HC Deb 19 May 1882 vol 269 cc1116-48

Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. GLADSTONE

, resuming, said: I was coming, Sir, to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo, to the effect that we ought to have only one article in our political creed, and that article should be conciliation; and he went on to speak of that article of conciliation as rather one of justice. Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Member—the article of justice satisfies me perfectly; but I must remind the hon. Member that it means justice to all and to everyone. Unfortunately, this includes the use of force for the punishment of evil-doers, and the praise of all who do well. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I place my reliance chiefly upon force, or on what he has termed conciliation, I answer him that I place my reliance undoubtedly upon the removal of the causes of discontent, infinitely more than upon mere force. But, Sir, that is a necessary part of our duty which cannot be overlooked. The hon. Gentleman says—and there again I agree with him—we must show the people that the law is their protector and helper, and trust to our showing this to bring them to the side of law. I agree; but then I must show that to all sections of the people, and among these I am bound, not least, to show it to those who, during the last autumn and winter especially, have suffered most cruelly, for not only the exercise of their legal rights, but for the performance of their legal and personal duties. So much for the general principles upon which we act. As to the remark made upon the conduct of the right hon. Member for Bradford, I can only say that during his tenure of Office he enjoyed the perfect confidence of his Colleagues; that he had their cooperation; that they shared his responsibilities; and no part, either small or great, do they seek to shift from themselves upon him. The hon. Gentleman says—and I refer to this not in a spirit of controversy—indeed, as far as I can command and control myself, the last thing I desire is to treat this Bill in a spirit of controversy at all—he says this Bill rests upon one outrage. Permit me to say that that is a great mistake. The hon. Gentleman went on to do a gross injustice to the people of England. The words escaped his mouth of "the storm of rage" which passed over England on the announcement of the horrible massacre in Phœnix Park. The hon. Gentleman afterwards qualified this; but still he said it was a storm of emotions unjust to Ireland. Never was the hon. Gentleman more mistaken. He may have been led by one or two shameful manifestations of feeling, shameful in a degree that I cannot trust myself to describe, assigning to the people of Ireland the guilt of this massacre, and expressing the belief that it was the true utterances of their opinion. But for the people of England, let me say that there have reached me, down to the present time, about 600 addresses and references to myself, all of them proceeding from more or less public bodies, and a considerable number of them from Ireland; but I think not less than 500, perhaps in proportion to the population, from this side of the Channel, and out of these 500 there are not five—I do not know that there are two—I am not sure there was one—that spoke the language of wrath and resentment, for their universal exhortation was an expression to the Government of the urgent hope that they will persevere in their policy and do strict and full justice to the people of Ireland. I am quite sure that by attempting this correction of what I believe to be an involuntary error on the part of the hon. Gentleman, I shall not offend him; but he will be rather glad to give me his acknowledgments for it. Never in my life, I am bound to say, have I seen a nobler attitude spontaneously assumed by a great people than in the case of their manifestation, when the nature of the act that had been done would not justify—far be it from me to say that—but would, in some degree, have excused, or, not unnaturally, would have prompted an expression of very different sentiments. The case, as it comes before us, is this. We see in Ireland, it is admitted, a great prevalence of agrarian outrage. We cannot but take into view the non-detection of agrarian crime as a heavily aggravated feature. We now have in operation an Act of invidious and offensive character, which is to expire within no long time, and which it is our desire, if we can do it compatibly with public duty, to let that Act die a practical and natural death, even before it legally shall die. Consequently, we propose a Bill which is not, in our view, a Bill of resentment. It is not a Bill against a nation, at least in its intent. If hon. Gentlemen can show, when we come to the Committee on this Bill, that it has that character, the point is one that we shall be ready to discuss in a fair and impartial spirit, on details as they may arise. It is a Bill of substitution; and it is a Bill substituting an action that will be public, that will be in great measure judicial, and that will be throughout responsible for action which, unfortunately, could not be, and has not been, responsible at all in the effective and ordinary sense, because, although Gentlemen were entitled to call Her Majesty's Government to account under the Act now in existence, yet they did not possess, and they hardly could possess, from the very nature of the case, the means of making their charges effective, even from their own point of view. Well, this Bill was not founded upon the recent outrages. I may say that I toot one of the very earliest opportunities of expressing my own belief, after the occurrence of this horrible outrage, that it was one, the effect of which would be even perhaps more deeply felt and more keenly acknowledged in Ireland than elsewhere. But I must not shut my eyes to the facts. No facts have occurred to induce me in the least degree to qualify that declaration. I adopt the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman himself with regard to it. But I have, along with the existence of agrarian outrage, and with the general failure of detection and punishment, to connect another circumstance. I could not hear without acknowledging their justice the words of the right hon. and and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), when he pointed out last night that in this case there was a car; there was a horse, there was a driver, there were four men, apparently peculiar in their appearance; there was daylight, there was a long distance traversed, there were the environs of a great city, there were thoroughfares penetrating into the environs of the great city, traversed by this car, and horse, and driver, and four men, so that many must have been witnesses, in whose power it must have been to give information which, if received in series, could not but have led us to a point far more advanced towards the detection and punishment of this outbreak than we are at now. What, in cool blood and perfect impartiality, is the minimum of fair inference for this fact? My inference is that, to some small extent—and I believe it to be infinitely small—there may even be sympathy with this abominable crime; but that also, beyond the limits of that sphere of sympathy, there is a wider sphere of terrorism, and the knowledge of the terrible nature of the motives that have actuated the criminals themselves does operate powerfully as a strong intimidation against