me that the Members of the House are elected by the constituencies to consider questions submitted to them, and to give their votes accroding to their views of the emergencies which may arise. If it could be said that the House was taken by surprise—if it could be said that the House required time to consider the proposal, I think it would be quite reasonable that full time should be given to those who are elected for the purpose of deliberation, to take into consideration all the points that might arise. But if the House has had full and fair warning, as it is admitted that it has had, in this case, if the House has had an opportunity of making up its mind on this subject, I think it is taking an altogether false position to say that we must wait for the expression of the opinion of the
  138
  country before we give effect to the conclusion to which we ourselves are brought. How are we to get at the opinion of the country? Is it to be by articles in the morning newspapers or by addresses from the various constituencies? It seems to me that the right hon. Gentleman puts us altogether in a false position. If it be admitted that we have now reasonably considered the point, and if the Government themselves are prepared to admit the justice of the contention, I think that we should be taking an entirely false position, and it would display a want of courage on the part of the House, if we did not now decide the question. It is one of the great evils of the present time that there is a want of courage on the part of the Government. We hear expressions from Members of the House, who are dissatisfied with one proposal or other, and when it comes to the point of giving effect to their convictions by their votes they shrink back. I think we ought to set our faces against such conduct as that; and if we are convinced, as I am, by such arguments as those which the Prime Minister has addressed to us, that this is a right step to take, I think it is a step which we ought to take now.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not think that the charge which the right hon. Gentleman had brought against the Government in this matter was at all a fair one. The truth was that the Government, in considering this matter, naturally desired to learn the opinion of the House—to hear the opinion of the Irish and Scotch Members. The Government had had that advantage—one which he thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite did not enjoy—and, therefore, in that respect they had been able to test the opinion partially of the House. But the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that though the House was moderately full to-night, still it was only a fraction of the Members who had had the opportunity of considering this subject. There were Members who were not present on this occasion, and who probably would be very much surprised in the morning if they found that this question had been decided. ["Oh!"] That was a statement which was perfectly well founded in fact. This, no doubt, was a very important matter, and it was most desirable that nobody

  139
  in the House or out of it should have a right to say that they had been taken by surprise. The Government had shown no want of courage whatever; but he knew that the right hon. Gentleman and some of those who sat behind him would take up any stone to fling at the Government. That was no reason why, in a matter of this importance, they should embark in small Party personalities of that description. There was a very important matter to be determined, one on which the occupants of the Treasury Bench did not differ from Gentlemen opposite. Therefore, he was extremely surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have taken the opportunity of throwing every difficulty he could in the path of the Government. The Government thought that the best way of carrying this matter into effect was to give to everyone time to consider the proposition. They had distinctly stated what the view of the Government upon the proposal was. There would be, within a very brief and reasonable space, an opportunity for finally engrafting the decision upon the Bill, and he could not think that that decision would come with less weight because it was made with full knowledge and upon complete deliberation.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had put forward a most extraordinary plea for delaying the decision on this question. It was perfectly plain to him that the Government had got no policy whatever upon the subject. Last year he proposed this very measure on the third reading of the Protection of Person and Property Bill; but he was then overlooked by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster). He then questioned the Home Secretary on the subject. He stated at that time that he was convinced that the American Government would object to their subjects being imprisoned without trial. No notice was taken of his remonstrance; but the prophecy he then ventured to make had been carried out to the letter. On the 24th of April, having heard that remonstrances had been made by the American Government against the imprisonment of the American citizens under the Protection of Person and Property Act, he ventured to address a Question to the Prime Minister; but the right hon. Gentleman referred him to
  140
  the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who said he had nothing to do with the matter. In passing, he might say that it seemed to be the practice of the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to refer Questions one from the other. On the 24th of April he asked the Prime Minister whether the Government proposed to bring in any measure with regard to aliens on the lines of the 11 & 12 Vict., c. 20, and he was informed that the Government had no intention of bringing in such a measure. A few weeks afterwards, however, the Government brought in a Bill in which they introduced the very provision he had ventured to suggest to them. On the first day of this Bill he put on the Amendment Paper the Amendment which was now before the Committee; but he had withdrawn his priority in favour of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had now moved it, because he thought the Government might accept it more graciously from one who always sat behind the Prime Minister than from one who constantly sat opposite to him. In regard to this Amendment, it seemed to him that if that Bill was passed dealing with aliens who had plotted against the Government, there ought to be the same power of dealing with them in Liverpool as in Dublin; and he could not conceive why the Government should neglect the means they had of preventing conspiracies which might be arranged in any part of the country. Their objection could only be due to that cause. The Amendment had been on the Paper ever since the Bill was first brought in, and the whole country had had as much opportunity of judging of that Amendment as of any other of the Amendments proposed. It had never been argued by the Government that they ought to consult the country upon every item of the Bill; but because the right hon. Gentleman saw that the Amendment recommended itself to the common sense of the Committee, and because he wished to preserve the self-conceit of the Government, he would not accept the Amendment, and tried to preserve his pride by saying the Government must appeal to the country. The right hon. Gentleman had made a most powerful appeal to the Committee in favour of this Amendment, and made use of arguments stronger than anyone else could

