Commons Sitting of 26 May 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 11)* [186].
Second Rending—Land Drainage Provisional Order* [164]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 2)* [165].
Committee—Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157]—R. P. [First Night.]
Third Reading—County Courts (Ireland)* [169], and passed.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  PRIVATE BILLS.
  Resolved, That Standing Orders 129 and 39 be suspended, and that the time for depositing Petitions against Private Bills, or against any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, and for depositing duplicates of any Documents relating to any Bill to confirm any Provisional Order, or Provisional Certificate, be extended to Thursday 1st June.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

  STANDING ORDERS.
  Standing Order 26, read and amended, by adding, at the end thereof,—
  And, in cases where the work is to be situate on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river having a Board of Conservators constituted by Act of Parliament, a copy of the plans and sections shall, on or before the thirtieth day of November immediately preceding the application for the Bill, be deposited at the office of the Conservators of the River, and, if the plans include any tunnel under or bridge over the river, the dimensions as regards depth below
  1698
  bed of the river, and span and headway, shall be marked thereon; and such plans shall be accompanied by an ordnance or published map of the country over which the works are proposed to extend or are to be carried, with their position and extent or route accurately laid down thereon.
  New Standing Order, to follow Standing Order 34,—
  Resolved, That, on or before the twenty-first day of December a printed copy of every Bill of the second class, whereby it is intended to authorise the construction of any work on the banks, foreshore, or bed of any river having a Board of Conservators constituted by Act of Parliament, shall be deposited at the office of the Conservators of the River.
  Ordered, That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of the House.
  Standing Order 73, read and amended, by adding at the end thereof "but, in the case of a Bill for confirming any Provisional Order or Certificate, he shall not give such Notice until after the Bill has been printed and circulated."
  New Standing Order to follow Standing Order 208,—
  Resolved, That every Bill for confirming Provisional Orders or Provisional Certificates shall, after the Second Reading, stand referred to the Committee of Selection, or to the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills, as the case may require, and be subject to the Standing Orders regulating the proceedings upon Private Bills, so far as they are applicable: Provided That, when any Order or Certificate contained in any such Bill is opposed, the Committee to whom such opposed Order or Certificate is referred shall consider all the Orders or Certificates comprised in such Bill.
  Ordered, That the said Resolution be a Standing Order of the House.
  Standing Order 210 read, and amended, in line 6, by leaving out "the Report of the Examiner on such Bill," in order to insert "the Examiner shall have given notice of the day on which the Bill will be examined" instead thereof.
  Standing Order 225a read, and amended, in line 4, by leaving out from "Private Bills," to the end of the Standing Order.—(The Chairman of Ways and Means.)

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. GLADSTONEmoved—"That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday 1st of June."
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFwished to say a few words on this Motion, which appeared to him to be brought forward at the wrong moment, because it ought to have come after the Questions, and not before them. He thought the Prime Minister had made a mistake. He supposed the Motion was brought on at that

  1699
  particular moment to prevent certain Questions being asked about Egypt. ["Order!"] What did hon. Gentlemen opposite mean by calling out "Order?" He thought he was in Order, and that he was perfectly entitled, on this Motion for Adjournment, to ask the Questions which had been in this manner entirely overlooked. But he would ask the Speaker, first of all, if he was not in Order?
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member ask whether it is in Order to make this Motion before the Questions? Is that so?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to say that the more regular course will be to make the Motion after the Questions have been asked.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Then, Sir, for the present I withdraw the Motion; but I need hardly assure the hon. Gentleman that in offering it for the approval of the House at the time I did there was no plot whatever in the matter. I will bring the Resolution on again after the Questions?
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF DOWN.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to an article in the "Newry Reporter" of the 27th ultimo, in which great complaints are made of Mr. Lefroy, County Court Judge for Down, and if he will make inquiry into the charges?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The County Court Judges are independent Judges, and I must entirely disclaim any authority whatever to inquire into their judicial action. In this instance, however, the learned Judge has favoured me with the facts, and, therefore, I shall answer the Question of the hon. Member, but without making it any precedent for the future. It is alleged that at Newry the Court does not sit until half-past 12 o'clock, and that the Ban-bridge Sessions were adjourned on the 26th of April to the 27th of April. As to the Newry case, it was at the request of the jurors, and in order to allow of the arrival of the 12 o'clock trains, that
  1700
  the Court sat at half-past 12, instead of 10 o'clock; and as to the Banbridge case, the learned Judge having been summoned as a witness was unavoidably unable to be in Banbridge, and the Sessions were, therefore, duly adjourned to the following day, pursuant to the Statute. Notice of the adjournment was published in the newspapers, and postcards were circulated among the jurors to prevent inconvenience ensuing.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY) FORCES—THE IRISH MILITIA—PAY AND ALLOWANCES.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any delay has taken place in the receipt by the men of the Irish Militia of their pay and allowances this year; and, if he can state when they will be paid?
  MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir. On the contrary, they will be paid this year a month earlier than usual—that is to say, in the present month and in June. Usually these payments are in June and July, and even August.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND)—CASE OF JOHN M'CORMICK.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it has been brought to his notice that one John M'Cormick, a farm servant in the employment of Mr. Philip Hall, of Templehouse, county Sligo, has been committed by the magistrates of the Petty Sessions District of Coolaney, in that county, to stand his trial at the next assizes, on two charges, namely, the mutilation of a heifer belonging to his employer, and the writing and posting of threatening letters addressed to his employer and to himself; whether this M'Cormick was in the habit of communicating with the local constabulary, and whether he gave them any pretended information with reference to outrages or intended outrages, and received any reward, in pursuance of a constabulary circular inviting such information, and offering such rewards, issued whilst the right honourable Member for Bradford was Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; whether the circular in question continues to be still in force; and, whether M'Cormick lately caused the arrest of two young men named Healy and Cawley, on a charge of rob-

  1701
  bing him of a pistol, and whether the charge is to be proceeded with?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The matter referred to in this Question has not been brought to my notice; but on seeing the Question when it appeared yesterday morning I at once telegraphed for information. In reply I have received a report by telegraph from the Sub-Inspector at Ballymote, stating that John M'Cormick has been committed by the magistrates to stand his trial at the next Assizes on the two charges mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member. The Sub-Inspector further states that this man did not communicate anything to the local constabulary, and gave them no information with reference to outrages or intended outrages, and received no reward, nor was he promised any. He did lately cause the arrest of the two men on a charge of robbing him of a pistol and for assault, on which charges they have been bailed to appear at the next Petty Sessions.
  MR. SEXTONasked if the charge would be proceeded with on the evidence of M'Cormick?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the information in this case would come before him, and he should decide whether the charge would be proceeded with or not. If the charge was sustained by the information he would direct a prosecution.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT CHARLEVILLE—PROHIBITION OF ERECTION OF HUTS FOR PERSONS EVICTED.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police authorities at Charleville, county Cork, have forbidden the erection of huts sent there for the use of evicted tenants, and have threatened to arrest anyone who may proceed to erect the huts; if the police have acted in this manner, under what circumstances they have done so; and, whether their action has the approval of the Executive?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The huts in question were sent to Charleville Railway Station for conveyance thence to certain places in county Limerick. Informations were sworn that a procession would take place for the purpose of conveying away these huts to their destinations, and that such a procession would
  1702
  lead to a breach of the peace and would intimidate the people of the country; and, further, that people had been intimidated into giving carts for the conveyance of the huts. Upon this information the Resident Magistrate issued orders to the constabulary at Charleville to make all necessary arrangements for preventing any such procession, which was accordingly done. I think that, under the circumstances, the magistrate was justified in stopping the demonstration; but I am not satisfied that there was any justification for preventing the removal of the huts in a quiet and peaceable manner, and I shall have particular inquiries made into this point when I am in Ireland.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— PAY AND ALLOWANCES— LEGISLATION.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, When will the Bill relating to the pay and allowances of the Royal Irish Constabulary be introduced; will that Bill deal with the case of constables as well as inspectors; and, will it take into account the claims of the inspectors and sub-inspectors for their extra labour and expense during the last eighteen months; and, if not, is it intended to leave without acknowledgment, in the case of inspectors or sub-inspectors, claims which in the case of constables and sub-constables are deemed worthy of a grant of £180,000?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Whatever measure it may be found necessary to introduce in order to carry out the recommendations of the Commission which recently sat and inquired into the pay and allowances of the officers of the Constabulary and the allowances of the men will be introduced when the Irish Government and the Treasury have finally settled the preliminaries upon which they are now in communication. The Report deals with the allowances only of the constables, and no Act of Parliament is necessary, consequently, to meet their case. I think I answered the remaining portion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Question yesterday. The claims of the officers will be dealt with by a more permanent arrangement.
  MR. HEALYwished to know whether constables against whom verdicts of "wil-

  1703
  ful" murder had been returned by coroners' juries would share in the contemplated rewards?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFAIRS).
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government propose to afford the House of Commons any opportunity of expressing its opinion on the policy of armed intervention in Egyptian affairs before the British fleet is called on to take action?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The question of affording opportunities for discussion is rather one for the Prime Minister than for myself; but I may state that it is the opinion of the Government that any discussion on this subject at the present moment would be contrary to the interests of the Public Service.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is a fact that the Porte has protested to Her Majesty's Government against any political intervention in Egypt which has not previously received the assent of the Sultan, as Sovereign of Egypt, and which is not carried out by the agency of the Ottoman Government; and, whether, in view of this, and of the Sultan's undoubted rights over Egypt, and of the critical condition of that country, Her Majesty's Government will invite the Porte to check the revolutionary party in Egypt? The hon. Gentleman said he wished at the same time to ask the hon. Baronet, If he will state to the House whether the extraordinary document published in this morning's papers, purporting to be an Ultimatum from England and France to the Ministry of the Khedive, requiring that Arabi Pasha should go into exile, with full pay, and that other Ministers should be exiled or resign, is correct; and if it has been really presented on hehalf of Her Majesty's Government to the Khedive's Ministry; also, whether it has been so presented with the consent of the Porte?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must decline to answer the first Question of the hon. Member, for the reasons which I explained yesterday. In regard to the Note which appears in this morning's papers, with the exception of two words,
  1704
  which are inaccurate, it represents a genuine document, though it is not an "Ultimatum."
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTwished to ask the hon. Baronet if he would state whether the assent of the Porte had been obtained to what had been done?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I must refuse to answer the Question for the reasons already given.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I do not wish to attempt to raise any discussion after what has been said on the part of the Government, or to put any Question which may be of an embarrassing character; but after having been informed that the statement in this morning's papers, which is of a serious character, is substantially accurate, I think we have a right to ask the Government whether there is any further information or explanation which they are able to give, and are disposed to give, before the House adjourns for the holidays?
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Perhaps when the hon. Baronet answers the Question he will tell us whether the two words which he spoke of as inaccurate make any difference in the meaning of the Note.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir. No material difference. One of the mistakes is obvious. The word Egypt has been substituted in one place for Europe. I do not wish to answer Questions of that kind, as there would be no end to them. In reply to the right hon. Baronet (Sir Stafford Northcote), I fear that the Government are not in a position to make any further statement at the present time. The right hon. Baronet knows, of course, we are acting in communication with other Governments; and it is impossible for us to make statements here in the present delicate situation of affairs without having obtained the assent of other Governments.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Will the document to which allusion has been made be laid on the Table of the House?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As I have stated that it is substantially a genuine document, there can be no harm in laying it on the Table, though I do not know that it would be of any advantage, as we have been unable to lay the Correspondence which would accompany it.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Can the hon. Baronet give us no hope of the production of the Correspondence regarding Egypt on an early day? None has been presented for a considerable time.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir. Until we have reached a position in advance of the present position of affairs it would be impossible to lay the Correspondence upon the Table, because we should require the assent of foreign Governments, which we cannot at present obtain.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: May I ask one Question, which I think it will not be inconvenient to answer? It is, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken any steps to protect British subjects in Egypt beyond merely sending iron-clads to Alexandria? I ask this because the hon. Baronet told us yesterday that he had no information from Cairo. British subjects have left the city in great alarm, and I have that report confirmed from more than one source, and I know that great alarm exists at Cairo among the English as to the present acts of the insurgents. I would, therefore, ask whether Her Majesty's Government are fully satisfied that they have taken every step in their power to protect British interests and the lives and property of British subjects?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have taken every step recommended by the English and French Agents at Cairo; but we have not received any information from them to the effect that they consider there is any danger.
  MR. O'DONNELLwished to inquire, as there was an evident disinclination on the part of the Government to communicate any information with regard to Egypt, whether, during the existence of that disinclination, it would be substantially safe for Members of the House to accept the declarations made in the French Chamber as a sufficiently accurate statement of the effect of the communications between the two Governments?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]

  CRIMINAL LAW—MICHAEL DAVITT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF (in the absence of Mr. GORST)asked the Secretary of State for the Home De-
  1706
  partment, Whether he is now aware that the speech delivered by Mr. Davitt at Manchester was prepared in manuscript, and copies thereof were handed to the reporters, and that the reports in the Manchester papers are therefore identical; whether Mr. Davitt's statement that he had already broken the conditions of his ticket-of-leave is not, in fact, correct; and, what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government propose to take in relation thereto?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have no information to give the House on the subject of the first part of the Question; and as to the second part, I have no knowledge that Michael Davitt has broken the conditions of his ticket-of-leave; and, therefore, it is not necessary that I should take any steps.