many men in Dublin and its environs, who would have been ready to give information that they must possess, but who have not, under the circumstances, given that information. But let me say that this terrible crime is not vital to the con- sideration of the Bill—that it is not this one outrage which has produced the Bill. I may make this admission to the hon. Gentleman who has said that we agreed to proceed with remedial measures before proceeding with measures to strengthen the law. I think he is inaccurate. I do not remember any pledge of that kind; but this I do recollect and freely admit, that after the release of the three Members of Parliament we did think it highly desirable, considering the state of feeling, and if the course of events permitted it, that a few weeks should elapse before proceeding to legislate for Ireland. But after this dreadful act—and this is the sole weight that has been given to it—it became impossible to proceed in that way. It became absolutely necessary to proceed with this Bill at once. I think the hon. Gentleman, in the interior forum of his mind and conscience, will see that I am justified in what I say, that however patient and kindly the state of public sentiment in this country may, be it would not have endured, and ought not to have endured, the postponement of the subject after that tragedy; on the contrary, that it would have insisted on the Bill being proceeded with forthwith. It was not, however, this tragedy itself. It must be recollected that before that tragedy public feeling had been greatly excited by two horrible murders—the murder of Mr. Herbert and Mrs. Smythe. But neither is that the main reason for this Bill. I declare for myself and for my Colleagues that in our view the main basis of this Bill, and the motives which influenced us to bring it forward and press it on with all the energy we can muster, were not special regard for persons of rank and station who, unhappily, have become victims to the fury of criminals; it is much more the regard which we have for the misery that has been carried far and wide among the body of the population. Outrage has been committed in every form—in some quarters perhaps lighter—but in every form, even the most cruel and extreme. It is this which has so many victims within its grasp. It is this that has lain at the very root and foundation of our conclusion that it was our absolute duty to legislate upon lines as Constitutional as we could, but in effective substitution for the Life and Property Protection Act now in force, for the sake of the people of Ireland themselves. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in the remarks that he made upon the details of the Bill. In a Bill of so many details, I am quite prepared to say that it is possible that some criticisms may be very useful; and, indeed, there are even matters, to which, however, I think I had better not now allude, in which we ourselves have arrived at the conclusion that some improvements may be made. Two things only I wish to say before I sit down; for I am most anxious to avoid any lengthened trespass on the time of the House, and I am most anxious also, if I can, to maintain something of a judicial tone in dealing with this subject, and to avoid whatever can tend to exasperate or to wound. There is a relation between this Bill and the Bill for dealing with arrears in Ireland. The hon. Member does us neither more nor less than justice when he says that we associate these two Bills. They are, in fact, living members of the same policy. They are, in our view, inseparable one from the other. With regard to the Bill before the House, we must earnestly press it with dispatch through the House, not with any desire to restrict the rights of any portion of the House, but with a deep conviction of what is expedient. With respect to this Bill, we feel that it would be idle to carry it forward, idle to pass it into law—it would convict us of total ignorance of our own duties and position—if we did not pass it on its main lines unaltered. That is our intention; and so far as it depends upon us that is what we shall do. I am bound to say that I cannot quite concur in one remark made by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) last night, when he said that many speeches had been made from this side of the House which went to emasculate or destroy the Bill. The most stringent criticism I heard from this side, as far as my memory sustains me, was the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce); but the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, while he made some criticisms in which I cannot concur, and while he made some suggestions with reference to the desirableness of the separation of the Executive and judicial powers, and not laying too great weight on the action of the Lord Lieutenant, yet it must be observed that my hon. Friend himself did not question at all, but, on the contrary, he expressly defended, under the circumstances, the erection of the exceptional tribunal. He did not deny that an effcient law against such intimidation as I have described is required. He did not deny that there must be an extension of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. A person who admits these propositions goes a great way towards justifying the substance of this Bill. We desire to carry forward this Bill in relation to the Arrears Bill. It is not necessary for me to say what relative value I assign to the one and to the other. They are, in our view, inseparable. We cannot consent to be parties to the abandonment or to the essential impairing either of the one or the other; neither can we consent to be parties to the interposition of any delay that can be avoided. Our desire and intention is to ask of Parliament to apply itself, with one and the same energy—although necessarily, to some extent, in succession to one another, as absolute parity of proceeding is a thing impossible—with one and the same energy to expedite the Bills and pass them into law. That is one reason why I venture to hope the House may allow the second reading to be taken to-day. I do not know altogether what view may be taken with the Bill dealing with arrears; but different views might be taken in different quarters. As far as I know, not only the Irish Members who sit below the Gangway opposite, but the numerous Irish Members in this part of the House, are most desirous to expedite that measure. It would be a very great mistake if it should happen that if there is any portion of the House averse to the Bill, those opponents should receive any justification, any warrant, any excuse for the attempt to impede its progress—of course, I do not object to any opposition in fair discussion—by any unnecessary and untimely discussion of this Bill. I hope hon. Members will excuse me for the delivery of what may be called a gratuitous and an officious instruction to hon. Members upon the discharge of their duties. It is at least well intended. The Bill is not conceived in any Party spirit. It is founded upon one principle, to which I have alluded during the last anxious weeks—namely, a desire that we may meet the difficult crisis as becomes sound-hearted men and loyal citizens, and that we may say nothing, and may omit to say nothing, that could possibly be injurious to the great Imperial policy and popular interests which are at this moment, perhaps, more than ever involved in the wise, right, and temperate conduct of the House of Commons.