  141
  advance, and in language that was more powerful and picturesque than any other Member of the House could command; but because the Government did not know where they were, or whom to consult with—whether to make up with the Radicals or Whigs, the Government now proposed to postpone the Amendment to the Report, in order that the Government might see how the cat jumped. The Government were in great danger in exercising any power against aliens, except under special provisions; and this evening the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs had informed the House that in Turkey, as well as in other countries, there was a law which enabled Governments to deal with and expel aliens. That law did not exist in this country, and the House did not want the Government to have power to expel foreigners for political misdemeanours in their own countries, or to give them up for rebellion against any Governments in their own countries; but what the House wanted was, that if an alien committed an offence, or conspired to commit an offence, against the Realm, then the Government ought to have the power to expel him, or to call upon him to give security for good behaviour. No foreign Government could object to that, but they could object to special legislation for their subjects. The foreigner did not not stand on all-fours with the native of this country; he could always appeal to his Government if he thought he was exposed to injustice; and on this ground he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) appealed to the Government not to give way to the sentiment of false pride, but allow this Amendment to be carried without further postponement.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, notwithstanding the rather excited declamation to which the Committee had just listened, he believed the Government had come to a wise conclusion in not attempting to decide this matter this evening. After all, what was the object of the stage of Report? It was to give an opportunity to the House to reconsider, after mature deliberation, any questions which, in the course of Committee, might have been unexpectedly brought forward, and which in Committee itself could not arise at a point at which the Committee would wish to have them finally settled. He would ask hon. Members who had been in Committee
  142
  this evening, and did not come down, like the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), at the eleventh hour, to tell the Committee, while they had not heard the arguments, yet they had fully made up their minds—he would ask the Committee whether they really thought this question, which had been brought forward in an unexpected manner to a certain extent, should be disposed of with a rush this evening? He did not mean to cast any reflection upon his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), and all he meant was that to many Members the question was comparatively new. He believed the course recommended by the Government was far wiser, and that it would be better to wait and apply the old proverb—"When in doubt do nothing." He had always had a great respect for that proverb, and he believed that very often it might save individuals, and even Governments, from acting in a hurry. He did not desire to prejudge this question, but he certainly thought the Government were wise in asking for time to be fully informed on the matter. Nobody could have heard the debate without feeling that complicated issues were involved, and that the Committee and the House would gain time by some further discussion; and he appealed to the Government not to be hurried by the excitement of the moment, but to give time for the question to be fully considered and fairly placed before the country.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought the course taken by the Prime Minister would render him liable to the complaint of the Home Secretary, as against the opponents of the Bill yesterday, that there was procrastination. He himself was exceedingly glad that the Prime Minister had taken this course, because he had not quite made up his own mind as to how he should vote, although it was possible that he should arrive at a conclusion before Report was reached. On the one hand, he was entirely opposed to any powers being given to the Executive to remove aliens from any part of these Realms, whether England or Ireland; therefore, he should naturally vote against the Amendment. On the other hand, he could not help thinking it very possible that the strong feeling which existed in England against the Alien Bill might lead the English people,

  143
  when they saw that they themselves were included in this Bill as well as the Irish, to be anxious that the Bill should be repealed before the end of the three years. He had, therefore, to take these two views into consideration in order to decide as to the way he should vote.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he had persistently and systematically opposed this Bill; but he was not disposed to adopt a Machiavelian policy. He objected to this clause for Ireland and also for England. There was force in the observations of the Leader of the Opposition when he said the House was not to be guided altogether by people outside. Hon. Members were there as Representatives and not as delegates; and so far, at all events, as he was concerned, he exercised his right to vote as circumstances dictated, irrespective of outside opinion, and he did not doubt that the body of the House acted in the same way; and certainly he thought they ought to do so upon this question. But, although he said that, he agreed in the wisdom of adjourning the consideration of this clause, for this reason—not that the country might be asked to make up its mind, but that the House should have a further opportunity of considering the question. It was said that this Amendment had been on the Paper for some time. But there was a large number of Amendments on the Paper, and Members of the House of Commons did not pay attention to all of them; and they all knew that the Government had assented to very few of the Amendments; and, therefore, no one believed when this Amendment was on the Paper that the Government would agree to it. He thought even the supporters of the Amendment would agree that no harm could be done by adjourning its further consideration. If there was that strong opinion in its favour which was alleged, those in favour of the Amendment would get stronger support on Report; but if there was a strong feeling against the clause, then it would be fair that hon. Members not present in the House should have an opportunity of seeing and realizing its full effect. It should be remembered that the discussion had taken place in a comparatively thin House, and it was but reasonable that the decision should be delayed to another day. Thus far he agreed with the Government in the course they had
  144
  adopted; but he entirely dissented from them in asking for the clause at all. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not needed in this country because there was a general belief that crime, if discovered, would not go unpunished. Everybody admitted that, and the Home Secretary had had proof of that in his short period of Office, for there was a man now in prison, not for such an offence as this clause aimed at, but for expressing approval of assassination in other countries; he referred to the case of Herr Most, and he believed the same public spirit which sent that man to prison would send others to a like punishment for similar offences. Therefore, there was no necessity for this Act in England; but the point which would touch English people most was that by this clause one of their most cherished principles would be destroyed. Hon. Members might use arguments against or for what would be submitted to them; but the bulk of the people on this subject were moved by sentiment. It had been the proudest boast of Englishmen that, when men had been expelled from other countries for political principles, here they found an asylum. That right would be trenched upon by this clause. ["No, no!"] Hon Members said "No, no!" but he had listened to this discussion, and if he had not been conscious that he was in England he should have thought he was in an Austrian or Russian Assembly. The doctrines preached, the suggestions made, the principles enforced, would have found a fitting echo in the mouth of a Gortchakoff or a Metternich. The right of asylum was dearly cherished by Englishmen. The Prime Minister urged that men should be turned from the country who took action against the peace and tranquillity of the nation. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) suspected that there were Gentlemen opposite who thought the peace and tranquillity of the nation had been disturbed by certain speeches in Mid Lothian. Was that a sufficient justification for depriving a man of an asylum in this country. This clause did not say that the right of asylum was to be denied to political partizans, but it included that. A great nation, whom we were glad to recognize as an ally, had recently mourned the death of a noble patriot. He had had the honour and privilege of that man's