  TUNIS—THE CAPITULATIONS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any information to the effect that the French Government propose to abolish the capitulations in Tunisian territory; and. if so, if he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government have taken in consequence?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: No, Sir; we have not received any information to that effect.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ERECTION OF HUTS FOR EVICTED FAMILIES ON THE ESTATE OF LORD CLONCURRY, NURROE, COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the police still refuse to allow houses to be erected for the thirty families evicted by Lord Cloncurry in Nurroe, county Limerick; whether the site selected for these houses was some miles distant from the farms from which the tenants had been evicted; whether two Dublin carpenters, who were engaged in erecting these houses, have been arrested and are now in Limerick Gaol, no offence being alleged against them, except their being engaged in constructing these houses; and, whether the Irish Government are prepared to make any statement in reference to police interference with the erection for shelter of evicted tenants in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The house or the hut, for the attempted erection of which these two carpenters were arrested, was situate in the immediate vicinity of the farm from which the tenants had been evicted, and separated from it only by a small stream and field. There was talk of an appeal against the order of the magistrates to the Court of Queen's Bench; but it has not been proceeded with, and the carpenters have given the required bail and have been discharged. As regards the general policy of the Government in this matter, I beg to refer the hon. Member to my speech of yesterday, in which I stated that it was the intention of the Lord Lieutenant that all cases with respect to huts should be submitted to him before any action was taken in the matter by the police. If His Excellency is satisfied that these huts are required for the bonâ fide purpose of shelter only, and are not intended in any way for purposes of intimidation, he would, I am sure, direct that their erection shall not be prevented.
  MR. DILLON: In consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall feel compelled to call attention to this matter on a Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. SEXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman read the terms of the Lord Lieutenant's letter with respect to the inquiry he proposes to make into these cases?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]

  IRISH LAND COMMISSION—JUDICIAL RENTS—THE RETURN.
  MR. PLUNKET (in the absence of Mr. TOTTENHAM)asked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What has been the cause of the delay in presenting to the House the Return of Judicial Rents fixed by the Irish Land Commission, which the late Chief Secretary stated some weeks since would be distributed to Members on an early day; and, when the Return in question will be distributed?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware that there has been any delay in presenting this Return to the House. It was presented on the 15th instant; and if delay has occurred in its distribution, the printer in Dublin is answerable for
  1708
  it. I have had a telegram from him stating that it will be forwarded to the Stationery Office for distribution tomorrow.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— APPORTIONMENT OF THE GRANT.
  MR. FITZPATRICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can inform the House if there is much discontent existing among the officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary at being entirely excluded from the benefit of the recent grant of £180,000, to compensate that Force for its extra expense and labour during the past two years?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Beyond the Questions asked in the House of Commons, I have not received any representations on the subject; and I have learnt by telegraph from the Inspector General that he has received no official communications in reference to it; but that he is aware there is disappointment among the officers.

  IRELAND—THE ASSASSINATIONS IN PHŒNIX PARK, DUBLIN—CAPTAIN TALBOT, CHIEF OF THE METROPOLITAN POLICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, on the evening of the Phœnix Park murders, the Chief of the Dublin Police, Captain Talbot, was absent from Dublin, and was only apprized of the tragedy on Sunday morning, at his residence, Shankhill, some ten miles from Dublin; if it is the case that there is no telegraph office at Shankhill; and, if the Government approve of Captain Talbot living so far away from the scene of his duties? The hon. Member observed that in the Question as he had originally placed it on the Paper he had asked, not whether Captain Talbot was absent from Dublin, but whether after the murders he could not be discovered?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he would read the telegrams he had received in reference to this Question—
  "Captain Talbot having been informed by Mr. Burke on Saturday, the 6th May, that he would not be wanted again until Monday, left for his residence at Shankhill. His house is only three minutes' walk from the railway station, and trains run to Dublin at frequent intervals. There is no telegraph station at

  1709
  Shankhill, but there is one within two miles, at Ballybrack, where a car is always available. Captain Talbot was informed of the murder at 10 o'clock on Saturday evening, and was in his office in Dublin at 11.15."
  The Assistant Commissioner resided in Dublin.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to ask whether the Government approve of Captain Talbot living so far away from the city?
  MR. TREVELYAN: On that point I cannot answer off-hand. I had not time to communicate with the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. HEALY: I shall ask the Question again on Monday week.
  MR. REDMOND: Can the right hon. Gentleman now answer the Question I asked him a few days ago—namely, who were responsible for the withdrawal of the police patrol which was stationed in the Phœnix Park up to the day of the murder; if Captain Talbot is not responsible, who is responsible?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The only information I have got with regard to this matter is a telegram to-day, which states that no police patrol were withdrawn from the Phœnix Park on the morning of the 6th of May. I shall, however, make further inquiries into the matter.
  MR. O'KELLYasked whether the patrols had been discontinued on the morning before that of the day on which the murders were committed?
  [No answer was given to the Question.]

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—EVICTIONS AT CARRAROE.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that 130 families were evicted on the 15th and 16th of the month in the district of Carraroe; whether some of these 130 families, which comprised 300 individuals, are now crowded into the Oughterard Workhouse; and, whether many more are without shelter, while they were absolutely unable to pay any rent at all; and what steps he proposed to take in the matter?
  MR. TREVELYAN, in reply, said, it was not from ignorance or want of interest in this matter that he was unwilling to answer the Question. He knew what was the real state of the
  1710
  case; but when it came to a matter of figures he thought it might be better to postpone his answer.

  IRELAND—PRISONERS UNDER THE STATUTE 34 EDWARD III., C. 1.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, following up their decision in reference to the magisterial functions of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the Irish Executive would consider the cases of the ladies imprisoned in Ireland under the Statute of 1360, 34 Edward III. c. 1; and, whether, upon his return after the Whitsuntide holidays, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to make a statement on the subject?
  MR. BARRYsaid, he would like to have an assurance from the Government that they would consider the question of releasing all the "suspects" now detained in prison.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that with regard to the release of the "suspects," the Government were always glad to have the cases of all persons detained brought before them. The circumstances under which they were confined, and the effect of their release on the districts in which they resided, were now pretty well known to the Government, and careful inquiries were always going on. The hon. Member was aware that within the last fortnight a large number had been released, and every case to which reference was made would certainly be inquired into. With regard to the ladies imprisoned under the Act of 1360, he would state the decision of the Government, whatever it might be, as soon as possible.
  MR. HEALYasked if it were the fact that 300 men were still in gaol, and that the number released was only 50 or 60?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the hon. Member had correctly stated the number in gaol; but the releases during the last fortnight had been nearer 70 than 60.

  CRIMINAL LAW—INCITEMENTS TO MURDER.
  MR. AKERS-DOUGLASasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether his attention has been called to the report of a recent meeting of the Social Democratic Working Men's Club, where a resolution was unani-

  1711
  mously adopted approving of the recent murders in the Phœnix Park; and, whether it is the intention of the Government to take any steps in the matter with a view to prevent public incitements to murder?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have not seen any report of the meeting to which the hon. Member refers; but certainly the Government will take all means in their power to prevent incitements to murder, in whatever shape they may be made.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE—THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I rise now, Sir, to make the Motion, "That this House, at its rising, do adjourn until Thursday 1st of June."

  EGYPT (POLITICAL AFFATRS)—THE EXISTING CRISIS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I feel bound to take advantage of this opportunity of making a few remarks on a matter of great public importance. I am obliged to do so, not from any answer the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has made to me, but on account of the answer he has not made, because it is impossible to get any information from him at all as to the state of affairs in regard to Egypt. He said five minutes ago that the Government thought it very undesirable that there should be a discussion on the affairs of Egypt. I quite agree in that. I do not want to discuss the affairs of Egypt; I want to discuss the affairs of England. What I want to know is—What is going to be done with our Fleet, for which we are responsible, and for which we pay, and which at the present moment has been sent into these Egyptian waters? I dare say the House remembers very well what happened four years ago when we were going to adjourn for the Easter holidays. There was a critical position in European affairs then, and we Liberals made a very great disturbance. We said that we were not going to adjourn for the Easter holidays until we had distinct declarations from the then Ministers of the Crown that no decisive steps of a warlike character
  1712
  would be taken until the House had reassembled. I remember that some of us were so earnest in the matter that we absolutely divided the House against the Easter holidays; and amongst those who voted in the small minority on that occasion was my hon. Friend the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney). The House did adjourn, because we got some information from the then Leader of the House (Sir Stafford Northcote). He gave information which satisfied the bulk of the House, and the result was that the next morning we heard that the Indian troops had been sent to Malta. I believe there was a misunderstanding in regard to what he said; because the right hon. Gentleman has explained the matter since. But what are we to expect when there is no declaration at all? I think the House is bound to have some understanding as to what warlike steps it is possible may be taken very shortly, and while we are all away in the country, because our ships at the present moment appear to be in a very delicate position. Ships of war, I presume, are intended to make war. It may be all very well to say that there is no intention to resort to force; but after we have read the extraordinary document in all the papers this morning, we may be prepared for anything. It is called in the papers an Ultimatum; but my hon. Friend says it is not an Ultimatum. Well, what is an Ultimatum? These Consuls say that there are three points that they insist upon, and then say that if these points are not agreed to they will exact their due fulfilment. I should like my hon. Friend, when he gets up, to answer—I do not suppose he will answer, but he will say something or other—what an Ultimatum is, if this is not an Ultimatum. We are all utterly at sea in this matter. We have to gather our information by bits and scraps—to drag it out of my hon. Friend with the greatest difficulty—and it is not of much value when we get it. This is what I have been able to get during the last week. I will read it to the House. My hon. Friend told me the other day that—
  "The Fleet was sent to protect life and property; and we hope that its presence will contribute without the employment of force"
  —what is the use of sending out a Fleet if it is not to employ force?—

  1713
  "to the maintenance of the status quo in Egypt and of the Sovereignty of the Sultan."
  The Sovereignty of the Sultan! We have the present Ministry sitting there to "maintain the Sovereignty of the Sultan!" It is the old fetish—the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire—on behalf of which we have sacrificed millions of money and poured out torrents of blood. That I should live to see the day when a Liberal Ministry should come down to the House and declare that their policy is the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire! Then the hon. Member, in his answer, went on—
  "Of the position of the Khedive and of the liberties of the Egyptian people, as well as to improve the development of their institutions and to observe international obligations."
  Two or three iron-clads to do that! Really, is this the time, when we are busy in this House with two Bills for the pacification of Ireland—one of them to bribe the Irish people, and the other to put them in a state of siege—when it is all we can do to help in the amelioration of these Irish affairs—is this the time, I ask, for us to be engaged in this enterprize? I do honestly think it would be a great deal better for us to obtain the pacification of Ireland before we set to work on the regeneration of Egypt. This may appear a very slight matter. All wars appear slight when they begin. If you are going to interfere in this matter with the affairs of Egypt, I do not know what end there may be to the amount of blood and treasure you will have to expend before you are done. Now, I have thought it absolutely my duty, before the House breaks up, to make my protest against these extraordinary proceedings. I do not know that it will be of any use. I know the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) can do anything he likes. I do not think the country could have a better man at the head of affairs; but whatever he says, whether it be right or wrong, I believe will receive immense support from the country. But I am not the man to follow even my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister if he is going to initiate the policy again of the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. I consider it is the great glory of the present Government—hon. Gentlemen opposite may not
  1714
  think so, but I am sure hon. Gentlemen on this side will agree with me—I consider that the great glory of the Administration is their policy of non-intervention in foreign affairs. I shall be deeply sorry to see them depart from it on this occasion, whatever may be the plausible reason they may give for doing so. I think it will be only decent—I hope I do not use an offensive word—to give the House some assurance that no warlike steps shall be taken while the House is adjourned, and when hon. Members have no opportunity of expressing their opinion on the matter. That is the only object I have in rising at the present time, and that is the only reason for which I have felt bound to oppose the Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it would very ill become me to complain of the tone of the speech of my hon. Friend after the more than kind expressions he has used; yet freedom of debate requires me, of course, to comment on that speech, and to notice the points raised. The effect of what my hon. Friend says is that he expects some explanation from the Government on the present question; and I think, perhaps, it is time for me, as representing the Government—considering that my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has already made a statement on the subject on his own responsibility—to come forward to share his responsibility by stating what my views upon the subject are. It is only right that I should say that if there be anything to complain of in the answers that have been given by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary on the score of reticence, the blame is in no way due to him individually. My hon. Friend (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) began by imposing upon himself a kind of self-denying ordinance, which I do not believe he was able to observe to the end of his speech. He said he was not going to ask for anything to be said, or to complain of anything that had been said, or to enter into the discussion of the affairs of Egypt; but only to complain in regard to something which had not been said, and which he thought ought to be said. I will first consider what that something is. His desire apparently is that some absolute pledge should be given with regard to the British ships of war which are now in Egyptian waters, which are not there

  1715
  alone, but which are there in concert with the ships of war of France; and certainly with regard to European interests and affairs. He also wishes to have from us an absolute pledge that, during the Whitsuntide Recess, no use should be made of those ships involving the employment of force. He has, I think, in a Question of which he gave Notice, phrased his desire more broadly—that we should not, without previous communication with Parliament, make use of force. The hon. Baronet referred to the occasion four years ago, when application was made to the Conservative Government by some Members of the Liberal Party—I was not one of them—for a specific pledge on a similar subject before the Easter Recess, and when a statement was obtained which was thought at the time to afford a full and perfect guarantee; but a miscarriage occurred, which has since been explained in such a way as to remove all suspicion from the mind of my hon. Friend; but still a miscarriage did occur, and on the strength of the statement my hon. Friend went away with the satisfaction which, he says, was doomed to be dispelled in the course of 24 hours. That experience is of so encouraging a character to my hon. Friend that it leads him to make an application to us for a similar statement, although that statement might, within the range of possibility, issue in a similar miscarriage. My hon. Friend proceeds distinctly on this proposition—though I do not know that he reduces it to a formula—that all that can be said is that a misleading statement is better than no statement at all. I am very doubtful whether it is, and I am prepared, if necessary, to contest the point. Sir, it is not possible for us to give any pledge upon the subject; but, when I say that, it is not with the slightest belief in my own mind that there is any probability of an occasion arising for the employment of force; and, therefore, my hon. Friend may dismiss from his mind any suspicion of the kind. Upon the general subject of demands from the Government for pledges of this kind, I am so far fortunate that I stated my views at a time when I was not in Office, and when the late Government was in Office, and very shortly before the occurrences to which my hon. Friend has just referred. I then said that it was quite impossible for a Government to
  1716
  give any pledge not to do this or not to do that when force was placed at their disposal expressly for the purpose of being used in the interests of the country. While asserting that general proposition, to which I adhere, I likewise said, and now repeat, that it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government, and not only their desire, but, in my opinion, it is the absolute duty of the Government, in all such matters, to act in accordance with what they believe to be the deliberate views of Parliament and the country. There may be cases where their views on the question at issue are beyond, or at variance with, what they believe to be the opinion prevailing in the country. If there be such a case as that, then I think it is their duty to make known to Parliament what their intentions are, unless under circumstances the most extraordinary, before they proceed upon any general views and principles, except such as they feel convinced are known to and approved by the general sense of Parliament and the country. That sense, however, maybe either expressed or understood. In this case, we believe that we know perfectly well what is the general sense of Parliament and the country as regards the affairs of Egypt; and I believe, whatever we may do or may not do, it will be found to be in accordance with that general sense. Sir, it so happens that in this instance we have, perhaps, more than the usual facility of judgment; because, in regard to the very delicate situation in Egypt, we are inheritors of what we received from our Predecessors—a complicated difficulty in some respects—a dangerous position—but a position in regard to which I have never felt it to be any part of my duty to bestow any censure upon what was done by the late Government. My general belief is that it arose not only out of what they believed to be the necessity of the case, but probably from—as far as I can judge from a distant view of it—a real necessity inherent in the case. My hon. Friend says it is indeed strange we should become adherents of the doctrine of the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. But why does he introduce that phrase into this discussion? Simply because my hon. Friend near me, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has upon one, or probably more than one, occasion—and