MR. PARNELL

I am sorry, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should suppose that there is any intention on our part to offer any unfair or unnecessary opposition to this Bill. It is not my intention, nor do I believe is it the intention of my hon. Friends, to oppose the Bill in any way unfairly; but I wish to point out that this is a Bill of a very wide and sweeping character. It proposes to make an alteration in the whole Criminal Judicature in Ireland upon lines which are almost unprecedented even in the sad history of our country; and not only so, but it involves other consequences of a most far-reaching and extended character which none of us can foresee at the present moment. And although I do not wish to object to the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to obtain a second reading of the Bill to-day, I am bound to point out to him that the discussion which we have had upon this measure up to the present time, upon this most important stage, has been exceedingly superficial and limited. I would also further make this appeal. The right hon. Gentleman, yesterday, said he would feel it right to take the Committee stage of the Bill on Tuesday next. I think it is of the utmost importance that Amendments which it may be necessary to suggest as additions to, or alterations in, the Bill in Committee, should be of a practical and well-considered character; and if we are impelled, in this hurried fashion, into the Committee on a Bill of such scope as this, I do not see how it is possible for us to avoid the presentation of a mass of matter which may be more or less superfluous and unnecessary, and with which we might have no great desire to take up the time of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to give us a little further time for the consideration of the Amendments which we may deem it our duty to move in the Committee stage of the Bill. As regards the Bill itself, I will only say that I believe, to the fullest extent, in the good intentions of the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). I believe they do not intend, through this Bill, to injure the liberties of our people. I believe they intend only to use it against crime. But we have heard the same thing before. We have heard the same words from the lips of every Minister of the Crown who, since the Union, has presented a Coercion Bill for Ireland to this House. I admit that, perhaps, the intentions of many of them were not the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman; but Coercion Bills for Ireland have always been presented to this House with the same expression of a desire to preserve public and private liberty which have accompanied the presentation of this Bill on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) told us he knew the persons against whom the Bill of last year was to be used; but we know what was the result, and we cannot conceive how it is possible that any other result can follow the working of the present measure. We do not believe any man is good enough or noble enough to be intrusted with the liberties of a whole people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Prime Minister have said that they do not intend to do this and they do not intend to do that, and that they wish to use the Bill in a certain way; but I wish to point out, however, that the Bill leaves it absolutely in the power and at the discretion of the Executive Government, the Representatives of the Crown, and the police to do what they please as regards the repression of any right, private or public, or any Constitutional action whatever. With the best intentions, we believe that, sooner or later, the Chief Secretary for Ireland is bound to be perverted and destroyed by the evil counsels which have reduced the right hon. Member for Bradford to his present position. There is in Ireland an official circle which represents the minority—a very small minority—the class of landlords whose traditions are saturated with evil; and it is utterly impossible for anyone, however strong or however imbued he may be with the principles of liberty, to resist the influence and avoid the action of that class for any considerable period. It therefore comes to this. When we are asked in this Bill to surrender everything into the safe-keeping of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland—in resisting that we are entitled to call, as a witness to what is likely to happen, the experience of the past, and to ask whether the nature—whether the very nature—of the case does not render it impossible that our apprehensions should not be well defined? Now, Sir, what does the Bill do? It gives the right to the Judges to try and deliver sentence upon cases of treason, treason-felony, murder, firing at the person, manslaughter, and some other offences of a grave though diverse character. In other words, it puts political offences and horrible crimes upon one and the same footing. I do not mean to deny for a moment that political offences are not greatly entitled to your consideration, and that you should obtain whatever guarantees you can, or may think proper, for their prevention; but I do deny that you are entitled to choose your Judges and your executioners for the infliction of these sentences from the very class of our political opponents against whom we have been fighting in Ireland for so many years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, at an early period of the Session, amused the House by attempting to prove against me a charge of constructive treason, founded upon passages in my speeches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope, some day will be a Judge. All I can say is that I trust he will not be one of the Judges upon a tribunal to try me for that offence; for I fear that if he did his duty, as he supposed he was doing it when he was making the speech in question, he would give me a very short shrift and a very short day. I mention that as a practical example of one of the reasons why I am naturally disposed to view this Bill with apprehension. The late Mr. Isaac Butt told me once that it would not be possible for any of us to commit any graver offence in the eyes of the law than sedition, because, he said, it was impossible for a public speaker to be indicted upon his speeches alone for any higher office than sedition or seditious libel. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a lawyer of great skill and experience; but I regret to find that the judgment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attor- ney General for Ireland does not coincide with his, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers it is possible for public speakers to be guilty of the crime of constructive treason. Any public speaker in Ireland who hereafter ventures to make a speech will have to do so with the fear of the right hon. and learned Gentleman before his eyes, in his future position—which I hope he will attain, and which he thoroughly deserves—as a Judge. Now, I pass to the offences against the Act, and I must protest against the course pursued by the framers of the Bill in reference to this part of it. Not only do you provide special tribunals for the trial of offences, which are offences already provided for according to the ordinary law of the land, but you create a special offence, and constitute special tribunals for the purpose of trying that offence. You create the offence of constructive intimidation, and you make it of such a wide character that it is absolutely impossible for any person to do or say anything in Ireland, no matter what his intentions may be, without running the risk of being sent to prison for six months with hard labour. Now, I did not object very much—certainly I was willing to undergo the kind of imprisonment to which I have been subjected for the past six or seven months; but I certainly think that our local political Leaders in Ireland ought not to be called upon to stand the risk which would be entailed upon them by that clause of this Bill. Imprisonment with hard labour in Ireland is little short of slavery. We had in Kilmainham some 60 or 70 convict prisoners, and I saw how those men were treated. I saw how they were half starved to death. I saw how, with their stomachs empty, they were worked like galley slaves, and I saw the brutal way in which the warders of those prisons were trained and educated to treat those men; and I say I should not be willing to submit our local political Leaders to the prospect that is thus unfolded before them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that under this Bill all public actions of any kind, whether the Land movement, or any other movement, no matter how Constitutional, must cease in Ireland until this Bill expires. It will be a matter for us of very great consideration, after this Bill is passed, as to what our future course should be, whether we will continue in public life any longer, or whether we should leave the question to the right hon. Gentleman to arrive at whatever solution may be arrived at. But, however that may be, it is our duty, I think, on the various stages of this measure, before it has received the assent of the House, to point out these matters to you, and to show you the reasons why we fear that, although you may attempt to strike at assassins, you will in reality be striking Constitutional liberty. I had hoped that the Land League movement, with the passage of the Arrears Bill, and with the prospect of further alterations in the Land Act of last Session, of a just and equitable character, might very shortly have emerged from the state of vehement agitation and activity into a more placid and, perhaps, a more reasonable condition. For my part, I should not have objected to such a solution of the questions. We have been contending against the right hon. Gentleman for the last two years. We have found him to be a great, and a good, and a strong man. I think it is no dishonour to us to avow that he has fought us in a way we should not wish to be fought again by anybody in the future. And I regret that the event in Phœnix Park has prevented him from continuing in the strength of that course; and that, owing to the supposed exigencies of his Party, or of his position in that course, he has felt himself bound to turn aside from the course of conciliation, justice, and concession into those horrible paths of coercion which you have often trod before, by which your statesmen have always failed even to reach that which they put before themselves when they first started, and which, I fear, on the present occasion, will lead to much greater and graver dangers than those of the past.

MR. BROADHURST

said, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without expressing his opinion that many of the provisions of the Bill were altogether too stringent, and of a nature which many Liberal Members of the House could hardly support. He referred especially to Clauses 4, 13, and 14, the clauses dealing with intimidation. He had had some experience of the law which defined what intimidation consisted of; and he had no hesitation in saying that, under those clauses, it would be almost impossible for one person to sneeze in the presence of another, without making himself liable to the charge of intimidation. He especially objected to the portion of the Bill which proposed to deal with the right, or rather the total suppression, of public meeting. In proceeding on the line of the suppression of public opinion in Ireland, they were pursuing one of the most fatal courses that could be adopted towards that or any other country. He also regretted the attempt which was directed against the liberty of the Press. Any opinion which might be put into any leading article in those newspapers might be expressed in this House, and reported by those newspapers, and no Government could prevent their publishing them. He also objected to the exceptional powers which were given to the magistrates with regard to the imprisonment of witnesses. If he voted for the second reading of that measure, he would only do so with the firm determination to exercise all the power he might have in Committee to cut it down, to make it more reasonable, and, therefore, more calculated to attain the objects at which it aimed. He did not believe the public opinion of this country had ever demanded anything of this kind. He believed the proposals in the Bill were far in advance of public opinion in this country, and that if the proposals in the Bill were submitted to the great electoral body of this country they would oppose them by an overwhelming majority. They had applied coercion long enough; they were not satisfied with the results; and he could have wished the Government to have adhered firmly to a policy of kindness, of consideration for the opinions of the Irish people, and to have seen what would have resulted from carrying out such a policy for 12 months.