  145
  friendship for 26 or 28 years; but he had known him denounced by the Press of Europe as an assassin and a murderer. That man could have been driven from these shores under a clause of this kind; but the first time he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) ever saw the Prime Minister the right hon. Gentleman was in the company of Garibaldi—a man who had disturbed the peace and tranquillity of many countries. Other men equally distinguished in the politics and literature of Europe would equally have suffered under such a clause. While he was satisfied with the wisdom of the Government in allowing this clause to be discussed at a later period, he exceedingly regretted that they had assented to it. The present Government came into Office pledged more than any other Government to Liberal principles; they had been in Office for three years, and during that time they had suspended the Habeas Corpus Act, they were at present passing a Bill which would take away trial by jury and the privileges of the Press, and now they proposed to re-enact the Alien Act. The hon. Member for Stoke did not incorrectly represent the sentiments of this country when he said that when this matter came to the knowledge of the people he believed the Government would find a feeling against them more bitter and determined than they had any conception of. By this Bill the Government would touch the keenest and most sensitive of national sentiments. Delay would give them an opportunity of discussing this question at a later period, although when it came up at a later period he should contest the matter in every way he could.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEsaid, he thought that, if the Government felt that they were right in the course they proposed of confining the operation of the Alien Act to Ireland, the speech which had just been delivered must have shown that they were wrong in doing so. If there had been any doubts as to their course these doubts must have been confirmed by the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen). That hon. Gentleman was the man in that House, who, above all others, had been a determined opponent of this Bill from its very commencement. He had objected to every line, and although he now supported the Government in put-
  146
  ting off this question for further consideration, he did so in order that he might have another opportunity of again discussing this very question, and opposing it. He could well understand that attitude on the part of the hon. Member If the Committee had arrived, as he believed they had arrived, at a judgment which they believed to be sound, why should they not record that judgment? If it was found that an error had been made there would be opportunity, on Report, for reversing their decision. The hon. Member for Stoke thought this clause would be an unpopular one with the working classes of this country. He, however, begged to take an opposite view. He agreed with the eloquent words of the hon. Member for Bedford when he said that he believed we were on the verge, by procrastination in legislation, of driving the feeling of the working classes of the country against Ireland, and against those things which he, for one, wanted to see carried out in Ireland for the sake of the Irish people. He believed that the policy now proposed was the right policy to be pursued towards Ireland—namely, the policy of legislating also for England. He believed this clause would touch no honest foreigner in England—no man who came to this country for purposes of trade or pleasure, no man who acted from political motives of a sound and proper character. But it would, he believed, operate against those aliens who came to this country and were believed to have been engaged in assassination—those aliens that we all had been in constant dread of. Our public buildings had been threatened in almost all large towns in the Kingdom, and public authorities were kept in constant alarm. He believed the Committee had come to the conclusion to record their desire that the Alien Act should be applied to England under certain conditions, and he hoped the Government would refuse to postpone the consideration of this clause.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he thought the hon. Baronet, in his reference to the words of the hon. Member for Stoke, and the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Joseph Cowen), had quite misunderstood those hon. Gentlemen. He had misunderstood the force, the motives, and opinions represented by those hon. Members in denouncing this last instalment of tyranny. He, as an Irish

  147
  Member, was not altogether sorry to see this clause introduced for the benefit of Englishmen; but, in denouncing this last instalment of tyranny, English Members below the Gangway only professed to speak on behalf of the workmen of England, and he was not aware that a single word had fallen from their lips to lead the House to suppose that they were speaking on behalf of the brand-new Baronets of the Liberal Party. Of course, the important and lately reinforced class for which the hon. Baronet was qualified to speak would support him in his views. He could not but think that there was a great deal of truth in the reproach of the right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition, when he suggested that there was a little cowardice in the present attitude of the Government. He thought there was a little cowardice in their attitude, and he hoped hon. Members would do all in their power to bring the Government up to the scratch on the present occasion. For his part, he thought Her Majesty's Liberal Ministry, which had so successfully covered Ireland with humiliation, and degradation, might well introduce for their own country a measure which would expose them to some of the same degradation. The proposal was to extend to England the Alien Act which had been applied to Ireland under this Coercion Bill; and they were told in words, which the hon. Member for Newcastle had justly said would not be unworthy of the servile orators of the Second Empire, that the Alien Bill was not in any sense hostile to the innate Liberalism of the English people. In carrying out the provisions of the former Alien Act, the punishment of persons was sought for offences committed against the laws of England; but there was this guarantee, that an alien became subject to the Constitution of England, subject to the equal laws, and the equal justice of England; and if he were accused of crime he had an Englishman's right to be tried according to the laws of England. Would that be the case under the present Bill? No! Under that Bill a man whom the Government were persuaded for any reasons was dangerous to the peace and tranquillity of the Kingdom would be suspected, but not tried; he would be judged in the Star Chamber, and hunted out of the country by a Government who were afraid to bring him
  148
  before a jury of Englishmen. That was the change which the Government were now introducing. Their oracles declared that no man free from crime would be liable to punishment in England under this extension of the Alien Law. But what guarantee had they that a feeble Government—say a Government even more feeble than the present—would not yield to the solicitation of some great Power, in the hour of National or Party emergency, and discover than an alien, who was an object of terror to a foreign mind, was plotting against the peace and tranquillity of England, when, in reality, he was only disturbing the slumbers of a distant tyrant. When this law was passed, and trial by a fair tribunal abolished in the case of an alien, where was the guarantee that he would be found guilty of having committed a crime against the peace and tranquillity of England? He would be brought before no jury—no witnesses would be placed in the witness-box against him; no publicity would guard that man, whose exile from England was the mandate of some foreign ally to the Government of the day. He certainly would not be able to support Her Majesty's Government were they to bring this matter to a decision on the present occasion. But this proposed law—this abolition of the most cherished privilege of Englishmen—was a matter at which Irish patriots ought not to feel sorry. It was only an illustration of the principle, that "when you do injustice to others, you will surely suffer from that injustice yourself;" those who become slave-drivers would find before many days had elapsed that the lash of the slave-driver was curling about their own shoulders. He had heard it said by one of the most distinguished political writers of this country that one of the first effects and the worst effect of despotism or despotic administration, even in a country so far distant as India, was that it tended to intermix in English society men whose views were necessarily coloured by the practice of despotism in Hindostan. Despotism had now taken up its permanent abode in front of the English shores, and it was easy to see that as the contamination of English despotism in Ireland became more close, so the contagion was becoming more effective. He congratulated the English Parliament on its rapid descent; he prophesied with confidence