  1717
  I think he was perfectly right—referred to the maintenance of the Sovereignty of the Sultan over Egypt as one of the objects to which we are bound to have regard. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: It is in the Ultimatum.] Quite so. What I think is the point to which my hon. Friend refers is that he considers the maintenance of the Sovereignty of the Sultan in Egypt to be the same thing as the general doctrine of the maintenance of the independence and integrity of the Ottoman Empire. I am not going to say anything upon that general doctrine, either for or against it; but I am going to say this—that with regard to the Sovereignty of the Sultan, in our opinion it ought to be respected when it is not abused—that is a moderate statement—a mild statement—and it is part of our duty to respect it. Any attempt to disturb it, in our opinion, in a case of this kind, would not be wise, would not be consistent with good faith, would not be consistent with the views of the other Powers of Europe, or of those of anybody able to deliver a responsible judgment on the matter. We cannot, however, I am bound to say, agree to have our hands tied; and I think anyone who will consider the peculiar character of this question will see that it is right on general principles to decline to give a pledge of this kind, and especially right in the case now before us. My hon. Friend seems to think it is reasonable, when you have ships in foreign waters, to give pledges that they will, under no circumstances, be allowed to employ force. Quite apart from any general doctrine about the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire, we found ourselves, on coming into Office, heirs to certain engagements contracted under the Treaty of Berlin. We made it our duty to prosecute, with all the energy we could, a settlement of those questions. There were two very important territorial questions, one relating to the territory of Montenegro, and the other relating to the territory of Thessaly, in connection with Greece. We were able, together with the other Powers of Europe, to bring those questions to a settlement, and to a satisfactory settlement, and we have done much to encourage confidence and security, and to give practical satisfaction and relief from difficulty and grievance to considerable portions of the population in the East
  1718
  of Europe. That was not done by absolute abstention from the exhibition of force; and most certainly was not done under restrictions which would have been imposed upon us if we had been asked at that time to give an absolute engagement under no circumstances to employ force. It is not politic to ask us to enter into such an engagement, and it is not possible, consistent with duty, to give it. The real question—and I now address myself not to the entire House, but to my hon. Friend—is, whether my hon. Friend has good reason to suspect us of pursuing aggressive schemes, of immoderate doctrines, and of notions of self-assertion, or of any other defect on that side of human weakness, which tends to excess in this matter. If he has not, I hope he will refrain from pressing for the engagement he asks from us. In regard to the general question of this discussion, it is, in my opinion, a highly responsible act which is done by the Government, when it requests the House of Commons to refrain from discussing a question of foreign policy; and it is an especially responsible act, I fully admit, when the interest of a question of foreign policy, involving such complications as exist in this case, has been considerably prolonged. Notwithstanding that, I do most earnestly deprecate the discussion of this subject. I do most confidently say that its discussion can do nothing but mischief. We may err—I see no reason why we should—but, rely upon it, it is better even to take the chance of that than to enter upon a discussion, if I am correct in saying that it cannot do otherwise than do mischief. What is the peculiarity of this question? It is not that this question is in itself so very, very difficult to understand and so very, very difficult as to perplex you more than usual in the separation of right from wrong in regard to it. The peculiarity—the great peculiarity—of this question is the multitude of Parties entitled to give responsible opinions, and to exercise real influence with respect to it. We have acted on the principle that, in matters of this kind, separate action is generally to be deprecated and avoided; but, in, the present instance, the general considerations which dissuade us from separate action are infinitely strengthened; because the close and intimate relations

  1719
  with France, in which we find ourselves in consequence of previous arrangements in Egypt, create a kind of unity—a kind of obligation to unity—as far as policy upon this question is concerned, of a highly peculiar character. I would say that the association of France with England in the agreement itself was not one whit closer—of course, the purpose may be different—but the association was not one whit closer at the time of the Crimean War than now in regard to Egypt. As was declared not long ago by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State on this question, the points of view of England and France has not at every moment been, and could not be, absolutely the same; but, although some variation and divergence has not been wholly absent in the past, we find ourselves now entirely and, as we believe, cordially united. We have to consider, also, our relation to the Powers of Europe, who naturally feel that they have a right to be consulted in this matter. We have to consider the position of the Sultan of Turkey and his relation to the Khedive of Egypt; and, again, the relation of the Khedive in internal matters with regard to a movement of a mixed character, involving, on the one hand, something of a national element; and, on the other hand, I am afraid, a good deal of a military element, but creating together a position, I will not say of the extremest difficulty and danger—because I think that would be an exaggeration—but a position of the extremest complication; and it is most desirable that we should not be betrayed into a false step. What would be the consequence of a discussion? A great variety of opinions would be expressed—some leaning, perhaps, to an enhanced view of the Sovereignty of Turkey; some leaning towards the expression of a strong sympathy with the popular and national movement; some leaning to a strong assertion of the doctrine of the Concert of Europe; some, perhaps, again, being inclined to view with jealousy any supposed subordination of our action to that of France. But each and all of those different opinions would be put forth to the world; they could hardly be accurately reported; they could not be correctly understood, or be justly viewed, in relation to the authority belonging to each of those from whom they proceeded;
  1720
  and the effect would be nothing more than to add fresh complications to a situation sufficiently complicated already. I thank the right hon. Baronet opposite for what he has said. He has expressed, I must admit, and not unnaturally, the idea that there may be other information which might appertain to the information which has appeared to-day in the papers. But the right hon. Gentleman will well understand that we are only in possession of that information by telegraph, and nothing like a full and copious explanation of the circumstances under which it has become public is as yet in our hands. It is a great responsibility, Sir, which we have upon us; but we feel it to be our absolute and bounden duty, on the one hand, to adhere—as we do unreservedly adhere—to the hopeful and even cheerful view given on a former occasion to the House by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State; and, on the other hand, it appears to us that this is not a time at which it would be useful that a discussion in this House should take place. Nay, more, we are convinced that, although we have nothing peculiar in our principles, nothing idiosyncratic, nothing in the way of differences as between one Government and another, no motive of any kind, direct or indirect, which would lead us to deprecate discussion; but, on the contrary, we would willingly enter upon it on any proper occasion; yet, viewing the relations in which we stand, and the multiplied parties concerned in this matter, and the impossibility of treating it as we might do any business that was entirely within our own discretion, and of which we could at once calculate all the obligations and all the risks, we are bound to distinctly express the opinion that any debate in this House at the present moment could hardly, by possibility, in any direction do good, and would almost inevitably do injury to the public interests involved in the peaceful settlement of the present internal affairs of Egypt.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, I entirely agree with the general principles which the Prime Minister has laid down as to the importance of leaving in the hands of the Government the responsibility of dealing with such a question as this; but the statement which the right hon. Gentleman has made was not, I think, at all calculated to diminish the

  1721
  feeling of anxiety which prevails in regard to Egyptian affairs. At the same time, I most thoroughly recognize the truth of the considerations which he has urged upon us with the view of preventing any premature discussion of the state of affairs, which cannot at the present moment, in the opinion of the Government, be fully disclosed to us. I must say that I think that a discussion upon half, or less than half, information would be much worse than no discussion at all. I only wish to say a word with reference to one observation made by the right hon. Gentleman. He said that the position of the Egyptian Question was not one which was entirely the creation of the present Government, but that they inherited the situation that had been created by their Predecessors; and he alluded to that in a way that might be taken to throw some part of the responsibility for the present state of affairs on the previous Government. ["No!"] I do not suppose that that was the intention, and I only wish to say that, without for a moment disclaiming any responsibility for the late Government for all their actions, and being prepared, whenever the official information is laid before us, to give a most perfect defence of that policy and the most candid consideration to the effect which that action must have had on the subsequent policy of the present Government, I would only say at the present moment, in the absence of information as to the policy of the present Government in respect to Egypt, we do not wish to be supposed to acknowledge having any responsibility in the matter which does not properly belong to us. I am quite aware, however, of the extreme delicacy of these questions, and after what he has said I agree with the right hon. Gentleman as to the impropriety of raising a discussion upon them on the present occasion.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, it would be unpardonable on the part of any hon. Members of the House of Commons to provoke a discussion on a subject of such delicacy that the Government had assured them it could not be debated without possible damage to the Public Service. All present, whatever their opinions, would recognize the ability and force of the appeal that the Prime Minister had made, and that it was unassailable. The Government were responsible for what was being done, and as
  1722
  the House was only partially informed on the subject, adequate debate was impossible. Therefore, there was no other alternative for the House but silence. But he could not help observing that this was a consideration that did not always operate upon some hon. Members. He had a recollection that appeals of the kind had been made from the Treasury Bench during last Parliament, in circumstances of as great difficulty and danger as the present, and had not always been complied with. But that could pass. He could not help remarking, however, that the Prime Minister, while discouraging any attempt at discussion, had started many topics that were of a very debateable character. He had, however, no wish to discuss them, beyond saying that it had been stated—and great stress had been laid upon the point—that the Government would only proceed in concert with other Powers. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was not so certain that such co-operation must necessarily be an advantage. There was no reason why the Government should not act with other Powers when the objects of those Powers were the same as our own; but in the present instance that could scarcely be said to be the case. We were entering into a partnership with a Nation whose designs were different to ours, if not hostile to them. He had no wish to say an unfriendly word of France; but it was folly to shut our eyes to the fact that what France was wanting in Egypt and what England was wanting were entirely different things. England, unlike France, was not seeking conquest. All that she required was to maintain her road to the East. He was prepared to go any length for the maintenance of that highway. He would fight for it if it was essential. France was seeking quite different ends. She was striving to assert her supremacy along the whole of the Northern Coast of Africa. It was her undisguised aim to make the Mediterranean, as far as she could, a French lake. That was a project which he did not think it was either our interest or duty to commit ourselves to or encourage. This concert might lead us into trouble, and he viewed it with considerable misgivings. He (Mr. Joseph Cowen) was not going to discuss the matter; but he might mention that the Prime Minister had stated that the Government would be guided by the

  1723
  opinion of Parliament. It was not quite clear how the Government were to get the opinion of Parliament if it was not expressed. It was desirable for the right hon. Gentleman to understand, therefore, that there were hon. Members in that House who did not at all approve of England taking with France any action which would involve us in complications for her special advantage. The Egyptian people had a right to manage their own affairs. We were not concerned to interfere, except in so far as our interests in the Suez Canal were endangered. But it would be an extremely serious thing if we were to be dragged at the heels of France into troubles, the end of which it was impossible to foresee. Affairs would develop in the course of a few days; and, as they were not to have a discussion on the affairs of Egypt at present, if the Leader of the Opposition or some other hon. Member did not call attention to the matter on the re-assembling of the House, he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) certainly would do so, with the view of eliciting from the Government a more complete and explicit statement than they had yet given on that subject. The position, by the Government's own admission, was critical; and he hoped they would be able to satisfy the not unnatural anxiety of the public on the subject after the Recess.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, it was not his intention to enter upon a discussion of this important question, in view of the very urgent request of the Prime Minister and of the opinion expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote). He had, however, to complain that for a whole month, notwithstanding the Questions put to them, the Government had withheld information on Egyptian affairs. He had come to the House prepared to criticize, to some extent, the policy of the Government with regard to Egypt, and to prove that the difficulties in which England was now involved were entirely due to the grave mistakes of the present Ministry. He would not, however, trench upon ground which the Prime Minister described as extremely delicate; but the right hon. Gentleman himself had, in the course of his remarkable statement, entered upon other ground which was debateable, and which did not closely
  1724
  affect that question. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), therefore, considered himself perfectly within his right, and also within the interests of the public, in meeting two statements which the right hon. Gentleman had made upon subjects not directly connected with the question of Egypt. The first of these statements was the credit and honour which the right hon. Gentleman took to himself and his Party for the so-called settlement of the Greek Question; but he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) could never allow such claims to pass un contradicted. The facts with regard to the Greek settlement were these. The unfortunate instigation and advice of the present British Government raised in the minds of the Greek people and Ministry exaggerated expectations. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman cost Greece £7,000,000 and the mobilization of 80,000 men. It cost Turkey an almost equal loss. It brought these two countries and Europe to the brink of war. And, after all, the British Government found themselves compelled, in May, 1881, to force upon Greece the acceptance of the terms which were offered by the Porte in August and October, 1880, and which Greece might then have obtained without the expenditure of a single million and without mobilization. He thought such conduct as that shown by the Government in that matter deserved great condemnation, and he could not say that he regarded the settlement with any degree of satisfaction. The second statement of the Prime Minister to which he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) took exception was his endeavour to connect the policy of the late Ministry in Egypt with that of his own, and to involve the Conservative Party in any share of responsibility for the present crisis. There were, however, three essential and conspicuous points of difference between the policies of the two Ministries—(1) the intervention of Lord Beaconsfield's Government in Egypt was of a purely financial and administrative character; (2) that intervention was never made without the full prior knowledge and cordial assent of the Sultan, the Sovereign of Egypt; and (3) the unjust aggression and cruelty of France with regard to Tunis had entirely changed the feelings of the Mussulmans of the whole East towards France, and rendered any co-operation