MR. HEALY

said, he must presume that there was no intention on the part of the Government to diverge from their course in reference to arrears; and, if so, he thought such a course on the part of the Government would lead to no concessions on that side of the House, because, when they remembered that weeks, and even months, had not been considered too much last year to spend in discussing the last Coercion Bill, which was of a less stringent character than this, it was too much to expect them to go through the second reading of the pre- sent one after only a day and a-half's debate. As the Prime Minister had failed to give any promise to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that, if the second reading of the Bill were carried, full opportunity would be given for the consideration of the Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman could not expect that the Bill would be allowed to pass through its present stage without ample discussion. The Prime Minister had complained that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had spoken on the measure an hour and a-half; but when the magnitude of the interests involved in the Bill were considered, he (Mr. Healy) did not think anyone had a right to complain that a Member had occupied an hour and a-half in speaking upon it. The Bill gave power to Major Clifford Lloyd and Co. to give six months' imprisonment to anybody. If the Government intended to use this Bill fairly, let them discharge Major Clifford Lloyd, Major Bond, the harassers and freebooters now interfering with the rights of the people, and then the Irish Party might be able to place some confidence in them when introducing this Bill. The Bill would be used for the purpose of putting down agitation; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had observed that it aimed at the suppression of crimes committed against people for discharging their legal obligations. He (Mr. Healy) asked what was supposed to be, in the popular mind, the prevailing sin in Ireland? It was the taking of land from which a tenant had been unjustly evicted. Was that a legal duty or obligation? It was in order to safeguard land-grabbers that the Bill was brought in. This Government, or any Government, would never eradicate from the minds of the Irish people that it was a crime both against God and man, in the present condition of Ireland, where land was life, for a man to take land from which another man had been unjustly evicted. [Laughter.] The Secretary of State for the Home Department smiled; but would he allow him (Mr. Healy) to tell him a fact which might strike him as strange in this matter? In Donegal, where land-grabbing had been going on to the greatest extent, if a man went to a priest and confessed that he had taken land from which another had been unjustly evicted, that priest would refuse to give that man absolution. He mentioned that as a proof of the feeling, not only political and social, but religious, with which that crime was viewed in the minds of the Irish people. He said that though a man might be legally entitled to take land from which another man had been unjustly evicted, the man who did so deserved the severest social ostracism with which he could be visited. It was viewed as a crime by the people of Ireland, and he believed it must also be a crime in those regions where British law was very little considered. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that he for one was willing to accept the definition of the hon. Member for Sligo as the basis of the policy upon which the Government would proceed towards Ireland; but he (Mr. Healy) himself had no belief in English good government in Ireland. The only people who ought to derive benefit from the Government in Ireland were the Irish people; but all that England had done there had been done to serve the ends and meet the emergencies of English Party politics. That was naturally the case since England held Ireland in her power. Justice to Ireland meant regarding English Party necessities and English interests, and nothing but that governed that Government, or any English Government, in its dealings with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Act of last year as an Act of an invidious character; but it was too late to say that now. When they (the Irish Members) denounced it last year, it was spoken of by the Government in terms of praise; and he was surprised that, at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the present Act, was not ashamed to denounce the Act which he had formerly spoken of with so much satisfaction. Charges had been made against the people of Dublin because the perpetrators of the recent murders had not been discovered; but he (Mr. Healy) would say that the people of Dublin were eager to give up the murderers to justice. ["Oh, oh!"] He defied anyone to deny that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) said that because a horse and car and four men remained undiscovered, that was a disgrace to the people of Dublin; but everyone who knew the Phœnix Park was aware that the traffic was considerable, and that it was not unusual to see four men driving through it; therefore, it was not fair to cast reflections upon the people because these four men had not been discovered. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that this Bill was drafted before the murders; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that the noble Lord the late lamented Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone over to Ireland with the flag of peace and conciliation in his hand; and yet they were told that, at that very time, the Bill was in preparation, and that it was to have been introduced by the late Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Healy) considered it was a libel on the memory of that noble Lord to say that a Bill of this kind could either have been necessary or possible. But the Prime Minister took a different tone, and said that an absolute necessity for the Bill had been created by the murders in Phœnix Park. That showed it had been brought in to suit Party exigencies, and on account of the state of public feeling in England; no regard had been shown to Irish sentiments. He would like to know whether it was intended that the Arrears Bill, which formed a branch of the policy of the Goment, should proceed stage by stage with the present Bill? He thought that the passing of a good Arrears Bill would stop outrages, because the people would then have no fear of being evicted on the roadside. Such a measure would do far more towards establishing peace and order than this Coercion Bill, which, indeed, would only excite irritation and tend to promote crime. Let them look at the opposition that had been threatened by the Tory Party to the Arrears Bill. He thought the proper course for the Government to adopt was to proceed first with it de die in diem, and send it up to the House of Lords. When it was seen what they would do with it, the Irish Members would be able to judge what was their proper course in relation to this Coercion Bill. He did not know if they remembered the words used by Thomas Francis Meager in 1848—namely, that "within the shores of Ireland the English never shall have rest." Those words were just as true in 1882 as they were when they were uttered. In governing Ireland they must have the majority of the people with them. The people of Ireland hated and detested English rule as much as did the people of India, and England had no chance of keeping Ireland except by coercive legislation. Until they were given the power of managing their own affairs they would resist English rule. They were as determined as ever to assert their right to govern themselves in their own way, without any interference from foreigners, for as such they regarded Englishmen. They had now had 82 years of a joint Parliament for England and Ireland, and scarcely a year had gone by in which they had not had a Coercion Act for the latter country. The present Bill was not aimed at crime; it was simply a Bill to enable the Clifford Lloyds, the Burkes, the Hamiltons, and the other members of the ruling hierarchy in Ireland to ride roughshod over the Irish people, to maintain British law, to keep the English bit in the Irish mouth. Let them go on with that system. Perhaps some day they would not be able to keep up that system, and then the turn of the Irish people would come. Meanwhile, it behoved the Irish Members to expose to the country and to the world the tyrannical and mischievous character of coercive measures such as that now before the House.

MR. A. GREY

said, that there was a great difference between the present Bill, and the one of last year. Even the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had admitted that the Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not so strong as the coercive measure passed last Session, because, while the Act of last year deprived a person who was reasonably suspected of having committed a crime of a jury, of a tribunal, and of witnesses, the present Bill only proposed to deprive the accused of the jury. He looked on that admission as a ground for hoping that the opposition to the present Bill, which only deprived the accused of trial by jury, would not be nearly so prolonged or so strenuous as that which was offered to the more objectionable measure of last year. The hon. Member for Sligo had endeavoured to draw the inference that the new Bill must be a failure, because the measure of last year had been a failure; but that did not at all follow. If the coercion of last year had failed, that did not prove that all coercion was wrong, but only that the right sort of coercion was not tried. Last year's Bill enabled Ministers to place in confinement persons who were reasonably suspected of a criminal offence, and it had been felt by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that it was exceedingly objectionable to confine men in prison on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, without giving them a chance of being heard. But the present Bill proceeded on a wholly different line, and only endeavoured to make it certain that crime should not be committed with impunity, and that those who committed crimes and those who obstructed the administration of justice should, after fair trial, meet with prompt punishment. He now wished to make a remark which he feared might not meet with the approval of all the Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House. He had heard with great regret the Prime Minister declare that the Arrears Bill and the Prevention of Crime Bill were inseparable—that they were living members of one and the same body. He had heard that statement with great regret, because the maintenance of law and order he regarded as the first function of a Government. That duty was held by all our great political writers to be the first mission of every Government; and he confessed that he did not think it was quite becoming that the Prime Minister should state, in that solemn and earnest manner, to the House, that the passage of a Bill which, in the opinion of himself and his Government, was absolutely necessary to enable them to fulfil their first function—provision for the due maintenance of law and order—should depend upon a measure dealing with arrears—a measure about which there was not an unanimity of opinion even on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and on which there remained a great deal to be said. He hoped that the Government would, under any circumstances, persevere in endeavouring to pass through the House a measure for the maintenance of law and order, which he believed to be absolutely essential to enable it to perform its first function, and that the enforcement of the law would not be rendered dependent on the passage of a Bill to which he would not now further allude, but on which he would, if he had the oppor- tunity, make a few remarks on Monday evening next.