  149
  that this would not he the last step that would be taken in the direction of this new departure; and he confessed that he should be sorry to find that the appeals of the hon. Members for Stoke and Newcastle-on-Tyne had had any substantial effect in checking the hand of the Government in this matter. He hoped that as they had degraded Ireland, so they would succeed in degrading and disgracing themselves.
  MR. ROUNDELLsaid, he regretted that he was unable to support the conclusion at which the Government had arrived with regard to the postponement of this question. It appeared to him that the sense of the Committee was clearly in favour of the Amendment. Moreover, they had heard from the Prime Minister that the Government accepted it; and the question before the Committee was whether they should decide upon the Amendment which had already received the sanction of the Government or postpone it to a future stage of the Bill. He was clearly of opinion, upon every ground of sound Constitutional principle, that the matter ought not to be postponed. He regretted to have heard the Home Secretary use the argument that the Committee was not at present sufficiently constituted to determine so grave a question, because it appeared to him that the House was largely constituted, more so than it had frequently been in determining many grave questions. But he went beyond that. He appealed to the practice of ordinary public life, and asked whether it was a valid argument to say that, because certain Members of the House happened to be absent, therefore those who were present were not entitled to decide? He had always understood that it was the first principle of public life that those who were absent should be bound by the decision of those who were present; and, on that ground, he held that no good argument had been advanced for the postponement of this Amendment. Again, for some reason which he was at a loss to understand, the Committee had been told that they must postpone the determination of this question until some authority outside the House had pronounced upon it. That he held to be a most dangerous doctrine. He contended that, as the Representatives of the people, they were fairly entitled to determine ques-
  150
  tions which came before them at full notice, as was the case with the Amendment before the Committee. Had time permitted, he would willingly have joined issue with the hon. Member for Newcastle, when he alleged that the opinion of the English people was against the re-enactment of the Alien Act. He differed from everything which the hon. Member had stated on that point. They could well understand that the English people were jealous of the right of asylum; but then that right of asylum was only extended to foreigners who were alleged to have committed political offences against their country; whereas, in the present case, they were dealing with conspirators, who had been justly described as making these shores the basis of their operations, and doing their best to aim a deadly blow at the integrity of the Empire. He had no sympathy with conspirators of that kind. He had heard several references, in the course of the discussions on this Bill, from the hon. Member for Newcastle and others, to the views of the English people. Now, he felt qualified to speak on that subject with some degree of confidence. A short time ago he had taken part in the election for the West Riding of Yorkshire, where he had the means of judging what was the feeling of the electors of a district which might be described as one of the most representative constituencies in the Kingdom. The result of his experience was a confirmed and clear conviction that the people of England were determined, come what might, to put down this foul conspiracy. He had been animated in the silent votes which he had given, and which he should continue to give, throughout these discussions, with a desire to do what lay in his power, without going beyond the necessities of the case, to arm the Irish Executive with the means of dealing a strong and decided blow against this most nefarious conspiracy.
  MR. R. T. REIDsaid, they were all in favour of maintaining law and order in Ireland, and it was quite unnecessary for the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) to remind them of that duty; but what he deplored was that so many Members of the Liberal Party should, with such remarkable alacrity, vote the re-enactment of the Alien Act in England under circumstances in which