  1725
  with her extremely impolitic and dangerous for England. He would venture, with all respect, to offer the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues a suggestion with regard to their policy. There was but one way in which the troubles and dangers in Egypt could be allayed—namely, by a frank and cordial understanding with the Ottoman Government. The difficulty in that country was due to the fact that the Government had taken step after step without obtaining the previous consent of the Sovereign of Egypt. It was only by and through the Porte that the crisis in Egypt could be ended. It was by that policy alone that the immense interests of England in the East could be upheld and the peace of Europe maintained, and those various objects, which the Government professed to be anxious about, secured. The suggestion which he ventured to make was this. Let the right hon. Gentleman go in a frank way to the Sultan, and invite him to put a check to the revolutionary movement in Egypt. He would find this the only safe and efficacious, as it was undoubtedly the only just and equitable, course. Any other course must lead to serious complications, if not to war. The Sultan was now master of the situation. With regard to what had happened, he would read two sentences from a document which was public property and which expressed the views of the Ottoman Government upon this subject. Some days ago the following protest was addressed by the Porte to Her Majesty's Government:—
  "It is through the intermediary of the Porte, and through that intermediary alone, that measures of appeasement should be concerted and applied. To assure us that the rights of the Sultan will suffer no infringement, and to forbid us any interference in an Ottoman Province, are contradictory assertions which it is difficult to reconcile. The result of this contradiction will be to cause our prestige in Egypt to vanish and our counsels to be ignored, and will open the door in that country to subversive ideas detrimental to the Egyptian population, whom it is our duty to protect. The dominion of the Sultan for centuries over Egypt, the identity of our customs, laws, and institutions, and the principles of International Law all combine to designate the independent action of the Sultan as alone capable of removing rivalry and the clashing of interests and of causing the voice of reason to be heard in Egypt."
  In conclusion, he would entreat the right hon. Gentleman to revert to the policy
  1726
  of Pitt, of Wellington, of Palmerston, and of Beaconsfield—namely, that of friendship and alliance with the Ottoman people. That policy was far better than an uncertain and most dangerous cooperation with the Republic of France.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not wish to continue the discussion; but he was greatly afraid that the statement of the hon. Baronet the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) might lead to misapprehensions. The hon. Baronet had spoken, both yesterday and to-day, of a Fleet being sent to Alexandria, and that was not correct; for it would lead to a misapprehension that there was a much larger force employed than was really the fact. The force which had been alluded to as the British Fleet at Alexandria was more correctly described by the Prime Minister as ships of war.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I wish to say I gave the exact number yesterday.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would admit that such was the case; but if his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) were in his former Office, the right hon. Gentleman would bear him (Sir John Hay) out when he stated that this was not a Fleet, but only a small detachment of a Fleet, for a Fleet consisted of 10 sail of the line or of 10 iron-clads, and there was only one English iron-clad and one French iron-clad at Alexandria, and these constituted only one-fifth of a Fleet. He should also have liked to ask his right hon. Friend whether it was possible for England to send sufficient ships to Alexandria if they were wanted to form a Fleet? His (Sir John Hay's) own impression was that, though France could send them from Toulon if necessary, England had only nine armour-clads in commission at home and in the Mediterranean available for that purpose.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he thought the Prime Minister should remember that considerable difficulty might arise in Parliament if, as might soon be the case, a Party, say, of 100 Irish Members, were to express the view, against the dominant wishes of Members of that House, that Arabi Pasha was a patriotic individual, and the hope that he would succeed in driving the foreigners into the sea. A crisis of that kind might occur in the affairs of the British Empire, even in their own time, because

  1727
  those Members might consider that the interference of England in the affairs of Egypt was simply a question of cash, and that a similar interference might be brought about in Ireland if they had a few foreign bondholders investing money in that country. It was all very well for the Prime Minister to say that there would be no interference with the Sovereignty of the Porte in the affairs of Egypt, so long as the Sovereign power was not abused; but he thought the Czar of Russia had just the same right to say that of the affairs of Ireland, if a considerable Party in the House, representing a large proportion of the population of the country, were to get up and say that the Sovereignty of Her Majesty was abused. In that case the Czar might say that the Sovereignty of Her Most Gracious Majesty in Ireland should not be interfered with so long as it was not abused. It might not much matter now, while England was at peace, for England could afford to disregard the opinion of such gentlemen; but, if ever she went to war, the time might come when some foreign Powers might interfere with the English Government in respect of its misgovernment in Ireland, just in the same way as England was now doing in Egypt, and in view of the possibility it would be well for the Government to allow the Representatives of Ireland to manage their own affairs in their own country.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that, in his opinion, the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister might be justly characterized as being as clear, and as luminous, and as perspicuous as a remarkably fine specimen of the London atmosphere towards the end of November. Some surprise might naturally be felt at his (Mr. O'Donnell's) taking part in the present debate; but he was unable to understand what fell from the Prime Minister and the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Charles W. Dilke). It appeared to him that the only difference between the statements of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and the statements of the Prime Minister was the difference between the monosyllabic and the polysyllabic method of saying nothing in particular on the subject. He was compelled to make his remarks in that House, because the British nation insisted on the Irish Members making their appearance in
  1728
  that House. He largely sympathized with the objections of the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) to the policy of secrecy adopted by the Liberal Party in foreign affairs, since the accession of that Party to Office. The hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle appeared to dread that in the gloomy interval during the Recess, some sudden resolution might be adopted akin to that of the late Government when they called the Indian troops to Malta. He (Mr. O'Donnell) did not know whether the hon. Baronet contemplated some foreign expedition on the part of the Irish Constabulary; but, for his own part, he believed that there was very little apprehension of any foreign expedition being sent out by Her Majesty's Government, as they had already too much trouble on their hands to pick a quarrel with any Power whatever, unless it were a very small one indeed. Though it might be the opinion of the Government that silence was golden, especially when prudence was the better part of valour, there were aspects of the Egyptian Question which demanded, if not an explanation by the Government, at any rate, a distinct and clear enunciation of opinion on the part of independent Members of that House. The Under Secretary of State denied that that was an Ultimatum which appeared in the papers that morning. A challenge was thrown out to the Government Bench to say what, then, was an Ultimatum. He (Mr. O'Donnell) could only explain the statement of Her Majesty's Government that it was not an Ultimatum, by assuming that no declaration of policy by a Liberal Government could be taken seriously as the last word they had to say on the subject. Therefore, though the document which appeared in the papers ordering instantaneous submission on the part of the Egyptian Ministry might be regarded by some as an Ultimatum, he was of that frame of mind which would feel no surprise on seeing an Ultimatum of an entirely different nature in the papers to-morrow. The Premier said that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle apparently preferred a misleading explanation to no explanation at all; but what he (Mr. O'Donnell) had to complain of was that they had already received a large number of misleading explanations from Her Majesty's Government on Egyptian affairs. They

  1729
  were led to suppose, over and over again, that what Her Majesty's Government was to do was to receive the entire concurrence of the Porte and of the Powers of Europe. The only corroboration of that very confident statement which had yet appeared had taken the remarkable form of a most decided protest by the Porte against the action of Her Majesty's Government. The Premier had declined to express what the policy of the Government was on the Sovereignty of the Sultan, and the integrity and independence of the Ottoman Empire. That was precisely the core and main point of the difficulty in the East, that no one knew what was the policy of Her Majesty's Government on those points. It might be singularly embarrassing to a Party which had arrived at power to confess that their policy now was the very policy they had so pitilessly denounced when Lord Beaconsfield was in Office. The Prime Minister, however, had laid down a general principle calculated to cover more or less satisfactorily the most surprising changes of that description. He had laid down that the Liberal Party in Office could not be expected to carry out the policy of the Liberal Party out of Office. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I have never said so.] He had only ventured to put a gloss upon the declaration of Her Majesty's Government, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would admit at once that it was not an unnatural gloss. The right hon. Gentleman had laid down, in words that would be historical, that the Government were not bound to maintain, in a position of greater responsibility and less freedom, the views they had expressed in a position of less responsibility and greater freedom. [Mr. GLADSTONE: I never said anything of the kind.] He was certain the Premier clearly saw his way to the maintenance of the denial he had just uttered; but, at the same time, he was bound to say he was not endowed with the powers of accurate perception possessed by the right hon. Gentleman. There were people in the East and in other parts of the world who might form what might be mistaken views of that kind. It was that very ambiguity which surrounded the views of the Government upon the most essential points of Eastern policy that was at the bottom of nine-tenths of the existing anxiety. The Government
  1730
  declared that they objected to having their hands tied. But were not their hands tied? What was the nature of their apparent dependence on the French Government? So far as he had been able to judge, the policy of Her Majesty's Government for a long time back consisted in saying "Ditto" to the French Foreign Office. Were Her Majesty's Government engaged in suppressing the nationalities of North Africa, like France, and wounding the feelings of the Mahomedan population? Were they aware of the interpretation put by the Mahomedan world upon their warm co-operation with and apparent dependence on France? At any moment there might be an insurrection of the Arab tribes, from Morocco to Arabia, against the French power; and if the British Government, at that critical hour of national explosion, were found side by side with France in Egypt, nothing on earth could prevent the Native population from considering England as the ally of France. He spoke in behalf of a policy of withdrawal from co-operation with France in this matter, and of paying greater attention, in the interests of common prudence, to the feelings of the Native population. England had suppressed the nationalities of a sufficient number of African peoples to render it by no means improbable in Native eyes that, upon due temptation, England would be quite as capable as France of adding another unjust annexation to the many which had already taken place. Her Majesty's Government had a right to be reticent, especially when they had nothing to say. But independent Members had a right to express an opinion on the subject; and, so far as he could see, there was no aggression, no interference with national rights, no violation of International Law, as regarded the peoples of North Africa, which had not been either approved or done by Her Majesty's Government. The Government had affected to defend the despatch of a squadron to Alexandria, on the ground that it was necessary for the protection of the life and property of British subjects; but where was that policy, when French men-of-war bombarded, and French soldiers sacked the property of British subjects at, Sfax? It was forgotten that there was at present an active, intelligent, widely-spread, and ably-conducted Mahomedan and

  1731
  Arabic Press, as well served with correspondents and educated writers, in proportion to the state of their civilization and education, as the Press of any part of Europe. All those facts which Her Majesty's Government thought might produce mischief were perfectly notorious in the East. What was the use of Her Majesty's Government imitating the ostrich and hiding their heads, when all these things were known in the East? It was perfectly well known throughout the East that there was a French Party which originally collaborated with the National Egyptian Party, with the design of making use of that Party as a tool against the supremacy of the Sultan, of separating Egypt from Turkey, and of taking hold of that country, which was the constant object of French cupidity. It was only when the Egyptian National Party proved themselves to be a real National Party that the French Government took steps to suppress it. In fact, the French Government discovered that Her Majesty's Government was likely to prove a more efficient tool in their hands for the disruption of the Ottoman Empire and the separation of Egypt from the Porte than Arabi Pasha and his Party. It was believed among the Mahomedan nations that Europe was once more embarking upon a sort of modern copy of the Crusades. In North Africa a vast insurrection against the French power was imminent. He believed that a European war, which would be very unseasonable just now, was treading closely on the heels of the Government's proceedings in Egypt. As an Irishman, he said that was a dangerous time for the Government to enter into a difficult enterprize in the East, for they had neither the political reputation nor the military force to enable them rashly to do that at the present moment. It was also to be remembered that in the event of war the whole future of the Indian Empire would be trembling in the balance, and a single false step would leave this country in as dangerous a position as it was in when the valour of a few Irish regiments rescued it at the beginning of the present century; and it was probable that, if they asked their assistance at the present time, the answer would be that the evicting landlord had scattered far and wide, over distant shores on the Atlantic and the Pacific, the strong arms and stout hearts that
  1732
  were once at the disposal of England, but whom England had rewarded with exile and despair.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—ERECTION OF HUTS FOR EVICTED FAMILIES ON THE ESTATE OF LORD CLONCURRY, MURROE, COUNTY LIMERICK.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. DILLON, in calling attention to the subject, said, that it might be very unpleasant, but it was his duty to invite the House to return from Egypt to the County Limerick, in Ireland. He had just received a telegram from the Chairman of the Poor Law Board of Guardians, in the city of Limerick, begging him to impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) the instant necessity of allowing 500 unfortunate people, who were now houseless, to provide some shelter. The telegram was to this effect—
    "Resolution passed at the Board to-day, and telegraphed to the Chief Secretary, asking him to permit the erection of huts for 50 families, who are now without shelter on the estate of Lord Cloncurry, otherwise the tenants will be obliged to enter the workhouse, which is already crowded."
    He had also received telegrams from several other people living in the neighbourhood, praying him not to allow the House to rise for their Holidays without calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the matter; but all the answer he had been able to get was that the Lord Lieutenant would consider each individual case on its merits. The one point he wished to dwell upon was that these people were evicted by Lord Cloncurry under circumstances of the grossest and most cruel injustice. They were one time in fairly comfortable homes. They were people who gave their children a good education, and were thoroughly respectable and decent in their way, and it was impossible for him to convey to the House any conception of the bitter feelings which would arise in the breasts of these people if they were obliged to enter the workhouse. It would be regarded by them for ever as causing a stain and a contamination scarcely to be described. Were these peasants, who were comfortable and respectable once, with their innocent wives and children, to be driven into the Limerick work-house, to associate with the dregs of so-

    1733
    ciety from that city? If so, they had better shoot them down, or at least the children. They had now been out of their homes for six weeks, and the Government had not yet decided whether they would be allowed to erect shelter. The request was moderate. If justice were done, they would be put back in their holdings from which they had been evicted. The landlords of the neighbourhood had urged on Lord Cloncurry to withdraw from his position; but he had refused to do so, or to listen to any settlement, although he (Mr. Dillon) considered that the terms offered by the tenants were too unfavourable for them. What he wanted to know from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, whether these people were to be driven into the workhouse or not; and, if the Irish Members undertook that no intimidation would be practised by those tenants, no violence done, the Government would allow the Land League to erect shelter for them upon the farms of their neighbours who might offer sites for the purpose? With regard to the interference of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and the threat to arrest carpenters who had been employed in erecting huts for those people, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had stated, no doubt on police information, that the farms on which the huts were being erected were only separated by a narrow road from the farms of the evicted tenants. It was said that that statement was entirely untrue—the places were separated by a large grazing farm, which placed them about half-a-mile apart. He thought, however, they were entitled to demand that, no matter where these huts were erected, permission should be given to provide shelter for the evicted people.
    MR. PLUNKET: Sir, before the debate proceeds further, I desire to correct the statement made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), unintentionally, no doubt, but most erroneously. I do not intend to enter upon the question between the hon. Member and the Executive with regard to the action of Mr. Lloyd; but I wish the House to understand what really is the transaction which has just been described from the Land League point of view. The hon. Member said that these families had been evicted in the most grossly unjust manner, and spoke of the
    1734
    consequences that might follow if they were thrown into the workhouse; but the question arises who, after all, is responsible for the evictions? I am, fortunately, in a position to be able to state on authority, very briefly, the facts of the case, and will leave the House to form its own opinion as to the true character of the affair. Now, the tenants who have been evicted held their lands from Lord Cloncurry, at a valuation made in 1870, and at a rent paid for 10 years without any complaint, and there were no arrears previous to the appearance of the edict of the Land League. Upon the institution of the League, and by its advice or order, they refused to pay their rents, and in obedience to the same advice or order, when their farms were offered for sale by the Sheriff, they declined to bid, and let Lord Cloncurry buy in their interests, which he did for a nominal sum. After a reasonable and a considerable time the rights of the landlord were exercised, not only in his own interest, but also in the vindication of law and order, and, at great trouble and expense and odium to himself, he expelled from his estate those people who sought to keep possession of his land without paying a just and fair rent. That is the practical view taken by the landlord himself; but I do not rest my statement on that alone. These matters have been brought before the Courts on two different occasions, and before Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and a common jury, and I will now quote from The Freeman's Journal some statements made by Mr. Justice Fitzgerald on the hearing of 27 of these actions. That learned Judge said—
    "I should hope that there is some prospect of an arrangement between Lord Cloncurry and his tenants. They certainly have been exceedingly badly advised, and are now left in the lurch by their advisers. The tenants must have been advised by someone to let their holdings go, with the view of making a desert of the place."
    He then suggested that some arrangement should be come to, and when the cases came on again on February 20th, the same Judge said—
    "The tenants acted in concert according to the advice they had received, which was that they should sacrifice the farms."
    Further on, he said—
    "He saw the ruin and desolation these people had brought upon themselves by this litigation,