MR. STOREY

Sir, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) does not represent any large body of opinion on this side of the House. I do not understand why he should object to the Prime Minister telling the people of England that he regards the Bill dealing with arrears as equal in importance to one putting an end to the Constitutional liberties of Ireland. It is, no doubt, the duty of the Government to maintain law and order; but how can they better do so than by delivering the people from suffering and injustice? I have intended, for the last few days, to try and give the House, from a Radical standpoint, some views on the matter now before us. The debate, so far, has been noticeable in one respect. The hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan)—whom, as a North-countryman, I welcome, as another North-countryman, into his most honourable Office—and the Prime Minister have placed before the House, in as admirable a manner as men could, the policy they propose for Ireland. Numbers of hon. Members on this side have, from different points of view, criticized or supported their policy, and hon. Members from Ireland—a few—and those in terms the propriety of which we must admit, have criticized the measure; but from the Benches over there no voice has been heard but that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). I am not far wrong, then, in assuming that what he said expressed the opinion of many hon. Members, if not of the whole Party, sitting there. And what has he suggested? His wish is that this Bill should be made stronger, and should be made to last longer. He proposes to make it stronger, by taking away some of the safeguards it bestows; and, in words which certainly sent a shudder through me, he expressed his distaste—the distaste of an Irishman—for he used a choice Hibernianism—for these "eternal temporary" Coercion Bills. Actually he, an Irishman, wished the law in Ireland to be permanently put an end to, and that Ireland should be governed by arbitrary measures. When a Representative of Toryism thus expresses his appreciation of arbitrary government, of course, one expects naturally that a Whig landlord, the scion of a Whig house, would rise on this side to express his concurrence, and to beseech the Government not to listen to any man on this side who wishes to emasculate this Bill. The words also of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) were that those who object to this Bill have not the opinion of the Liberals of England and Scotland behind them. That may be so, and I thank God in one respect if it be true. Last year when a few Radicals stood up and protested against the Coercion Act, they were twitted, and rather unworthily twitted, I think, by some who also call themselves Radicals, with being influenced by the fact that their constituencies contained a considerable element of Irish voters. If it could be said truly, or untruly, last year that we who oppose coercion now, and have at all times done so, were influenced by sordid motives, that cannot be said at all events to-day. I agree with those who believe that a large portion of the Liberal sentiment in the country will support the Prime Minister in the Bill he has brought forward, and I believe, too, that the men who dare to stand up and say now, as they have said at other times, that they object to the measure, will very probably bring on themselves the severance of many political friendships. I feel for myself that every word I utter loses me a vote. ["Oh, oh!" and "Go on!"] I understand hon. Gentlemen; but I can promise them that if I did go out in that way I should come back again. I feel that every sentence I complete digs, as it were, a grave in which many political friendships will be buried. You may believe we are wrong, but you cannot now doubt we are honest in our opposition. I hope I may be pardoned when I venture to tell the House that I disagree from Her Majesty's Government, and that I object to this measure. I object to it because I believe it will fail. Who say it will be a success? Her Majesty's Ministers? They told us the same thing last year of last year's measure, and yet, to-day, we witness the failure—as shown by the appearance of this new Bill. Who say it will fail? The Irish Members? They told us the same thing last year, and today they are accepted as true prophets. Nay, more than these tell us it will fail. History tells us so, for history does not contain the record of a Coercion Act that has been successful. I often think—[Ironical cheers from Conservative Benches.]—I am sorry hon. Gentlemen recognize that as an exceptional circumstance; I hope they will not judge me by themselves—I often think that if Englishmen honestly looked back on the Constitutional government of Ireland since the Union, they would display a great deal more modesty in the discussion of Irish affairs. For 80 years on either side of the House you have been seeking to govern Ireland. Whig and Tory, what have you done? How have you succeeded? Every measure that the Irish popular Party has asked for, you first of all denied, and finally granted. Every time you have brought in a Coercion Bill, they have denounced it, and, finally, you have had to admit its failure. And thus, after 80 years, you are placed in the position to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has told you, of having brought in the worst Coercion Bill ever placed before the public. [Cries of "Divide!"] I hold it will be unsuccessful, because it does not deal with the real difficulty of the case. If the Bill would capture the murderers who committed that diabolical murder in Dublin, or the murderers who committed the equally diabolical murders in the West of Ireland—the murders of Mrs. Smythe, of Mr. Herbert, and others—if it, in any way, would tend to the discovery and capture of the criminals, I would give it my support. It is a mistake, a great mistake, to suppose that English Radicals have any sympathy with criminals, and that they will not support the majesty and supremacy of the law just as much as Whig or Tory. But I do not believe that this Act will be successful in detecting crimes, and for this reason—it does so very little to meet the only great difficulty that exists in Ireland, and which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) has pointed out. But I will appeal to a greater authority than the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—to the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Gladstone). He has not discovered only in 1882 what are the defects in the administration of the law in Ireland. On the 6th of January, 1881, the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister described our chronic difficulty in Ireland thus— Our justification for asking for such powers is, not that we have not sufficient police and military forces at our command—not that the stipendiary magistrates are unwilling to do their duty;.… not the difficulty, hut the impossibility of procuring evidence."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 114.] Now, I ask, to what appreciable extent will this Bill help you to obtain this, so long as the people of Ireland labour under the conviction that they are under unjust laws, which they call on you to do away with? I was in hopes three weeks ago that at last we had entered on the right path. I never listened with more satisfaction to a speech than to that delivered by the Prime Minister—and though I have not been long in the House, I have heard his speeches more often than many older Members—but I never listened with more satisfaction to a speech of his than I did to that in which he, for the first time, I think, declared that his desire was to govern Ireland according to Irish opinion. In equally strong words, he stated that government by force was hostile to the British Constitution. What a fair vista was opened out to English Radicals three weeks ago; and yet now again, instead of advancing in that path, seeking the opinion of the people of Ireland, and governing by Constitutional methods, we are drawn back again on the old, worn-out, miserable road we have travelled so often in vain. Why so? The right hon. Gentleman rejects the idea that the plan has been changed because of the assassinations. I took down his words just now. He said it was then the intention of the Government to allow a few weeks to elapse before legislating for Ireland at all. He intended, he said, to go on with the clôture. Well, I cannot say I altogether like the clôture; but, certainly, this was a discreet policy on the part of the Prime Minister. He wished to let feeling in Ireland settle down. Will the Government tell us why? Was it not in their secret souls, if not in their open councils, that they intended to wait in the hope that things would so settle, that peace and order would so overspread the country after the "suspects" were released, that it would be possible—happily possible—to proceed merely with remedial legislation, letting the Coercion Acts expire without their being under the painful necessity of producing such a measure as this at all, I think I am right. ["No, no!"] Then more is the pity if I am wrong. [Cries of "Divide!"] I am sorry to stand between the House and the disposition to divide; but I may be allowed a few minutes longer, as I am sure to say something that nobody else will say. I have imperfectly shown to the House that I cannot vote for this measure—first, because I think it will not succeed; and, secondly, because I will have no part or lot in continuing methods of government that have heaped nothing but failure and disgrace on the people of England. This Bill is not prepared for the good of Ireland, but out of deference to the sentiments of the people of England. A Government could not last a week that did not bring in such a Bill; the present sentiment of the English people is such, and the feeling of hon. Members opposite is such, that if the Ministry had not brought in the Bill, they would have raised a loud cry that would have shaken the Government from their seats. How much longer are we to go on? [Ironical cheers from the Conservative Benches.] I am sorry the House is getting impatient with me; but the people of Ireland have much more right to be impatient with Members of the House.