  151
  no fair notice had been given to the country. The terms of this Amendment, in the first place, did not clearly convey to those who were not thoroughly acquainted with the Act what was the subject-matter which the Amendment proposed to deal with. Moreover, they had had no intimation from the Government, until the last moment, that they were willing to accept this Amendment any more than other Amendments upon the Paper. That being so, he was satisfied many Members of the House had not the slightest idea that so grave a matter was being discussed at that moment in Committee. The Government, although they were of opinion that this Amendment should be accepted, were also of opinion that further time should be given for its consideration; and he was surprised that Members of the Liberal Party, who had taken an opportunity of announcing their views, should, in the absence of other Members, be determined, contrary to the wishes of their Leader, to press on the Committee to an immediate settlement of this question, instead of waiting for the stage of Report. He regretted most sincerely that, as at present advised, he could not agree with the conclusion of Her Majesty's Government. His respect for the Prime Minister was second to that of no man in the House; but the argument put forward by him was one was one that might be adduced tomorrow for the permanent re-enactment of that measure, which had been condemned by the opinion of most men.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he understood the Government to have thoroughly considered this question, and to have arrived at a conclusion that it was quite right that the Alien Act should be extended to England. Now, if the Government had solemnly arrived at that conclusion, he asked why it was they wished the question postponed? Did they mean that if they found the country not to be in favour of the conclusion at which they had arrived they would withdraw from it? They had stated deliberately that, in their opinion, the Amendment should be accepted; and, therefore, there could not be the smallest reason why the Committee should postpone their decision upon it. It seemed to be trifling with the Committee for hon. Members to get up and say that the country had not had an opportunity
  152
  of considering an Amendment placed upon the Notice Paper. Why, the Committee were considering the question at the present moment. It was their function to consider it, and they were not to be put off from deciding upon the question simply because it was a grave one, and because it was stated that the country had not had an opportunity of considering it. The Members of that House were bound to their constituencies to give their votes on every question which came before them when those questions presented themselves. The Government must have considered the question carefully before they gave the advice which they had offered to the Committee, and having given that advice, he contended that it was the duty of every Member to vote upon the question at once, in accordance with his own views. Under the circumstances, he trusted the Committee would not agree to a postponement of the question.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, when he made a request to the Committee with reference to this subject he stated the views of the Government in unequivocal terms, believing, at the same time, that the request made was a perfectly usual one. He took the opportunity of saying, with respect to the speech of the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell), that, in the first place, he had ascribed either to himself or to his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, sentiments which they certainly never uttered; and he doubted whether the hon. Gentleman would have made that statement had he been for a longer time conversant with Parliamentary practice in matters of the kind. It had always been the practice to concede to the Government a large discretion, and even a large indulgence, as to the choice of the time at which they should invite the final decision of the Committee upon a point which materially affected the structure of their own Bill. He ventured to found that statement upon a rather wide experience. However, the request he had made had evidently been refused by the two right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the hon. Member for Portsmouth, who, by the way, were not present when the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke, upon which he partly founded his request, was delivered. It was certainly most compli-

  153
  mentary that the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon, not having heard the debate on this subject, should at once, without listening to what was said by anyone else in opposition, have expressed himself so satisfied with the force of his arguments that he was determined not only to vote for the Amendment himself, but to afford him an opportunity of giving that night a vote which he had expressed his intention of giving on a future occasion. That was so gratifying that he had only to express the hope that on other occasions the right hon. Gentleman might be disposed to accord him some portion of the same favour, and he should consider that one of the most noteworthy circumstances in his career. The right hon. Gentleman was also pleased to remark upon his want of courage. Without saying that the rebuke was undeserved, he certainly felt that if he were a political coward then, the limited span before him afforded him no hope of any improvement in that respect. The Government were asked why they requested this delay? It was certainly not in order that they might reconsider their judgment, nor that they might surrender their deliberate judgment to any sentiment out-of-doors. There were two considerations quite apart from these that appeared to justify and recommend their making to the Committee a request which he believed to be altogether usual and customary. One was in reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who stated that great dissatisfaction would arise from the adoption of a measure of this kind on an Irish Bill, the country being under the impression that it was not to contain any legal provisions relating to England. Now, he wished especially to state that he desired to avoid any dissatisfaction arising from the wholly irrational idea that the present Bill was of an insidious character; and, that being so, the suggestion he had made could not be regarded as illegitimate. He thought that while they acted on their own judgment their action should be so timed as not to afford any solid or plausible ground for discontent. The other reason which operated in the Government mind was this—that although his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) had perfectly performed his part in giving Notice of
  154
  his Amendment, yet as his Notice came amongst a crowd of others, and there had not been the smallest intimation of the intention of the Government with respect to it, the Government deemed themselves not only within their right, but governed by their duty, when, out of respect to the Committee, they requested that its decision should be postponed until they had had an opportunity of weighing and considering the matter fully. He did not recede from the request he had made. The Government had expressed their sentiments on the merits of the Amendment, and were now entirely in the hands of the Committee. He hoped his hon. and learned Friend would be allowed to withdraw his Amendment; but if he were not allowed to do so, they must vote on the merits of the Amendment, without reference to those circumstances of time and place, to which, in conformity with usage, they were prepared to have accorded a large consideration.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, it was a mistake to suppose that the Amendment was necessary to extend the Alien Act, under this Bill, to Great Britain. The clause, as it stood, would apply the Alien Act to Great Britain, for it said—
  "An order shall not be made directing any alien within Great Britain to depart this realm, except in the case where an order of the Lord Lieutenant has been made directing an alien in Ireland to depart the realm; but in such case an order may be made in Great Britain respecting such alien."
  It seemed to him, therefore, that the Amendment was not of that practical importance described by hon. Members around him. He did not, however, see why hon. Members from Ireland should object to the Amendment, which dealt only with England, if English Members desired it; or why English Members, who would revive the Alien Act so far as Ireland was concerned, should so strongly oppose its application to this country. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) had spoken of the feeling of London. Well, he (Sir John Lubbock) represented a portion of London, and he could not agree with the hon. Member in the opinions he had expressed with regard to the Metropolis. The Committee, he thought, under all the circumstances, might very well accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend.
  MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, the only question the Committee had to de-