    1735
    and he hoped that whoever the parties were who advised them to adopt that course, they would come forward, and out of their own funds pay the rents and costs, thus recouping Lord Cloncurry for his loss, and enabling him to reinstate the tenants in the farms."
    The cases were carried to the Superior Court, in which the Judge remarked upon the difficulties and dangers which had been experienced by process-servers in that district, and his Lordship said—
    "He could not shut his eyes to the fact that the tenants had brought all this desolation and misery on themselves, and he believed the parties were obliged to take the course they did in pursuance of the 'no rent' policy or manifesto. The litigation was quite useless and unnecessary."
    Now, you have all the circumstances of those evictions from the lips of the Judge who tried the case, and it throws a strong light upon the effects of the Land League "no rent" policy; and I appeal to the House, whatever judgment they may come to in respect to the other question of the huts, to recollect what are the real circumstances of the case as between landlord and tenant. It is a case of extreme hardship to the landlord. The question is, who is responsible for these evictions; and, if these people should be obliged to enter the workhouse with the bad results mentioned by the hon. Member for Tipperary, at whose door must the blame justly be laid?
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Plunket) has stated that these tenants of Lord Cloncurry refused to pay any rent; and he has quoted from a report of a judgment of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, made upon ex parte representations, without any information on the part of the tenants, and without the presence of any legal adviser on their behalf, to the effect that these tenants had been acting on the present occasion in obedience to the "no rent" manifesto. All I can say is that there is no truth whatever in the statement. These tenants were sold out in the month of May last year, long before the "no rent" manifesto was thought of. The circumstances are shortly these. They held very poor land in the County Limerick, at a rent of about 40 per cent over the Poor Law valuation. All the surrounding landlords, with the exception of Lord Cloncurry, had given abatements of from 20 to 80 per cent. These tenants asked for an abatement of 20 per cent. but Lord
    1736
    Cloncurry refused to give it. He served writs upon them, and obtained decrees for judgments in the Superior Courts. He then proceeded to sell their holdings, a most expensive and harsh proceeding against the tenants. In fact, it is the most expensive way in which a tenant can be evicted. The tenants went to the bank, and lodged their rents, less the abatement of 20 per cent which they had asked from Lord Cloncurry on the day after their holdings had been sold. I am informed, on credible authority, that Canon Ward, a Catholic clergyman, went to Lord Cloncurry's solicitor and offered to pay the full rent, provided the tenants were restored in such a way as to enable them to obtain the benefit of the approaching Land Act. That offer was refused. That offer and every subsequent offer made by the tenants, or on their behalf, was also refused by Lord Cloncurry. Lord Cloncurry, too, has made the tenants several offers, but not one which would permit them to have the benefit of the Land Act of last Session. The tenants, I know, were at all times willing to settle, provided they were allowed to come in as "present tenants" under the Act of last Session; but that has always been refused by Lord Cloncurry. The best offer made at any time by him to the tenants—and only after expenses amounting to £30 in each case had been incurred—was, that they should take out leases for 66 years at the old rack rent, which was 40 per cent above the Poor Law valuation, and pay all the costs in addition. These terms meant absolute beggary to the tenants, and they have up to the present rejected them. Under these circumstances, we sent the tenants wooden houses, in which they might obtain shelter; but, according to the idea of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), this was constructive intimidation, and an embargo was placed upon these houses, and they were not permitted to be erected. I believe the carpenters engaged in erecting them were arrested and imprisoned for intimidation. That is how the matter stands at present. It appears to me that in England miners are permitted to strike; and it is permissible—as we have seen in the case of a recent strike near Durham—it is permissible by the law of England, which also applies to Ireland, to erect shelter

    1737
    for miners on strike; but it appears it is not permissible to erect similar shelter in Ireland. What is legal in England is held to be illegal in Ireland, where no sort of intimidation whatever is intended. The strained constructive interpretation placed upon the law by the arbitrary action of the Irish Executive renders such permission impossible. I think we have proved that, in this case, there was no intimidation as regards the erection of these houses; that it was a perfectly legitimate struggle between the landlord and the tenant for a fair rent, a struggle which has dated back from the earliest commencement of the Land movement before the Act of last Session was passed, and which the tenants have repeatedly sought to terminate by offering to pay the full rent, and, I believe, the costs. I would ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, whether any hut will be permitted to be erected until the Lord Lieutenant has inquired into the circumstances of each case? If so, where a great number of evictions occur, as at Carraroe, if an embargo is placed on each hut until the Lord Lieutenant has had time to inquire into the circumstances of each case, I think it will practically amount to this, that no huts can be erected for any evicted tenants in Ireland. I think we are entitled to a statement of the principle upon which the Lord Lieutenant will act in these cases, in order that we may know what is intimidation in the minds of the Irish Executive. We have no means of knowing that at present; and I shall be glad if some statement is made, giving a definition of the circumstances connected with the erection of these huts which constitutes intimidation, because we desire to avoid it, and act in a bonâ fide way in erecting them.
    MR. SYNANsaid, that as a Member for the county in which these events had occurred (Limerick), and having some acquaintance with these farms, he desired to confirm the statement as to the attitude of the tenants long before the issue of the "no rent" manifesto, and quite independently of any action of the Land League. At the same time, he would admit that if the tenants were able to buy the holdings, and did not do so, they were ill-advised. It had been suggested that the rents were fair, because they were fixed in 1870; but he
    1738
    believed that as regarded the setting of land, the year 1870 was the highest year they had since 1850; and the fact that the rents were fixed in these cases in that year afforded prima facie evidence that they were high. He knew the lands, and if they were let at 40 or 50 per cent over Griffith's valuation, he could only say they were let at regular rack rents. Sir Croker Barrington and all the neighbouring landlords had given an abatement of 20 per cent. and although Lord Cloncurry's tenants had asked for the same reduction, he knew, as a fact, that they would have accepted 10 per cent. and even have been satisfied with 5; but Lord Cloncurry would not be satisfied with anything except his pound of flesh; while he had incurred £700 costs, being £30 or £40 in each case, and would not take a farthing of rent unless these costs were paid. Even the lease that had been offered contained a clause that every tenant was to be liable to pay the rents of the other tenants, so that in case of there being one defaulter, the landlord might have the power to evict all. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Plunket) also defended the course taken by Lord Cloncurry in bringing ejectments in the Superior Courts; but it was well known that no difficulty whatever need be experienced in the districts in serving civil bill ejectments, which would have avoided the payment of these enormous costs by the tenants. He thought Lord Cloncurry in this matter stood isolated in the whole of Limerick, and he hoped no other landlord in Ireland would be guilty of the same despotic proceedings against respectable tenants. All these men, to his own knowledge, were respectable farmers, and it would be scandalous to subject themselves and their families to the contamination of a workhouse. This was a case which demanded the immediate attention of the Government, and the immediate compliance by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) with the request of his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that after the few words spoken by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), he wished to trouble the House for a minute or two. There were two questions which had been brought up in this

    1739
    discussion—one was the circumstances connected with the eviction; the second was the sheltering provided for the evicted people. As regarded the circumstances of the eviction, he could not admit the correctness of what had been said by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. There was one fact that the hon. Member alleged which, no doubt, was a mistake on his part. The hon. Member said that the tenants were sold up in May. In his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) belief, they were sold up in August.
    MR. SYNAN: That was before the appearance of the "no rent" manifesto.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, even if that was so, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) was certainly mistaken in attributing the action of the tenants to the "no rent" manifesto, yet it was a mistake, not so much in substance as in appearance. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) believed the real fact of the case was this. He was not going into the terms on which the tenants held their holdings; much had been heard on both sides—they might have been high-rented, or they might have been low-rented; on that subject he did not wish to give an opinion—but there could be no doubt that they refused to pay their rents. [Mr. STNAN: Their full rents.] Yes, their full rents; and Lord Cloncurry thought the law enabled him to get them, as the law enabled a man to get his full tailor's bill or any other bill. It must be remembered that these were not cases of cottier tenants, who would be reduced to absolute destitution if they were turned out, but they were well-to-do tenants. They took, he supposed, the advice of the officials of the Land League, or, at all events, they did what those officials strongly recommended, and instead of going into the Land Court and taking advantage of the Land Act——
    MR. DILLON: There was no Land Court at that time.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Well, there was a Land Bill introduced with every probability of passing, and there was one actually passed before this matter came to the point.
    MR. DILLON: But this incident began in March last, and only concluded in the mouth of June, when the tenants' farms were sold up.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he believed he was correct in this matter. However, there could be no doubt that there was a Bill passing through Parliament. It was pretty well known that it would become law, and that it would enable a fair rent to be fixed. Following the advice given them by the Land League, the tenants declined to wait and take advantage of the Act, and they refused to pay the rent which was actually due. He was not even stating whether Lord Cloncurry was driving a hard bargain or not; but, if he was asked, his own impression was that he was not. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought that did not very much concern the matter. Respectable, well-to-do tenants, instead of taking advantage of a Bill which they were pretty sure was going to pass, and which, he believed, was passed before the final sale, refused to pay their rents, following the advice of the Land League; and they very foolishly and unwisely declined to buy in their property, as they might have done, and allowed it to go at a nominal price, and in doing so they still followed the advice of the Land League. He was very much mistaken if they did not follow the advice publicly given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, in a speech about that time, but of which he had not got a copy with him then. At any rate, he should at another time be prepared to give the words of a speech of that hon. Gentleman's, in which he strongly recommended tenants to take that line, giving them to understand that the Land League would take care they did not suffer for doing so. Well, the Land League had not taken care that they did not suffer. And he had not the slightest doubt that at the time the poor men declined to bid for their farms they fully expected the Land League would take care that they did not suffer from their neglect to do so. Men refused to pay rent which was legally due, and to buy in their own property at the sale—following in both instances the advice of the Land League, and then they found themselves in the power of Lord Cloncurry. These he believed to be the circumstances in regard to the evictions. If he were called upon to give an opinion as to the Land League, he should say that the Land League was, in the first place, wrong in advising people not to pay their legal debts; secondly, that they were wrong in ad-

    1741
    vising the tenants not to buy in; and, thirdly, that after the promise made, and having got these poor men into these straits, they were wrong in not out of their funds giving the tenants the means of keeping up their holdings. With regard to the question of the huts, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said this shelter was prevented on account of the policy which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) set on foot. Well, that was not true. ["Order!"] He said it was not true that he ever set on foot such a policy. He was applied to by parties interested to stop the erection of huts, and he always stated that the onus probandi rested with the objectors to show that the huts should not be erected, as, undoubtedly, it was generally legal to erect these huts, and in many cases praiseworthy. He might state with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd that he had talked the matter over with him, and that they both agreed that they ought to put nothing in the way of erecting huts in ordinary circumstances. In regard to this particular case, he had nothing to do with it. This matter in regard to these huts happened, he understood, after he left Office; but he was confident that, in some other cases, huts had been put up solely for the purpose of intimidation, and that the magistrates in those cases were right in preventing their being so erected. He knew of a case in which men were living in huts which were put up for them after they had paid their rent. They had paid their rents quietly and silently, without letting the fact become known. The huts had been put up, and they dared not refuse to go and live in them. No one who really knew what intimidation was practised in these districts would be surprised at such a state of things. In fact, the intimidation in Ireland had been of such a nature that it had been one that absolutely prevented anyone from feeling any sort of liberty to do what he thought he ought to do, to pay his debts or his rent, or to carry on his business in any manner in which a free man should carry it on. With an organization like the Land League, still carried on to some extent by the Ladies' Land League, there could be no doubt that one of the instruments they had used for the purposes of intimidation was the erection of huts. Still it was a matter in which, of course, the magistrates and the police ought to have the
    1742
    clearest possible proof that the huts were put up for such a purpose, and not merely for the purpose of shelter or for the purpose of benevolence. He was glad to hear that his noble Friend (Earl Spencer) intended to look personally, as far as he could, into these cases. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did so himself—["Oh, oh!"]—and in several cases he prevented any interference being made with the erection of the huts. But he need hardly say that he supposed his right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) and the Viceroy would remember that these were matters which depended upon the action of the magistrates, and that it would be a very dangerous thing for the Executive to positively interfere with magisterial action, because that would be a great exertion of authority which ought not to be made. It was a most dangerous matter for the Executive to attempt to originate and to control the magisterial action. It had not been done in Ireland, and he did not suppose his right hon. Friend intended to take that course. He must again repeat, that if hon. Members thought that before he left Office he gave any orders or instructions for preventing the erection of huts, there was absolutely no foundation for it. He did not know of a single official in Ireland who had ever advised such a thing; but he knew that in a great number of cases huts had been erected, and no interference had been allowed; and he trusted the House would not come to any judgment on cases where interference had taken place without having the whole of the facts before it, or on any ex parte allegations. It must be recollected that where-ever a magistrate had done such a thing there was an appeal to a higher Court, and he hoped that hon. Members would wait to hear the result of such appeals before they formed a conclusion on the matter. He must now say a word or two about Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and he did not know why he should be called, as he often was, Major Clifford Lloyd, for he believed he had never been a military man at all, or connected with the Army. He had, however, been frequently made the object of attack both out of that House and in it; and he feared hon. Members were beginning to suppose that there was some foundation for those attacks and for what was said about him. The real reason for these attacks upon Mr. Lloyd was that he had been most successful in