MR. SPEAKER

I must call on the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair.

MR. STOREY

I was under the impression, Sir, that I was doing so; and, certainly, I so intended. I say I am not disposed to support the Bill, for I cannot give my vote in support of a system that governs Ireland merely out of deference to the state of English Parties and of English sentiment. An hon. Member lectured the Radical Party a short time ago because we were disposed, he said, to make Ireland the sport of Party. Now, the Radical Party is not open to such a charge. The Radical Party have had no such opportunity to make Ireland its sport, because the Radical Party have never been in power; but what has been the case is, the Whig and Tory Parties have made Ireland their sport, and from time to time have sought to get into Office by supporting or opposing measures for Ireland. I hold that if there had been a Radical Party, there had been no Coercion Act last year. If there had been 20 resolute men, firm in their convictions and determined in their opposition, joined with the Irish Members, there would have been no Coercion Act last year, and we should have no Coercion Bill now. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), "we must not make any compact with social revolutionists." Why not, if they are right? Why not make a compact with them? Whether he is right or myself, the whole question is not whether we choose to call them by certain names. If they be right, we ought to join and support them, no matter what the result. But Whig and Tory combine to pass Coercion Acts for Ireland, and between them Ireland comes to grief while we Radicals sit still. We screw up our courage to vote now and again against details; but we have not the resolution to declare—as we ought to declare—that the method of governing Ireland is rotten and bad, and only productive of mischief, and that the only successful method of governing Ireland is by Irishmen—men there are here. I will not speak of them there, on the opposite Benches, because I cannot trust them, or of these here, on this side, because I have never been able to discover if they have any opinions; but there are Irish Members in the House who have the courage of their opinions, and whom popular opinion has sent here, and I want to know will the House, some day, come to see that the true method of governing Ireland is to take the Members, in whom the people have confidence, and let them govern the country according to Irish ideas and for distinctly Irish purposes? I have only one thing more to say. The Prime Minister made a settlement of the affairs of the Transvaal. He did not, by that settlement, please some hon. Members in this House; but I will take the liberty of refreshing his memory and that of the House with one citation from his speech. He said— With regard to affairs in South Africa—(South Africa mind, not Ireland)—the principle on which we act is this—that believing that there were certain demands upon us which were up to a certain point just, we determined to proceed on the principle of agreeing to these demands and conceding them at once, not in a haggling or huckstering spirit, not waiting for the chapter of accidents, not placing ourselves in a position when we would have had to yield to pressure or difficulty what we would be unwilling to yield to justice; but rather at once, when we had in the country an overwhelming force, sufficient beyond all doubt to compel submission, to put down all military resistance, to yield to justice a liberal interpretation. How happy would it be for us—to put it on a lower level, how happy for the Liberal Party—if sentiments like these governed the Ministry in dealing with Ireland. What is our plan of governing? If Ireland complains, we close our ears. They complain more loudly, and we cry, "Trouble us not." Yet more loudly they cry out, and begin to agitate, and we say, "Here are these Irishmen at it again." They grow excited, and crimes begin to be committed by the more desperate among the population, against the wishes of their Leaders. Then, when this has risen to a height, when crime has come in to support political action, then, when the Government, Whig or Tory, has no other method of coping with it, it yields to force and pressure—ignobly yields, when it would have been better and more just to have listened to the demands of the people at first. I have not had many opportunities of speaking in the House, and it may be I shall not have many more; but I disagree with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who often tells us he hates the House. I am an Englishman. I reverence the House and its traditions, as much as ever Whig or Tory did, and I am content, nay, I am anxious, that the House should grow in public fame and glory; but are you adding to its fame by continuing this method of governing Ireland by means of—first the rod, and then the sugar plum. I call on you to use a better method—trust the Irish people and the men they trust; give them sway in the land; and, whatever happens, we should be delivered from a condition of things which is discreditable to the freest Constitutional country in the world.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

Mr. Speaker, I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of replying to the speech to which we have just listened, nor indeed to continue the debate; but I rise for the purpose of answering an appeal which was made at an earlier period of the afternoon by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and which has subsequently been pressed upon the Government by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). That appeal was made in very moderate terms and, I think, in a con- ciliatory spirit; and it is one, therefore, which the Government feel bound to consider carefully. The hon. Member for the City of Cork suggests that the Government should give some assurance that they will delay the next stage of the Bill beyond Tuesday, on which day they had previously stated it had been their intention, or rather their hope, that the Bill might be taken in Committee; and the hon. Member for Wexford suggests that we should take the Arrears Bill pari passû with the Bill which is now under discussion. The Government are very anxious, as has already been stated, to take every convenient opportunity for going on with the Arrears Bill. If any time whatever is at our disposal which can properly be employed for that purpose, we shall certainly be disposed to devote it to it; but we do not think that to say that in all cases and in all events the two measures should proceed pari passû with equal steps would conduce to the speedy passage of either measure. As regards the suggestion that the Committee upon the Repression of Crime Bill might be delayed, the hon. Member for the City of Cork states that if that were done, he thought it would enable the Party with whom he generally works to consolidate their Amendments, and thus effect a shortening of the discussion. Certainly, the Government do not desire in any way to prevent the fullest possible fair discussion of the clauses of the Bill. They require in a complicated measure of this kind a great deal of consideration, and the Government will welcome all reasonable discussion of its clauses. The Government, however, think it will be desirable to go on with our original proposal, and to go into Committee upon the Bill on Tuesday next, with the understanding that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends find that the time is too short to enable them to put down all their Amendments, and if they should then make an appeal to us with regard to some particular clause, then the Government will be willing to consider such an appeal, and postpone the clause to a subsequent day. In the meantime, it appears to us that the hon. Member and his Friends will be able to put down sufficient Amendments for the discussion on Tuesday, and, in that way, we shall be able to proceed most speedily with this Bill; and, this Bill once disposed of, we shall go on with the Arrears Bill, which we regard as of almost equal importance.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