  155
  cide was this. [Cries of "Divide!"] He was afraid, if he was to be interrupted in this way, he would be driven to the course of moving the adjournment of the debate. The question the Committee had to decide now was whether they ought to divide on the merits of this question now, or adjourn the division to the Report. If this discussion had come on in a thin House, at 9 o'clock, there might have been some ground for suggesting that the question should be postponed, and for saying that hon. Members had not had an opportunity of considering it. But when he saw the Benches so full he was led to doubt very much whether, oven on Report, they would be ever likely to get a larger number of Members together on the Bill. There was no reason whatever why, if this clause was to apply to aliens in Dublin, it should not apply to aliens in every other city in Great Britain who were believed to be in these nefarious and mischievous conspiracies. He agreed with every word that had fallen from the hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Roundell) that the Committee had had ample Notice of this Amendment. Notice of it had been given in duplicate—by the hon. and learned Member who had moved it, and also by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). The country, therefore, must have had ample opportunity of knowing that a question of this sort would be brought before the Committee; but even if the country knew very little about it, Members of Parliament were not delegates, but were elected for the purpose of freely considering whatever questions might come before them. It was for them, and not for people out-of-doors, to decide questions of this sort. He hoped the Amendment would be pressed to a division, and that it would not be left to be considered on Report.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, he was only going to ask a question. He understood that this Amendment would be put before the clause; well, with regard to that, he wished to ask a question, and he desired to be informed whether he should put that question now, or after the division had been taken?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Not only the Committee, but the House, had this Amendment before them. It was on the Paper during the whole of the discussion on the second reading, and the Commit-
  156
  tee has had it before them for some time. No points have been raised, and I am of opinion that it is entirely within Order for the Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," to be put.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that, although there might not be good reason for postponing the vote on this question until the Report, there was, at all events, good reason for postponing it until tomorrow. He would remind the Committee that it was only at about half-past 10 that the Government, to the astonishment of the whole Committee, in the most unexpected manner, and after having shown all the afternoon every appearance of being doubtful as to the course they should take, announced, for the first time, that they were going to take this very important step. The course they were adopting meant the re-enactment of the Alien Act of 1848 for the whole of the United Kingdom. Under these circumstances, and in view of the fact that only two Irish Members had spoken with regard to this very important change, the Committee might very fairly be asked to agree to the Motion to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he trusted the Motion would not be persevered in. The urgency was very great, and the Bill had been long delayed. He was aware that, from its character, much discussion was required and justified. He would not enter into any criticism as to the amount of discussion which had taken place further than to say that he should not, perhaps, be overstepping the mark in saying that the discussion had been very long. The proposal he had made earlier in the evening would have the effect of giving sufficient time to consider the question on its merits to those who had not previously heard the proposal itself, and were not acquainted with the decision of the Government. He could not think that any advantage would accrue from postponing the discussion for 13 hours—from 1 o'clock until 2 in the afternoon. The Amendments to-night had been sufficiently—he might, perhaps, say exhaustively—discussed, and in many quarters ably

  157
  discussed. A postponement for 13 hours would be a pure waste of time. Hon. Members below the Gangway opposite had refrained from unnecessarily interposing all the evening. He hoped they would not forfeit the title they had earned to credit for their moderation by insisting upon this Motion to report Progress.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, although the Amendment had been on the Table many days, the Government had not given an intimation of their intention with regard to it until a late hour this evening. The Committee was taken by surprise, and he thought that both hon. Gentlemen opposite and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House—who had taken, comparatively speaking, no part in the debate—would be justified in supporting his hon. Friend's Motion, so that the decision should not be taken in a hurried and haphazard manner.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that, as the Committee were aware, if the Amendment were carried, it would defeat the putting of any further Amendments to the clause as it stood in the Bill. There were a number of Amendments to the latter part of the clause standing in the name of the hon. Members for Launceston, Limerick, and others; but these Amendments could not be moved if that now before the Committee were adopted, except in the shape and in the nature of Provisoes. He thought, therefore, it would only be fair that, as soon as this Amendment was carried, an opportunity should be given to hon. Members to put their Amendments in the shape of Provisoes. It would be very hard upon hon. Members if, in consequence of an Amendment with which they had nothing to do to another part of the clause, they should be prevented from bringing forward their proposals. The Government a while ago stated that they were unable themselves to come to a vote tonight, and would prefer to postpone the matter to the Report stage. Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to informing the Committee what guidance he was going to offer to his followers in the shape of his own vote? The Committee had refused to accede to the postponement of the matter to the Report, and he thought they were entitled to know what course the Government were going to take.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he had made a request, to which he still adhered; but that request had been refused. The only question, therefore, before them was to vote upon the Amendment on its merits. They had given their opinion upon the merits, and now it was only for them to vote for the Amendment.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he would not stand in the way of a division being taken, as a great many hon. Members had come down to vote on the Amendment. The Irish Members, he thought, were entitled to have an opportunity of stating why they considered they ought to oppose the Amendment. The hon. and learned Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) had asked what interest the Irish Members took in this matter? Well, they would have an opportunity of expressing their views, and of replying to the hon. and learned Member, in the discussion on the question that the clause stand part of the Bill.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that, so far as he was concerned, he was entirely in the hands of the Committee. With regard to the appeal which had been made to him by the Prime Minister, he should be willing, although with some reluctance, to postpone the matter to the stage of Report.
  Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 51; Noes 228: Majority 177.

  AYES.

  Barran, J.

  Lalor, R.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Leamy, E.

  Bright, J. (Manchester)

  M'Carthy, J.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Morley, A.

  Burt, T.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Buszard, M. C.

  O'Connor, A.

  Byrne, G. M.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Callan, P.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col The

  Commins, A.

  Corbet, W. J.

  O'Kelly, J.

  Dillon, J.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Flower, C.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Gill, H. J.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Grant, A.

  Power, R.

  Gray, E. D.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Rylands, P.

  James, C.

  Samuelson, H.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Sexton, T.

  159

  Sheil, E.

  Wedderburn, Sir D.

  Sheridan, H. B.

  Whalley, G. H.

  Smith, E.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  Storey, S.

  TELLERS.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Webster, J.

  Cowen, J.