    1743
    putting down disorder, and in establishing liberty and freedom in the districts within his jurisdiction. It was chiefly owing to Mr. Clifford Lloyd that in some parts of Ireland men could go to their daily work from morning until night without the fear of being maimed or murdered, and this they were able to do mainly on account of his action. There would, indeed, be an end to much hope of orderly government in the country if the time should come when the Government or Parliament should not acknowledge the services of men who had done such good work as Mr. Lloyd. He must add that that magistrate had discharged his duties with great moderation and without the use of extreme punishments; and, if the facts were fully made known, it would be found that he had restored order in Limerick, and was beginning to restore it in a very bad part of the much-disturbed county of Clare, very much by his justice and moderation; and, as a proof of that, he might give two instances. Some time ago, having given the Government information which led to the arrest of several persons in Kilfinane and Kilmallock, he said he would make himself responsible for the peace of the district if those persons were released. He was right, and it was found that they could be released with safety. But perhaps the House would be much surprised to hear that almost the last act he (Mr. W. E. Forster) performed as Chief Secretary for Ireland was to sanction, at Mr. Lloyd's request, the release of those who, under his term of magistracy, had been confined under the Coercion Act in the county of Limerick. Such was the confidence of the Government in his power of preserving order, and in the respect that the inhabitants of that county paid to him for his moderation, firmness, and discretion, that by the force of his personal character that step we found could be taken, and was taken, with perfect safety.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that as all the workhouses in Ireland were overcrowded, there would be no shelter for great numbers of evicted tenants but for the efforts of the Ladies' Land League and other organizations in the tenants' behalf. He wished to know whether the Government were going to take any steps for the accommodation and relief of such tenants? He would
    1744
    impress upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) the expediency of allowing the huts to be erected, when they had the recommendations of so important a body as the Board of Guardians.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he felt obliged to offer a few remarks to the House upon the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). That speech was worthy of the right hon. Gentleman in its tone and in its whole substance; it was worthy, too, in the consequences it was likely to produce, of the right hon. Gentleman's whole unfortunate official connection with Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman who had undertaken the serious task of the government of Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) would rather derive his opinions from the Irish people themselves than from a Gentleman who had proved his incapacity to act in connection with his own Cabinet. It would be strange indeed if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford could deliver a speech without a eulogium upon Mr. Clifford Lloyd. It had long been recognized in Ireland that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was the special favourite of the right hon. Gentleman; and when they heard the right hon. Gentleman say that he had not imposed any impediment upon the erection of huts, he (Mr. Sexton) must ask them to remember that Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the special favourite of the right hon. Gentleman, had been the one magistrate in Ireland who had continually and tyrannically interfered with the provision of shelter for evicted tenants. The right hon. Gentleman claimed for Mr. Lloyd the credit of having restored order and even peace in the counties of Limerick and Clare. He was ready enough to give figures when they told against the Irish people, but he abstained from doing so when he was praising some official of the Government. Why had not the right hon. Gentleman given them the number of crimes that had been committed for a given period before Mr. Lloyd became special magistrate there, and compared them with the figures for the half-year following his arrival? The right hon. Gentleman knew when to be frank and when elliptical. He attributed the credit to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, instead of attributing it to the

    1745
    fact that the Government which he had left had led the people for a short time to believe that they were about to return to a policy of conciliation and reason. Although the Government was introducing a new Coercion Bill, there was an improvement in their policy for a short time, which had brought about, to some extent, a better state of things in the country. He (Mr. Sexton) had made strenuous endeavours in that House to bring before it the proceedings of Mr. Clifford Lloyd and other magistrates; but all those endeavours had been met with evasion and suppression. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford whether that moderate magistrate had sent a telegram to a constable, requesting the names of six or seven tenants in a particular locality who had not paid their rents. Mr. Lloyd did not ask whether the tenants were able to pay or not. The right hon. Gentleman had risen and denied that any such telegram had been sent. But he (Mr. Sexton) had received the words of the telegram. He knew the day on which it was sent, and the office where it was handed in; and in that telegram was contained a request for the names of 20 tenants who had not paid their rents. The object of the telegram was to use powers against those tenants which had been obtained for a totally different purpose. There was another case, in which a charge was brought against a lady. The lady was taken into Mr. Clifford Lloyd's private room. She requested the presence of the parish clergyman during the examination. The request was refused. She asked for an adjournment. It was refused. She asked to be allowed to engage counsel. That, also, was refused. And then, without evidence, without witnesses, without the aid of counsel, she was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. What was the use of an appeal in such a case? Mr. Justice Fitzgerald had decided that the Queen's Bench could hear no appeal unless some point of law was reserved, and Mr. Clifford Lloyd had taken good care that no point of law should arise, for the unfortunate woman had no counsel to raise it for her. It was hard for him (Mr. Sexton) to restrain his indignation when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say, in that House, that huts had been erected in Ireland for the purpose of intimida-
    1746
    tion. Was it not a fact that the Ladies' Land League and its branches had been in existence in Ireland for the last 12 months? In the course of these 12 months the right hon. Gentleman had in his hand a Coercion Act which enabled him to arrest any person he chose; and although there were 300 huts erected by the Land League and its branches in 26 out of the 32 different counties in Ireland, many of the huts being in proclaimed districts, and although these huts were occupied by 2,000 evicted tenants, the right hon. Gentleman never once in the course of the 12 months used the Coercion Act for the arrest of any one of those persons on a charge of intimidation.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERasked if the hon. Member was surprised that he did not order the arrest of any lady connected with the League on account of intimidation with regard to the erection of huts? Was not that his question?
    MR. SEXTON: No. He could not raise such a point as that, because ladies were arrested.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Not under the Protection Act?
    MR. SEXTON: No; but in reference to intimidation. He would repeat the question.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied, that the reason why they were not arrested was because they had not sufficient proof of intimidation; and, therefore, no action had been taken in the matter. That was a confirmation of his previous statement, that no action had been taken in reference to the building of huts for the occupation of evicted tenants, except where there was ample proof that it was connected with intimidation.
    MR. SEXTON(continuing) said, the right hon. Gentleman had said he had no proof brought before him; but the right hon. Gentleman did not require proof, but only such evidence, if he (Mr. Sexton) might call it so, as might bring his faculty of reasonable suspicion into play. He could have availed himself of the powers conferred upon him by the Coercion Act, and could have arrested the members of the Ladies' League as "suspects;" but he had not thought it right to do so. In the cases in which the right hon. Gentleman had interfered, the huts were erected at such a distance from the evicted lands, and under such circumstances as to render a

    1747
    suspicion of intimidation improbable to the last degree; and he would ask could tyranny or absurdity further go? These poor evicted tenants were the last to desire that intimidation should be resorted to on their behalf, because their only hope of being saved from ruin lay in their being restored to their farms; and, therefore, it was too absurd to charge them with having used intimidation. How could the right hon. Gentleman talk of tailors' bills in connection with the reduction of rents, when they all knew that the reduction of rents had been effected by the Land Act? With regard to Lord Cloncurry, he (Mr. Sexton) believed that that Nobleman had ignored all the duties attaching to property, and had exacted, not only rack rents, but altogether fancy rents from his tenants. He refused to do what an English landlord would do—he refused to do what an English Gentleman always did with his tenants, and that was share the distress by making an allowance in the rents. No; Lord Cloncurry went upon the principle that he must be paid—that he would have the last penny from his tenants, even though they were ruined in paying it. It must be remembered also that the poor tenants who had been unable to pay their rents had been required to pay, not only the arrears, but also the enormous law costs of the Superior Courts of Dublin to save themselves from eviction. When he (Mr. Sexton) was in Ireland last, in connection with the Land League, he carefully examined into the cases of farms brought to the hammer, and he found this, that three-fourths of the tenants whose farms were put up to auction allowed their farms to go. With three bad years, with no reduction of rent, but forced as they were to pay exorbitant rents, what were they to do? It was impossible for them to pay the costs of the actions in the Superior Courts, the costs of the writs, and of the actions, and so it was simply a choice between one description of ruin and the other. When he consulted with others as to what was to be done under these circumstances, all that he had ever done was to advise the tenants to stand together and to form a united and solid body for their own protection. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had told them of tenants he met with tears in
    1748
    their eyes in some out of the way corners complaining of the Land League. Before these evictions of Lord Cloncurry, he (Mr. Sexton) told the tenants distinctly that the Land League would not bear the expenses of buying the farms. He told them that if the League was to do it, they would be at the mercy of the Property Defence Association, who might issue thousands of writs, and who, in a single week, would empty the coffers of the League. He hoped, in conclusion, that he had been enabled to convey some idea of the truth of this matter, and that in spite of the efforts made by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) to glorify the landlord at the expense of the tenants, and at the cost of humanity, proving, as he had, that he could neither agree with his Colleagues in Office or be satisfied with them now he was out of Office.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that up to the present time he had carefully refrained from expressing any opinion upon this most complicated question, and had merely stated what would be the Executive action or the intentions of the Government with regard to it, and he did not propose to step beyond that line on the present occasion. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland were to be required to defend the landlords in a complicated case of this kind, he would have equally to condemn them when they unduly strained the law against their tenants. It was for the private friends of the landlords on the one side, and the representatives of the tenants on the other, to state the case according to the best of their power, and to see that the law was duly enforced on both sides; and all that he had to do was to see that the supremacy of the law was asserted. The Government were very sorry for those poor people. They had, according to one account, been much misled and greatly intimidated, and, according to another, they had been greatly misused. It was to prevent hardship of the nature in the future, whether well-founded or not, which had been alleged, that the Land Act had been passed; and it was to prevent intimidation of the class alleged to have been used in the present case, that the Government were determined to pass the Prevention of Crime Bill. If intimidation had been used in this case, he could not too strongly reprobate it. If the tenants

    1749
    had been persuaded to do anything which was for their ultimate serious disadvantage, he deeply regretted it. It was difficult to speak in a case where the Government had no power. It was deeply to be regretted if the tenants had been tempted to their ruin by refusing to pay their rent; and it was equally to be regretted if the landlords had strained the law with the object of depriving their repentant tenants of the advantages offered them by the Land Act which had been passed by both Houses of Parliament. By whomsoever that system of intimidation had been practised, the Government would do their utmost to put a stop to it. If the huts, wherever they were, were part of a system of intimidatory action, they would also undoubtedly interfere to check that intimidation. He believed hitherto the proceedings connected with the erection of those huts had been connected with intimidation; but he was very sorry a discussion of a warm nature had resulted in regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, because he thought Mr. Clifford Lloyd had, at different times, done a great service in the cause of law and order, and he certainly would be supported by the Government. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) did not appear quite to understand what he meant to convey as regarded these huts. The hon. Member, in his speech, had stated that the Government would not allow huts to be erected; but the fact was, that the Government would not allow any interference with their erection until they were satisfied that they were erected for purposes of intimidation. No one wanted permission to do a lawful act; and if the huts were merely erected for shelter, they certainly would not be interfered with. There was one or two points on which his information was not identical with that of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). He understood, and he hoped he was right in the matter, that the number of persons belonging to the families evicted were 215, and not 500, as stated by the hon. Member. He believed, however, that a certain number of them were well-to-do, and had friends to help them. [Mr. PARNELL: A great many of them were cottier tenants.] No doubt, some were; and he saw one was evicted because he was unable to pay £1 on a holding of 10s. a-year. There could,
    1750
    however, be no doubt that during the 9 or 10 months that had elapsed since the evictions, there had been a great deal of distress and destitution. As regarded the power of the Government, he took it that there could be no doubt about that matter. The Government did not interfere with magistrates in the exercise of their legal powers. But they had a right, and he believed that in the present state of things they were absolutely bound to see that the police did not take the initiative with regard to huts without the permission of His Excellency after the facts had been gone into by him. No doubt, this was a matter which had led to great rivalry of feeling, and to much excess of language. These cases called for inquiry, if ever one did; and if it was still desired, for the purposes of intimidation, to erect the huts, the Executive would sternly repress such a desire; but if they were erected in good faith and for shelter, their erection would be allowed. Government had the undoubted power, and here, as elsewhere, it would be carefully used.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he thought that the debate had not been without some very useful results. He believed that the case of the unfortunate tenants of Lord Cloncurry stood then in no worse position, or it might be in a better position, than when the debate began, notwithstanding the very plausible statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who had endeavoured to make out that intimidation had been exercised towards them. It had been admitted that Lord Cloncurry was driving the hardest bargain he could with these poor tenants, and that he was endeavouring to make hay while the sun shone by seizing the highest rent that could be extorted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) might be pleased with the illustration he had made use of in his speech as to the payment of the tailor's bill. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) wanted to know whether the course taken by the tenants of Lord Cloncurry did not correspond with the course taken sometimes with a tailor's bill, particularly when that bill was exorbitant? In the case of an extortionate bill, the debtor lodged in the Court of Law the amount he considered fair and