said, that he fully admitted that the administration of justice in Ireland required great strengthening; but that, he would remark, was a very different affair from saying that the interests of justice required that the liberties of the Irish people should be entirely suspended during the next three years. Until both sides of the House arose to the conviction that the Government of Ireland must have in it some element of the Irish nation, and must have in it an Irish Executive and some Representatives of the men who were sent to the House to represent the Irish people in Parliament, they would always be having Coercion Bills introduced. Upon that ground he had uniformly voted against the principle of coercion, and he would vote against this Bill. No doubt, the state of Ireland did require very serious consideration, and the law did require strengthening; but the strengthening must consist in administration, and in the belief of the people in the justice of the law. This Bill was not to be administered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. It was not to be administered by the House of Commons. It would be administered by those paid individuals who were sometimes selected, as it appeared to him (Mr. Mitchell Henry), upon the principle of getting those who were least adapted to administer the law in that country. The consequence would be that they would have in every village in Ireland people unjustly stopped and arrested by the police. They would then have a repetition of those acts which followed on the passing of the Coercion Acts of 1871, and the time of the House of Commons would perpetually be taken up by questions raised in consequence of the administration of the law. Ireland was, at that moment, overrun with assassins. ["No, no!"] That was his opinion. He did not say it was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He believed there was in Ireland a conspiracy of assassination which was pervading almost every part of the country. Therefore, he advocated the strengthening of the law. Yet he objected to the kind of tribunal that was to be brought into operation under this Bill, both as to the powers which the Bill would put in the hands of stipendiary magistrates, and to a great many other clauses, especially the Court of Judges in substitution of trial by jury. If they wanted to strengthen the jury system, why not adopt the Scotch jury system of verdicts by a majority; and why not allow the verdict of "not proven;" and why not give the power of interrogating the accused? There were not many countries in which justice was more impartially or more efficaciously administered than in Scotland. To adopt this Bill, which seemed to him to be martial law under the name of something else, was a thing he would have no part in. A successful measure should give power to interrogate prisoners as to their conduct, the giving of a verdict on the vote of the majority of the jurors, and the power to return open verdicts in the absence of evidence. [Cries of "Divide!"] He viewed with the greatest regret the hungry impatience of the House to vote on this Bill without any discussion at all, and he had never seen anything in his life so extraordinary as what he might term the demoralization of Irish opinion. Nothing had struck him so forcibly as the "sucking-dove criticism" of this Bill by hon. Members opposite. He certainly had expected some real discussion from them. He had been particularly disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who had just been let out of prison under circumstances which were creditable, possibly, to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, but which were very discreditable to the hon. Member himself. ["Oh, oh!" and "Divide!"] He felt it was useless to persist in opposing the Bill at present; but he should propose considerable Amendments in Committee.

MR. CALLAN

said, that, in the face of the recent Dublin tragedy, he felt it was only a matter of good taste to refrain from voting against the Motion for leave for the introduction of this Bill, which was of a most atrocious character. They all knew how much inclined the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to draw the long bow; but even if that Bill were 10 times as severe—10 times as stringent or atrocious as it had been said to be by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he would still have supported it, if it had been framed for the purpose of detecting and punishing crime. Instead of doing that, however, it would strike at the very Constitution of Ireland. He objected to the tribunal of Judges. They were to be selected Judges, and that was tantamount to what the Irish people called a "packed jury." He raised no objection to that part of the Bill which dealt with the suppression of secret societies; but he believed that the administration of the last Coercion Act had done more towards fostering secret societies than all the Fenian organizations in that country. The Lord Lieutenant already had the power to prohibit public meetings; and during the past six months he, or rather the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had, in malice prepense, prevented every meeting in Ireland, for however legitimate a purpose it might be. He (Mr. Callan) objected also to the general and undefined powers in regard to the detention of strangers. The clause with respect to newspapers gave more power to the police in Ireland than the French Act gave, even after the Orsini bombs explosion, and was open to serious abuse. They spoke of the efficiency of the police; but the police administration of Ireland was the most ignoble and inefficient that had ever come under his notice, and the administration of the past Coercion Act by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had made his name, he believed justly, a name of evil memory in Ireland. The cause of the murders in Phœnix Park being allowed to be carried out was, he alleged, the thorough inefficiency of the Irish police and the withdrawing of all safeguards for protection. [Cries of "Divide!"] He knew what he was about; he did not wish to talk the Bill out, and would sit down before the division time came. He trusted that they would not go into Committee on Tuesday, and that before that time the fiery cross would be sent round, and that every Whig, Tory, and Home Ruler would be in his place, so that the Irish people could know who should be marked as black sheep. He hoped that every Irishman who was not in his place would receive at the hands of his constituents, at the earliest possible opportunity, political annihilation.

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 383; Noes 45: Majority 338.