  NOES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Alexander, Colonel C.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Allen, H. G.

  Dickson, Major A. G.

  Allsopp, C.

  Dickson, J.

  Armitstead, G.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Aylmer, J. E. F.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Dodds, J.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Baring, T. C.

  Duckham, T.

  Baring, Viscount

  Duff, R. W.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Beach, rt. hon. Sir M. H.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Biddell, W.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Biddulph, M.

  Errington, G.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Evans, T. W.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Brassey, H. A.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  Brett, R. B.

  Ferguson, R.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Ffolkes, Sir W. H. B.

  Brinton, J.

  Filmer, Sir E.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Finch, G. H.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Findlater, W.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

  Burghley, Lord

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Foljambe, F. J. S.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Fowler, W.

  Carington, hon. R.

  Fry, L.

  Carington, hn. Colonel W. H. P.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Causton, R. K.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Gordon, Sir A.

  Chaplin, H.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

  Grant, Sir G. M.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Coddington, W.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Collins, T.

  Compton, F.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Corry, J. P.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Courtauld, G.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Courtney, L. H.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Creyke, R.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Heneage, E.

  Cropper, J.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Crum, A.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Holms, J.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Davey, H.

  Howard, E. S.

  Davies, R.

  James, Sir H.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Jardine, R.

  160

  Johnson, W. M.

  Porter, A. M.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Portman, hn. W. H. B.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Kinnear, J.

  Ralli, P.

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Rankin, J.

  Lawrence, W.

  Rathbone, W.

  Lea, T.

  Richardson, T.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S.

  Roberts, J.

  Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

  Leighton, S.

  Round, J.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Roundell, C. S.

  Lloyd, M.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Loder, R.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Long, W. H.

  Salt, T.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Severne, J. E.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  M'Intyre, Æneas J.

  Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Magniac, C.

  Stewart, J.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Storer, G.

  Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

  Summers, W.

  Mason, H.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Mellor, J. W.

  Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Thornhill, T.

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Monckton, F.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Monk, C. J.

  Tracy, hon. F. S. A. Hanbury-

  Moore, A.

  Moreton, Lord

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Morley, S.

  Walter, J.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Warton, C. N.

  Murray, C. J.

  Waugh, E.

  Newport, Viscount

  Whitbread, S.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Whitley, E.

  Wiggin, H.

  Onslow, D.

  Williamson, S.

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Willis, W.

  Paget, T. T.

  Wills, W. H.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Winn, R.

  Parker, C. S.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Peel, A. W.

  Wroughton, P.

  Pell, A.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Pender, J.

  TELLERS.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Kensington, Lord

  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Storey.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, there were no complications about the clause, so far as he knew, and he did not know why they could not go on a little longer.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the proposition the right hon. and learned Gentleman was in reality making to them was, that

  161
  they should swallow the Alien Act of 1848 without any examination. The right hon. and learned Gentleman did not give them time to consider what the Alien Act was. Though the right hon. and learned Gentleman might be desirous of having the Act revived in its full effect, the Irish Members, at least, were anxious not, if they could help it, to allow the Act to be revived in an unlimited form. All the Amendments on the Paper had been disarranged by the course the Government had taken, and he considered it was absolutely necessary the Government should have an opportunity of considering the Amendments on the Paper.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, if there was any real desire to report Progress he should not oppose the Motion.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

ARREARS OF RENT (IRELAND) BILL.
(Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Childers, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)

[BILL 163.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee, and reported; to be printed, as amended. [Bill 213.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be re-committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock."
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSasked, whether it was really wise to put the Bill down for that time, because it could not be reprinted by 2 o'clock, and could not come on at that time.
MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Bill would be delivered at 2 o'clock.
MR. ONSLOWinquired whether the Amendment to the Bill, as it now stood, would hold good if the Bill came up at 2 o'clock, considering that the Bill had now been reconsidered?
MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked whether it was fair to Members who had put Amendments on the Paper as a matter of form?
MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, the question was whether the Amendments on the Paper to the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair would stand good for the amended Bill? The answer to that question would, he believed, satisfy hon. Members having Amendments.
MR. SPEAKER: The Amendments on the Motion that the Speaker leave the Chair in going into Committee on this Bill remain as Amendments on the Paper.
Motion agreed to.
Bill re-committed for To-morrow at Two of the clock.

PARTNERSHIPS (re-committed) BILL.
(Mr. Monk, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Barran, Mr. Lewis Fry.)