    1751
    proper, and then he disputed the bill. This was what was substantially done in this case. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the new Chief Secretary for Ireland to be very careful indeed how he listened to the advice or the suggestions of his Predecessor. His heart always sank within him when he heard the right hon. Member for Bradford offering any suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. It reminded him of one of Hogarth's most famous pictures, that one which represented a waggon arriving at an inn, and from the waggon descended a young woman fresh and innocent, wholly inexperienced as to the perils of London life. Beside her was another woman, neither young in experience nor fresh, but old and very crafty, who was endeavouring to induce the fresh and innocent maiden to take her counsels and walk in her ways. So it was with the right hon. Member for Bradford. But he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) trusted the new Chief Secretary for Ireland would be very careful how he received the advice of his old and experienced Predecessor, who seemed inclined to tempt him away from the path he was taking, and that the right hon. Gentleman, while fresh and inexperienced, would not fall into his wiles.
    LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that he wished to bring back the discussion to the original question, seeing that it evinced a tendency to go somewhat wide of it. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had opened up the subject by pointing out the hardship from which certain tenants were suffering, who were once independent men of good character, but were now being forced into the workhouse. Everyone knew with what horror the workhouse was regarded by the people of Ireland; but the House having heard the statements both of the landlords' and the Laud League's Representatives would, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) thought, not hesitate for a moment to say that the persons who were immediately responsible for the present unfortunate position of those tenants were those who gave them the cruel and iniquitous advice to allow their tenant rights—which in many cases represented a considerable amount of money—to be sold at merely nominal sums. That course had been adopted by them, if not at the instigation of the Land League, at the
    1752
    instigation of those who professed to act for that League. He did not wish to prejudge the case. The rents were, perhaps, such as the Commissioners would lower, or they were not. But the point he wished to urge was—What was the cause of the circumstances which at present existed? He had every reason to believe that at the very time when those tenant rights were about to be sold, other tenants were, in many cases, anxious to bid; but intimidation of the grossest kind was exercised upon them immediately before the sale, if not actually while the sale was taking place. He had it on very good authority that an unfrocked priest was present at the sale, and, while professing to act on behalf of the Land League—but whether so or not, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was unable to say—intimidated the tenants into refusing to bid for the property. In addition to this must be regarded the speeches delivered at the time and in the particular districts by eminent members of the Land League, and which contained like counsel. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), for instance, made a speech on the 9th of September last in Sackville Street, in which, after referring to designing persons who were spreading a panic by speaking of the loss that would be sustained if the tenant allowed his interest in the holding to be sold, he said—
    "I cannot see that the tenants would lose anything at all, where it is possible for the Land League to keep the farm vacant. This has been our principle from the very commencement."
    If that was not something like encouragement to the unfrocked priest, he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) failed to understand the meaning of words? One of the most effectual steps the Government could take in restoring peace and order in Ireland would be to amend the present technical and expensive system involved in suits relating to rent. Many of the difficulties that arose were but the consequences of the heavy costs incurred in these actions. With respect to the particular case now before the House, Lord Cloncurry might feel assured that his personal character had been practically cleared of the aspersions that had been cast upon it; but might not the words summum jus summa injuria be applicable to the case? He (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) would sug-

    1753
    gest to him, as a means of preserving peace and order, that he should re-consider the desirability of reinstating his tenants. If he made such a sacrifice he would have the satisfaction of having made it in the interests of peace and good government—a sacrifice which at this time the Government and the House of Commons had almost a right to ask of any man who had the interest of Ireland at heart.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of taking any part in the discussion, which would be useful, more especially if it should end in the spirit which characterized the speech of his noble Friend who had just sat down (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). He would rather appeal to the House not to consider this matter any further. The whole case had been fully stated on both sides by the parties interested, and it might very conveniently be closed in the spirit of the concluding sentence of the noble Lord. No doubt, the judgment of public opinion would be formed upon the whole discussion, and that was the only judgment which could be formed upon it. He thought he should be expressing the sentiments of the House, if he said he hoped that this discussion would now drop. Of course, if it were continued, there might, to use an old law phrase, be rebutters and surrebutters, and that would not be a very profitable form of proceeding.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ARRANGEMENT OF PUBLIC BUSINESS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he rose to make an appeal in reference to the Business which would be proceeded with when the House re-assembled on Thursday next. He believed the Prevention of Crime Bill would be the first Order, and that it was to be taken from day to day. A great many hon. Gentlemen would be inclined to prolong the Holiday to the end of the week, if some other Business, say, Supply, were set down for Thursday and Friday. That would also enable the Chief Secretary for Ireland to spend some days in Ireland, which would be an advantage to him, considering that he had only recently assumed Office. The right hon. Gentleman answered very fairly all the
  1754
  questions put to him, and a very high opinion of him was entertained by those who knew him on the Liberal side of the House. At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman was in this difficulty, that he knew personally nothing about what was going on in Ireland. He had to take what he heard from gentlemen who gave him information. It, therefore, seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) most desirable that the right hon. Gentleman should pass not only a few days, but a little longer time in Ireland. There were many also who thought several of the clauses of the Bill might be modified. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had an opportunity of looking into the matter himself in Ireland, he would probably see that the modifications which had been suggested by various Members should be adopted. Therefore, that, he thought, was an additional reason for not taking this Bill on Thursday and Friday next, and giving the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of remaining longer in Ireland. To a man having the large mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir William Harcourt), although he might say to the contrary, nothing was impossible; and if he would put down Supply for Thursday and Friday, he would find that the hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would be able easily, in thin Houses, to obtain a great deal of money.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, many things might be possible to men of large minds; but he could not disobey orders. This question was put to the Prime Minister yesterday, who stated he was quite sure, with extreme regret, that he was not able to meet the wishes of Gentlemen from Ireland. In the absence of the Prime Minister, he had no discretion in the matter.
  Motion agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, at its rising, do adjourn till Thursday 1st of June.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, a great number of the Irish Members, who had not felt

  1755
  themselves at liberty to go home since the beginning of the Session, were desirous of returning to Ireland during the Holidays, and he hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would consider whether it was possible to postpone the consideration of the Bill till Monday, as it would be a matter of the greatest possible convenience to Irish Members who desired to spend a few days longer in Ireland. The Government would be able to utilize those two days for Supply, and would succeed in obtaining a large amount of money.
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, he could assure the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that he felt that the wish he had expressed on the part of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland was a most natural one, and he (Mr. Gladstone) had every desire to consult the convenience of hon. Members so far as lay in his power, consistent with the proper conduct of Public Business. Her Majesty's Government had asked the House to put forward certain measures with all possible expedition, and they were bound not to permit other Business to interfere with their progress. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that Supply could be put down for Thursday and Friday next. No doubt the convenience of getting through Supply on Thursday and Friday would be very great; but the Government might find these two nights occupied by the mass of preliminary Motions standing on the Paper, and for which hon. Members had been unable to keep a House. They would, therefore, probably get no Supply, and the two days would be wasted. If, however, he could have some assurance that Supply would be taken on those two days, he would accede to the hon. Member's suggestion, as, if Votes were taken then, it would prevent a postponement of the Irish measures at a later stage for the purpose of taking Supply. He was not aware, however, that any pledge could be asked for or given that the Motion to go into Committee of Supply would not be so met. He feared, therefore, the Government had no choice but to adhere to the present arrangement.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that he would be perfectly willing to postpone a Motion standing in his name, if other hon. Members would do the same.

ORDER 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.)
  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 25th May.]
    [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Preamble postponed.

  PART I.

    SPECIAL COMMISSION.
    Clause 1 (Special Commission Court).
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) had the following Amendment first on the Paper:—Clause 1, page 1, line 12, before the first word "The," insert—
    "From and after the passing of this Act, the forty-fourth Victoria, chapter four, shall be and the same is hereby repeated."
    This Amendment was out of Order, and could not be put.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that if the Amendment was out of Order on Clause 1, could it not be moved on Clause 2 or 3, or on some other clause?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, the Amendment was within the title of the Bill, and should, therefore, be brought forward as a new clause.
    MR. HEALYsaid, his next Amendment was in line 12, after "Lieutenant," to insert "with the consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature." He considered that the Judges upon whom would devolve the responsibility for the carrying out of the Act should be consulted by the Lord Lieutenant. The Committee knew by the evidence the Judges had given before the Court of Inquiry in the House of Lords that a number of these learned gentlemen, while they had their own views as to the efficacy of the present system of trial by jury in Ireland, strongly condemned any such proposal for its abolition as that in the Bill. Even Mr. Justice Fitzgerald and Mr. Justice Barry were of that opinion, and a Memorial, as the Committee were aware, had recently been addressed to the Government by the Irish Judges,

    1757
    embodying a request that trial by jury should not be interfered with in the way the Government proposed to interfere with it. If the proposal contained in the present Amendment were adopted, it might have the effect of enabling the Lord Lieutenant to devise some scheme for the holding of trials in Ireland more satisfactory than that of the Bill. Moreover, if the Lord Lieutenant could have the advantage of taking the advice of a number of the Judges, the councils of the Lord Lieutenant would be very considerably benefited. The Amendment was, he thought, a reasonable one. It would place some check on the action of the Lord Lieutenant, and, for that reason alone, should be acceptable. The proposal down to line 16 was of a different character to the proposal in the concluding portion of the clause. The first part of the clause would give the Lord Lieutenant power to issue Commissions for the trial of persons charged with certain offences without abolishing trial by jury—it would give the Lord Lieutenant power to establish Special Commissioners without interfering with the present jury system. That was altogether different from the concluding portion of the clause, which, after the recital of the offences, went on to empower the Lord Lieutenant absolutely to abolish trial by jury. On all grounds, with reference to the first and concluding portions of the clause, he thought it desirable that the Lord Lieutenant should have the advice of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 12, after "Lieutenant," insert "with the consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature."—(Mr. Healy.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member's Amendment would be absolutely inconsistent with, and fatal to, the whole structure of the Bill. The Lord Lieutenant represents the Crown. The Crown, when it issues a Special Commission, issues it as a mandatory, directory, authority, or power to the Judges, commanding them to try certain offences. But to say that the Crown is to exercise the power of issuing a Special Commission "with the consent of the Judges," would be contrary to all conception of the relations which exist be-
    1758
    tween the Crown and the Judges. Therefore, the Amendment is entirely in admissible. In reference to what the hon. Member has said as to the earlier part of the clause and its concluding portion, I can answer him in a single sentence. The idea is not that the Lord Lieutenant shall appoint a particular Commission for the trial of each individual case as it arises, but that he shall appoint a Special Commission generally, to which each case as it arises will be referred. The Clause says—
    "The Lord Lieutenant may, from time to time, direct a Commission or Commissions to be issued for the appointment of a Court or Courts of Special Commissioners for the trial in manner provided by this Act of persons charged with any of the following offences."
    The hon. Member will see the kind of crimes to try persons accused of which the Commission will be issued.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman in January last year, they had had a trial—that of "Parnell and Others"—at which Mr. Chief Justice May had refused to be present. Was not that a case in point? After a statement he had made on a previous occasion that showed him to be biassed in the case, Chief Justice May came into Court, and said that under the circumstances he could not proceed with the trial or take any part in the proceedings; and the result was that the case was tried by other Judges of the Queen's Bench. It seemed to him (Mr. Biggar) that it was desirable that such a provision as that proposed by his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) should be introduced, and for the reason that it might be proposed by the Lord Lieutenant that some Judge who had a strong objection to acting both as Judge and jury should proceed to take part in trials under the Bill, or that some Judge should officiate who might have said, "This is a case on which I have formed a very strong opinion, and I do not consider myself justified in trying it." He thought that where a Judge was biassed—as Chief Justice May had been—he should not be compelled to try a case if he did not wish to.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, everyone recollected the circumstance of Chief Justice May's declining to sit on the case to which, reference had been

    1759
    made. The learned Chief Justice himself had considered it was more consistent with the due administration of justice that he should not sit on the case, and it was not necessary that he should sit.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department opposed the Amendment, on the ground that it was inconsistent with the relations that ought to exist between the Crown and the Judges. But he submitted that this dangerous and unconstitutional clause would have the very effect which the right hon. and learned Gentleman deprecated. As the power given to the Lord Lieutenant would be extraordinary and unprecedented, why should not its exercise be checked as proposed by the Irish Judges? The question in substance was—Would the Committee impose on the Irish Bench the discharge of duties which each and every member of that Bench declared would seriously impair public confidence in their judicial office, and permanently injure the administration of justice in Ireland? Last year the matter had been fully considered by the Lords' Committee of Inquiry into the Jury Laws in Ireland, and the evidence of two of the most eminent Judges in that country had been taken on the point. Mr. Justice Barry had stated, in the most emphatic terms possible, that, in point of fact, the thrusting upon the Judges of any such authority would, in itself, be most unfortunate. He had said he should consider it a very unfortunate suggestion; and he was satisfied that sending down Judges to try men without juries would destroy public confidence in them, and he did not think they would be ever able to restore it again. Mr. Justice Lawson had given evidence to the same effect. It would be found that although some witnesses urged on the Lords' Committee the recommendation of the provision of the present Bill, that Committee refused to adopt it, and all they recommended was a special tribunal. The matter, however, did not rest on the opinion of the Judges. When the Bill of 1833 was before the House, the opinions of two most eminent English statesmen were delivered in noteworthy and un-mistakeable terms in respect to a proposal similar to that which they were now asked to adopt. On the 27th February,
    1760
    1833, as will be found recorded in Hansard, thus did the late Lord Althorp express his conviotions—
    "It had been mentioned, amongst other things, that a Judge of Assize ought to be Bent down to try offenders without the aid of a jury; but there was not a single precedent in favour of such a course, which would be dangerous in itself, and more unconstitutional than anything which had, up to then, been suggested."
    That, which was the opinion of one of the greatest statesmen in England, was given after hearing all the arguments which could be urged in the matter. The late Lord Derby—then Mr. Stanley—also delivered in emphatic terms his opinion as to the suggestion. He said—
    "It would be with the greatest alarm and repugnance that I should contemplate the employment of Judges of the land—of men whose characters ought to be beyond stain, or even the imputation of a stain, of men who should strictly confine themselves to the letter as well as to the spirit of the law—in such work as had been suggested."
    If the late Lord Derby were alive now, he would have pointed out how cases might arise where judgments given from time to time by the Judges would be brought up for discussion in the House of Commons. If the popular Party felt aggrieved in the slightest manner by a judgment, that judgment would, in all likelihood, be canvassed with acrimony in the House. Was that a position in which the Judges ought to be placed? What ought to be the duties and the character of the Judges? Was it not the duty of a Judge to preserve the subject from the inroads of the Executive, and from the attacks which the Executive might make upon Constitutional rights and privileges? It was now proposed to impair that confidence which the public had in his impartiality, to alter that character and position with which he was heretofore invested, and to turn him into a mere tool of the Executive. If the Bill passed in its present shape, he feared that such was the estimation in which a Judge in Ireland would be held. Let not the Committee imagine that the course of justice would be made more secure and certain. He believed there never was a tribunal before which a criminal could more easily escape than from a tribunal composed of three Judges, who were to be unanimous, and from whom there was the power of appeal. So far as the