AYES.
Acland, C. T. D. Causton, R. K.
Acland, Sir T. D. Cavendish, Lord E.
Agnew, W. Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.
Ainsworth, D. Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.
Alexander, Colonel Cheetham, J. F.
Allen, W. S. Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.
Allman, R. L. Christie, W. L.
Allsopp, C. Clarke, J. C.
Anderson, G. Clifford, C. C.
Armitage, B. Clive, Col. hon. G. W.
Armitstead, G. Coddington, W.
Asher, A. Cohen, A.
Ashley, hon. E. M. Colebrooke, Sir T. E.
Bailey, Sir J. R. Colman, J. J.
Balfour, Sir G. Compton, F.
Balfour, J. B. Corbett, J.
Balfour, J. S. Corry, J. P.
Baring, T. C. Cotes, C. C.
Baring, Viscount Cotton, W. J. R.
Barnes, A. Courtauld, G.
Barran, J. Courtney, L. H.
Barttelot, Sir W. B. Cowan, J.
Bass, H. Cowper, hon. H. F.
Bateson, Sir T. Crichton, Viscount
Baxter, rt. hon. W. E. Cropper, J.
Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H. Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.
Beach, W. W. B. Crum, A.
Beaumont, W. B. Cunliffe, Sir R. A.
Bective, Earl of Currie, Sir D.
Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C. Dalrymple, C.
Beresford, G. de la P. Davenport, H. T.
Biddulph, M. Davenport, W. B.
Birkbeck, E. Davey, H.
Blackburne, Col. J. I. Davies, D.
Bolton, J. C. Davies, R.
Borlase, W. C. Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.
Bourke, rt. hon. R. Dawnay, hon. G. C.
Brand, H. R. De Worms, Baron H.
Brassey, Sir T. Dickson, T. A.
Bright, rt. hon. J. Digby, Col. hon. E.
Brinton, J. Dilke, Sir C. W.
Brise, Colonel R. Dixon-Hartland, F. D.
Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F. Dodds, J.
Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.
Brooke, Lord Donaldson-Hudson, C.
Brown, A. H. Douglas, A. Akers-
Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C. Duff, R. W.
Bruce, Sir H. H. Dundas, hon. J. C.
Bruce, hon. R. P. Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.
Bruce, hon. T. Earp, T.
Buchanan, T. R. Ecroyd, W. F.
Bulwer, J. R. Edwards, H.
Buszard, M. C. Egerton, Adm. hon. F.
Butt, C. P. Elcho, Lord
Buxton, F. W. Elliot, G. W.
Caine, W. S. Elliot, hon. A. R. D.
Cameron, D. Elliot, Sir G.
Campbell, J. A. Emlyn, Viscount
Campbell, Sir G. Estcourt, G. S.
Campbell, R. F. F. Evans, T. W.
Campbell-Bannerman, H. Ewart, W.
Ewing, A. O.
Carington, hon. R. Farquharson, Dr. R.
Carington, hon. Col. W. H. P. Fawcett, rt. hon. H.
Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.
Cartwright, W. C. Fellowes, W. H.
Fenwick-Bisset, M. James, W. H.
Ferguson, R. Jardine, R.
Finch, G. H. Jenkins, D. J.
Findlater, W. Jerningham, H. E. H.
Fitzmaurice, Lord E. Johnson, E.
Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B. Johnson, rt. hon. W. M.
Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W. Jones-Parry, L.
Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. Kennaway, Sir J. H.
Floyer, J. Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.
Foljambe, C. G. S. Kinnear, J.
Folkestone, Viscount Lacon, Sir E. H. K.
Forster, Sir C. Laing, S.
Forster, rt. hon. W. E. Lawrence, Sir J. C.
Fort, R. Lawrence, Sir T.
Foster, W. H. Lawrence, W.
Fowler, R. N. Lea, T.
Fremantle, hon. T. F. Leake, R.
Freshfield, C. K. Leatham, E. A.
Fry, L. Leatham, W. H.
Galway, Viscount Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.
Gardner, R. Richardson- Leigh, hon. G. H. C.
Leigh, R.
Garnier, J. C. Levett, T. J.
Gibson, rt. hon. E. Lindsay, Sir R. L.
Giffard, Sir H. S. Lloyd, M.
Givan, J. Lopes, Sir M.
Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E. Lowther, rt. hon. J.
Gladstone, H. J. Lubbock, Sir J.
Gladstone, W. H. Lusk, Sir A.
Goldney, Sir G. Lymington, Viscount
Gore-Langton, W. S. Macartney, J. W. E.
Gorst, J. E. M'Arthur, A.
Goschen, rt. hon. G. J. M'Arthur, W.
Gower, hon. E. F. L. M'Clure, Sir T.
Grafton, F. W. M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.
Grant, A. Mackie, R. B.
Greene, E. Mackintosh, C. F.
Greer, T. M'Lagan, P.
Gregory, G. B. Macnaghten, E.
Grenfell, W. H. Magniac, C.
Grey, A. H. G. Makins, Colonel W. T.
Gurdon, R. T. Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.
Halsey, T. F. Mappin, F. T.
Hamilton, I. T. Marjoribanks, E.
Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. Martin, R. B.
Maskelyne, M. H. Story-
Hamilton, J. G. C. Mason, H.
Harcourt, E. W. Master, T. W. C.
Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V. Matheson, A.
Maxwell-Heron, J.
Hardcastle, J. A. Mellor, J. W.
Hartington, Marq. of Milbank, Sir F. A.
Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D. Miles, Sir P. J. W.
Monk, C. J.
Hayter, Sir A. D. Moreton, Lord
Heneage, E. Morgan, hon. F.
Herschell, Sir F. Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.
Hibbert, J. T. Morley, S.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.
Hill, A. S. Mulholland, J.
Hill, T. R. Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.
Holland, Sir H. T. Munts, P. H.
Holland, S. Murray, C. J.
Hollond, J. R. Newdegate, C. N.
Holms, J. Nicholson, W. N.
Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B. Noel, E.
Howard, E. S. Noel, rt. hon. G. J.
Howard, G. J. North, Colonel J. S.
Howard, J. Northcote, H. S.
Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G. Northeote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.
Inderwick, F. A.
Jackson, W. L. O'Donoghue, The
James, Sir H. Onslow, D.
Paget, R. H. Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.
Paget, T. T.
Palmer, C. M. Severne, J. E.
Palmer, G. Shield, H.
Palmer, J. H. Simon, Serjeant J.
Parker, C. S. Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.
Patrick, R. W. Cochran- Smith, E.
Smith, rt. hon. W. H.
Pease, A. Stafford, Marquess of
Pease, Sir J. W. Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.
Peddie, J. D. Stanley, hon. E. L.
Peel, A. W. Stanley, E. J.
Pemberton, E. L. Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.
Pender, J. Stewart, J.
Percy, Lord A. Summers, W.
Philips, R. N. Talbot, C. R. M.
Phipps, C. N. P. Talbot, J. G.
Playfair, rt. hon. L. Tavistock, Marquess of
Plunket, rt. hon. D. R. Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.
Porter, A. M. Tennant, C.
Portman, hn. W. H. B. Thornhill, T.
Potter, T. B. Thynne, Lord H. F.
Powell, W. R. H. Tillett, J. H.
Price, Sir R. G. Tottenham, A. L.
Pugh, L. P. Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.
Pulley, J. Tyler, Sir H. W.
Raikes, rt. hon. H. C. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Ralli, P. Vivian, A. P.
Ramsay, J. Vivian, Sir H. H.
Ramsden, Sir J. Wallace, Sir R.
Rankin, J. Walpole, rt. hon. S.
Rathbone, W. Walrond, Col. W. H.
Reed, Sir E. J. Walter, J.
Reid, R. T. Warton, C. N.
Rendel, S. Watkin, Sir E. W.
Rendlesham, Lord Waugh, E.
Repton, G. W. Webster, J.
Richardson, J. N. Whitbread, S.
Richardson, T. Whitley, E.
Ridley, Sir M. W. Wiggin, H.
Roberts, J. Williams, S. C. E.
Robertson, H. Williamson, S.
Rogers, J. E. T. Willis, W.
Rolls, J. A. Willyams, E. W. B.
Ross, A. H. Wilmot, Sir H.
Ross, C. C. Wilmot, Sir J. E.
Rothschild, Sir N. M. de Wilson, C. H.
Round, J. Wilson, I.
Russell, G. W. E. Winn, R.
Russell, Lord A. Wodehouse, E. R.
Rylands, P. Wolff, Sir H. D.
St. Aubyn, W. M. Woolf, S.
Salt, T. Wortley, C. B. Stuart-
Samuelson, H. Wroughton, P.
Schreiber, C. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Sclater-Booth, rt. hon. G. Yorke, J. R.
Scott, M. D. TELLERS.
Seely, C. (Lincoln) Grosvenor, Lord R.
Seely, C. (Nottingham) Kensington, Lord
NOES
Biggar, J. G. Finigan, J. L.
Blake, J. A. Gray, E. D.
Brooks, M. Healy, T. M.
Byrne, G. M. Henry, M.
Callan, P. Labouchere, H.
Collings, J. Lalor, R.
Corbet, W. J. Lawson, Sir W.
Cowen, J. Leamy, E.
Dillon, J. Lyons, R. D.
Dillwyn, L. L. M'Carthy, J.
M'Coan, J. C. Power, J. O'C.
Macfarlane, D. H. Russell, C.
M'Kenna, Sir J. N. Sexton, T.
Martin, P. Shaw, W.
Molloy, B. C. Sheil, E.
Nelson, I. Storey, S.
Nolan, Colonel J. P. Sullivan, T. D.
O'Connor, A. Synan, E. J.
O'Connor, T. P. Taylor, P. A.
O'Donnell, F. H. Thomasson, J. P.
O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The Thompson, T. C.
O'Kelly, J. TELLERS.
O'Sullivan, W. H. Power, R.
Parnell, C. S. Redmond, J. E.

Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

And it being now five minutes past Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.

The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.