[BILL 179.] COMMITTEE.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clause 1 (Short title).
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.'
MR. WARTONwished to ask the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) whether he intended to go through with this Bill at this time of night, as there were many hon. Gentlemen who were thoroughly dissatisfied with the measure, and it was only the hon. Member for Gloucester who wished to push it on. He moved that Progress be reported.
Motion made, and Question proposed' "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
MR. MONKsaid, he would have been willing to postpone this Bill if it had been, the desire of hon. Members having Motions on the Paper; but he had been strongly requested by the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. T. C. Baring), and by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Horace Davey) to proceed with the Bill. Therefore, when he was asked the question earlier this evening, by the hon. and learned Member for Christchurch, whether he should proceed with the Bill, he said he should do so, as he believed there was no possibility for the rest of the Session of bringing the Bill on earlier than 1 o'clock. He hoped the hon. and learned Member would not persist in his Motion, as the hon. Members interested in the Bill were all present, and there was no other Bill on the Paper of any importance. He hoped the Committee would go through the Amendments.
MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, as the hon. Member had referred to him, he ought to say that he was not responsible for asking the hon. Member to go on with the Bill at this hour. He held a very strong opinion as to the impropriety of attempting to codify the law at that hour, and. in the House attended as at present. What he did say was, that it was a matter of indifference to him whether it was taken to-night or not; but if he was asked whether it was a proper proceeding for the House to proceed with a Bill of this importance, which never had been considered in the House at such a time of night, he should say it was certainly not a proper course.
MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he must take upon himself the responsibility of having recommended that this Bill should be taken to-night; and that view he took simply because he disliked having it put down on the Paper night after night, and then, when but few Members were present, slipped through the House. He did not love the Bill; but by putting it off to-night the House would not shelve it, but, on the other hand, would run the risk of its passing through without proper consideration at some late hour when Members interested in it were not present. He could not conceive anything more mischievous to the commercial community than that a Bill so closely concerning them should be passed in such a way. Therefore, he preferred that it should be considered to-night, although if the House could, by a Resolution, table it for the Session, he should be very pleased.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 55: Majority 5.—(Div. List, No. 171.)
Original Question again proposed.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Sir E. Drummond Wolff.)
MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion. He thought the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk) would not be justified in pressing this Bill against the wish of a considerable minority of the House; but he submitted that it would be proper, now that all those who took a particular interest in the Bill
164
were present, to proceed with its consideration. If the Bill was postponed, he was afraid the prediction of the hon. Member for South Essex (Mr. T. C. Baring) would be verified, and the Bill would be put down night after night.
MR. T. C. BARINGsaid, he knew that many Members who were interested were present to-night; and he had only discovered to-night how little the Bill was understood; and he had himself put down sundry Amendments. He had spoken to several commercial Members of the House, who, like himself, were unaware that they had been systematically breaking the law for many years, and were entirely ignorant of judge-made law, which was hundreds of years old in many cases. He should vote for the Motion because he thought a Bill affecting the whole commercial community ought not to be passed at such an hour of night.
MR. MONKsaid, the Bill had been before the House for several months, and had been read a second time. It had been sent to a Select Committee, and carefully considered and amended by that Committee, and sent back to the House in the form in which they thought that it should pass into law. It obtained the unanimous approval of that Committee in its present shape, and some Members—for instance, the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley)—who opposed certain portions of the Bill, as originally introduced, were now, he believed, as anxious, on behalf of the commercial community, as he himself was that the Bill should pass. He thought it very unreasonable that hon. Members who did not understand the Bill, and did not know the difference between Judge-made Law and Statute Law, should oppose the progress of this Bill. If it was the desire of the Committee that the Bill should be considered at a more convenient season, he should be glad if hon. Members would point out what would be a more convenient season.
MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, he thought the argument of the President of the Board of Trade insufficient, because all those who were present were Members who had spoken in favour of the Bill.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the hon. Member opposite seemed to complain of the hon. Member for South Essex; but he would remind the Committee that

165
there was no higher authority upon this question than that hon. Member.
Question put.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 47: Majority 6.—(Div. List, No. 172.)
MR. MONKsaid, that as it was evident the House did not wish to go on he would move that Progress be now reported.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Monday next.

MOTION.
  CANALS.

    NOMINATION OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
    MR. SALTsaid, he begged to move the nomination of the Select Committee on Canals.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Salt be a Member of the Select Committee on Canals."—(Mr. Salt.)
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought he could object to the Motion, on the ground that the names of the Committee were put down last on Saturday. He found the names on the Saturday Paper, but since then they had been altered. The number had been increased by the names of Sir Edmund Lechmere, Mr. James Campbell, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. Jackson, and Mr. Magniac, and this increase entirely changed the features of the Committee. He believed it had been held by the Prime Minister himself that if a change took place in the names of a Committee within the 24 hours, any Member had a right, during those 24 hours, to object to the Committee being taken. Under the circumstances, he begged to object to the Committee being now taken.
    MR. SPEAKER: I understand the four names mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) appear amongst the Notices of Motions for the first time to-day.
    MR. LABOUCHERE: Five names.
    MR. SPEAKER: These names have been added to the Committee since the last Sitting; therefore, if the hon. Member thinks proper to object to proceeding at this hour with these names, his
    166
    objection would be good against these particular names.
    MR. SALTsaid, he, perhaps, ought to apologize for the names mentioned by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not having been put on the Paper sooner. He, however, saw no reason why he should not proceed with the names with which he could proceed.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would, in that case, wish to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: There is no question at this moment before the House. The first question I have to put to the House is that Mr. Salt be a Member of this Committee. If the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) thinks proper, he can now move the adjournment.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate, and he would tell the House why. About 10 days ago he put down the names of Mr. Bradlaugh and Baron de Worms to serve on two Committees—the Landed Estates Committee and the Canals Committee. The Government wished the Landed Estates Committee to go through at once, and, therefore, he did not press the two names in respect to that Committee; but he meant to do so with respect to the Committee on Canals. He wanted to raise the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh had a right to sit on that Committee. The Committee which it was now proposed to appoint consisted of 15 Members; but at the time he gave Notice of his Motion it consisted of a less number. The Speaker would observe that his (Mr. Labouchere's) Motion did not block the Committee—it was merely a second Motion—but two Gentlemen (Colonel Makins and Mr. Warton) had been good enough to block his Motion. Of course, he could counteract that by blocking the proposal to nominate the Select Committee on Canals. He had, however, no wish to do that, because he desired it to be decided whether Mr. Bradlaugh could serve on a Committee or not. Under the circumstances, he would move the adjournment of the debate. They had just had an instance of a protest on the part of many Members against controversial Business being taken at so late an hour, and he was sure those Gentlemen who voted just now in favour

    167
    of reporting Progress would vote with him now.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Labouchere.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.