    1761
    criminal was concerned, the tribunal of Judges would be just as uncertain as a tribunal of 12 men. He was happy to say that he believed they had in Ireland on the Judicial Bench men as high-minded and as upright as any men who ever honoured the Judiciary of any country. That being so, it was upon other and higher grounds that he objected altogether to this provision of the Bill. If they were to listen to the reasons urged for the establishment of this special tribunal——
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to be hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) that his speech relates to the whole clause, and would be quite in Order, when the Question is that the clause stand part of the Bill. The Amendment now under consideration is as to whether the Lord Lieutenant shall exercise the power "with the consent of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature."
    MR. HEALYsaid, that for their future guidance, might he ask whether a Member might not discuss an Amendment as it affected the entire clause? The present Amendment, if carried, would affect the clause as a whole; in fact, it would change the sense and character of the clause entirely. He submitted to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of Committees, whether an hon. Member was not entitled to discuss an Amendment in its bearing to the clause as a whole?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, on the point of Order, he had to say that if the Judges consented, then the Judges would act. It was a question whether the Judges were to give their consent or not.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Under certain circumstances, an hon. Member would be in Order in discussing the bearings of an Amendment on the whole clause; but, at the present moment, the question is simply whether the Lord Lieutenant may direct a Commission to be issued with the consent of certain Judges; and I must ask the hon. Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) to confine his remarks to that point.
    MR. P. MARTINsaid, that, of course, he should bow to the ruling of the Chair; but it struck him he had a right to explain what the nature of the clause was. He, however, only rose for the purpose of expressing his intention to support
    1762
    the Amendment, because, in his opinion, it would, to a certain extent, control, if not prevent, the exercise by the Lord Lieutenant of the power proposed to be left at his arbitrary discretion under the clause.
    MR. BULWERsaid, the clause provided that—
    "The Lord Lieutenant may from time to time direct a Commission or Commissions to be issued for the appointment of a Court or Courts of Special Commissioners;"
    and then it went on to say—
    "A Special Commission Court shall consist of three Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland."
    He would be glad to know whether the Special Commission to be appointed was to consist of only three Judges, or of five or six Judges; and whether the three Judges, who were to try any particular case, were to be chosen exclusively by the Lord Lieutenant, or by themselves? In this country, a large number of Judges were included in a Commission, so that, in case of the illness or inability of any of the members, the Court might not be at a standstill. If each Special Commission was to consist of only three Judges, it might very often happen, on account of the illness of one of the members of the Commission, or through some other cause, that a trial would be postponed, or be abortive.
    THE CHAIRMAN: That point really arises under sub-section 2 of this clause. It can scarcely be raised on the present Amendment.
    MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it appeared to him that the Committee ought not to accept the Amendment, because it placed responsibility upon the Judges in the wrong place, and at the wrong time. The necessity of some new tribunal was very generally admitted; but, under the circumstances, it appeared to him that the responsibility of issuing the Commission ought not to be shared by those who were the persons to discharge the duties under the Commission. The responsibility should rest with the head of the Executive Government in the country.
    MR. R. T. REIDsaid, he did not think the Amendment carried out the purpose its proposer had in view. He understood that no person would be tried without jury, except some Judges should have decided he should be so tried. If that was the purpose of the Amendment,

    1763
    the proper course for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to pursue was to go to line 23, and say—"that no person shall be tried by a Special Commission whenever it appears to the Judges," instead of saying—"whenever it appears to the Lord Lieutenant."
    MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment was taken in connection with another Amendment lower down on the Paper. His proposition was that trial should first take place with a jury, and then, if there was a disagreement, the Judge who presided at the trial should be taken into the confidence of the Lord Lieutenant, and should advise the Lord Lieutenant as to the future trial of the accused man. If the Government would indicate to the Committee whether they would allow a man first of all to be tried by an ordinary jury, and then, if there was any failure of justice, by a tribunal of three Judges, he would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment. There had been no such indication on the part of the Government, and it was necessary he should propose the present Amendment, in conjunction with the one he had further down. He admitted the course was unusual; but the Bill was an unusual one. They were bound to meet unusual and exceptional courses in an unusual and exceptional way.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, the Amendment was calculated to prevent vexatious legal proceedings on the part of the politicians who would have the power to use the Act. If the Amendment were accepted by the Committee, it would not be in the power of the purely political element in Ireland to institute legal proceedings of a vexatious kind against anyone in Ireland without having the consent of the Judges. He did not exactly share the opinion of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilkenny (Mr. Martin) with regard to the Irish Judges; but he considered they were men who would be guided by some rules of legal evidence, and men who would be less likely to act from purely political motives, and with the object of inflicting political vengeance, than the gentlemen who might have the administration of the Act when it became law. If the Committee accepted the Amendment, there would be some protection against the arbitrary use of the Bill; and from that point of view he would certainly
    1764
    advise his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to press his Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that this Amendment did not at all correspond with what he stated was the view of his later Amendment—namely, that there should, first of all, be trial by jury, and afterwards, in case of a disagreement, a trial by Judges. The present Amendment simply provided that no Commission should be issued except with the consent of the Judges, and there was no mention whatever of any failure of justice.
    COLONEL NOLANsupported the Amendment. The Bill was a very strong one; in fact, it placed absolutely despotic powers in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant. There ought to be some limit to the powers of the Lord Lieutenant, and they were now discussing whether His Excellency should, of his own motion, have power to issue a Commission. He did not believe the Committee would insist on three Judges, for the Judges had so much distaste for the work that, in his belief, the Judges would not be appointed. He thought it would be right to surround the Bill with as many of the old forms of justice as possible, and in some way to place responsibility on the Judges; and he therefore thought the Amendment very good. The Judges ought, at least, to be consulted on the appointment of Commissions, and the Bill was of such a sweeping character that every possible safeguard ought to be introduced.
    DR. COMMINSsaid, the question was whether there was to be any responsibility at all for issuing a Commission. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) had mistaken the point of the Amendment, when he said the object of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was to place the responsibility on the wrong people—namely, on the Judges. The intention of the hon. Member for Wexford was to insure some person being responsible for the issuing of a Commission. The Lord Lieutenant was not responsible to that House; he could not be interrogated in that House, and was not legally responsible for any action that he might take. The Lord Lieutenant was, probably, the only per-

    1765
    son in the Kingdom, except Her Majesty, who was absolved from all responsibility to the law. Some years ago, there was an unfortunate affray in the Phœnix Park, which resulted from an order of the Lord Lieutenant for the time, and his Chief Secretary, the present Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington). A member of the Press named O'Byrne obtained £1,000 in damages against the Chief Secretary; but a point of law was raised that the action of the police was done under an order of the Chief Secretary, and the Chief Secretary was entitled to plead the direction of the Lord Lieutenant; and the Court of Exchequer decided that the order of the Chief Secretary and the order of the Lord Lieutenant were acts of State, entirely beyond the cognizance of the law, and could not be called in question by a Court of Law any more than an act of Her Majesty the Queen could be. That was the law in Ireland; but in England no person, except the Queen, was beyond responsibility to the law. The law said the Queen could do no wrong, and if wrong was done in Her name, the responsible Minister must be ready to render an account in a Court of Law. Wrong of the most grievous kind might be done in Ireland, not by the Queen, but by a Minister who yet was not responsible. The object of the hon. Member for Wexford was to introduce something like responsibility in regard to these Commissions. The hon. Member might not have taken the best course in that direction; for it struck him (Dr. Commins) that it might have been better to introduce after "the Lord Lieutenant" the words "with the advice of the Privy Council." The Privy Council would then be liable, and there would be some authority that could be brought to the Bar of the House to answer for the issuing of a Commission. At present there was no person responsible, and if the Bill passed in its present form, the Lord Lieutenant might have reasons that would not bear investigation for the issuing of a Commission, and no person could be called upon to answer for that having been done. Therefore, although he believed that would be an imperfect form of responsibility, it would be wiser to insert, "with the advice of the Privy Council," and he should support the Amendment.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member (Dr. Commins) has stated that there is no responsibility on the part of the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Lord Lieutenant cannot be brought before this House. The Judges cannot be brought before this House, except in the same manner as the Lord Lieutenant. If a Judge misconducts himself or comes to a wrong conclusion, the only way in which you can make him responsible is by an Address to the Crown to remove him from the Bench. Why could you not have an Address to the Crown to remove the Lord Lieutenant? The responsibility of the Lord Lieutenant is as great as that of a Judge, or even greater. The Lord Lieutenant is a Member of the Cabinet, and he and every other Member of the Cabinet is responsible for any acts done; and in these matters you can make him amenable neither more nor less than a Judge. We shall only diminish the responsibility by introducing another authority. If you want the most complete responsibility, have it in a Cabinet Minister, who is responsible to this House, and with whom is also responsible the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who is his organ in this House. It seems to me that as regards responsibility you cannot have it more completely than by placing it upon the Lord Lieutenant.
    MR. FIRTHsaid, it seemed to him that the clause was clearly sufficient in regard to the duty of the Lord Lieutenant. His act would be an ex-officio act in his position as the Representative of the Queen; but his responsibility was in setting a Commission to work, and not in nominating a Commission.
    MR. MARUMthought the proposal of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) was most reasonable, because no one could know better than the Judges whether it was necessary to substitute trial by three Judges for trial by jury. The object of the Amendment was to enable the Lord Lieutenant to come in contact with the judicial mind of the Judges, and to ascertain distinctly from them, and not from the Executive, whether there was any necessity for a Commission. One of the most objectionable features in regard to any Government was that the Executive was obliged to rely on the police—and that was especially the case in Ireland—in order to ascertain whether it was necessary to

    1767
    substitute a summary process for trial by jury The purpose of the Amendment was to insure that, where the Lord Lieutenant was not associated with the Privy Council, he should be associated with the Judges before issuing a Commission abolishing the right of trial by jury.
    MR. BULWERthought there was some misunderstanding upon the point. He understood from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department that the purpose of the Government was that the Lord Lieutenant should decide upon the issuing of a Commission. The object was to appoint a Commission of Judges to deal with certain cases should they arise, and he thought he might put an analogous case. The House had decided that Election Petitions should be tried by Judges, and the Judges were appointed by rota; but it did not follow that because Judges were appointed every year Petitions would come up for trial. It might be proper that when a case of treason-felony arose, the Lord Lieutenant, if he desired the advice of more experienced men as to whether such an offence should be tried by a jury or by a Commission, might take the opinion of the Judges. He did not understand this provision as substituting a special tribunal for the ordinary mode of trial in every case dealt with by the 1st clause. It was only authorizing the Lord Lieutenant to issue a Commission; but if he thought it wise, he could direct that any case might still be tried by a jury.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not, for many reasons, inclined to support the Amendment. The proposition was that the authority of the Lord Lieutenant should be limited by the consent of the Judges; but, apart from other objections to that, there was this fundamental objection—that, as far as he was aware, the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature had not exhibited any quality which would lead to the supposition that the Lord Lieutenant, if advised by them, would be more careful of Irish liberty than without that advice. It would appear, from the discussion of this Bill, that the Irish Party did not believe in the judicial mind of the Judges of the Supreme Court of Judicature in Ireland as applied to Irish Party politics. So the only ground upon
    1768
    which he could explain his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) Amendment was that he must be relying on the recent declaration of the Judges against having anything to do with this Bill at all. He (Mr. O'Donnell) thought his hon. Friend displayed a credulity quite alien to his usual acuteness of character, when he believed that the Judges of the Supreme Court would long resist the pressure which the persuasions of Her Majesty's Government would exercise on the minds of the Judges. There was already substantial proof that the Government did not believe in the independence of the intentions of the Supreme Court, for, notwithstanding the protest of the Judges against having anything to do with the Bill, the Government had now taken the first steps towards paying the Judges for duties which they had declared they did not wish to take up. That was a proceeding by which the Government could influence the Irish Judges to do something which the Irish people did not wish them to do. He could not but think that, if the Lord Lieutenant was to have a coadjutor at all, the proper person to be his coadjutor would be the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had brought this Bill in (Sir William Harcourt). The right hon. and learned Gentleman was put down on the Bill as having prepared and brought it in; and, from the view of Irish patriotism, it would be much better to appoint the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Adviser of the Lord Lieutenant, instead of the Irish Judges. The Lord Lieutenant, under this Bill, would be the merest puppet worked from Downing Street; he would be the man behind the screen. It would be the English Government who would really be responsible for whatever the Lord Lieutenant did. He fully agreed with two or three of his hon. Friends that if any good was to be got out of this Bill there was a great necessity for having some sort of council of an Irish character, and in some sort of contact with Irish opinion, associated with the Lord Lieutenant. No Lord Lieutenant, for a very long time to come—during the whole time in which the Liberal Party would be in fear of the Tory Party, and he saw no immediate prospect of the Liberal Party emancipating themselves from the control of the Conservative Party in Irish affairs—there was no probability of the Lord Lieutenant

    1769
    coming in contact with Irish opinion. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, his name being on the back of this Bill, would enjoy the advantage in regard to Irish administration that, in case of necessity, he might receive the respectful rebuke of the Irish Members. There could be no doubt that even the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) owed much to the kindly councils which continually attended his steps, and which were continually tendered to him from the Benches of the Irish Party. Irish Members would have no hold on the Lord Lieutenant or the Irish Judges, and neither the Lord Lieutenant nor the Irish Judges would be responsible to Parliament; but if the Secretary of State for the Home Department was introduced in the Bill, instead of the Irish Judges, then there would be a responsible Minister to whom the Irish Party could directly address their observations of complaint; and he confessed that he should by no means be without hope that the silent character and independent and firm will of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would be of very great use in this matter. The Amendment introducing the Irish Judges would be quite useless; and, for his part, as the whole of the rest of the action of the Irish Party would be directed against trusting the Irish Judges with any exceptional powers, he should feel bound to follow the general action of the Irish Party in this matter, and vote, if necessary, against his hon. Friend.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he did not desire to go to a division on the question; but he would like to have some idea from the Secretary of State for the Home Department upon the point he had raised. He had put down, later on, an Amendment, to which this Amendment was consequential, with regard to trial by jury, and upon the point of dispensing with trial by jury. No reply had been given upon that point, and he should be glad to have some information before deciding whether to take a division or not. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell), the Irish Judges had given evidence in the House of Lords, and had presented a Memorial which led to the supposition that they objected to the abolition of trial by jury; and, therefore, he thought they would constitute an admirable
    1770
    check on the functions of the Lord Lieutenant. He had no desire to waste time; but he should like some information from the Government as to whether their minds were open upon this question of trial by jury.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member has asked for information on an Amendment which comes later on in the Paper, and it is not in Order to discuss or explain that subject now.
    MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, the object of his hon. Friend's (Mr. Healy's) Amendment was simply to put on the Judges a share of the responsibility with the Lord Lieutenant for this unconstitutional action. The hon. Member for Wexford proposed to insert the Judges in the Bill, while the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) proposed to insert the Secretary of State for the Home Department; but neither proposition seemed to him (Mr. Joseph Cowen) satisfactory. He would suggest that they might insert the Privy Council. The Privy Council was supposed to advise the Lord Lieutenant on any proceeding be might take; but it was not often that the Lord Lieutenant consulted the Privy Council. In this matter, under special circumstances, the Lord Lieutenant might issue a Commission "with the consent of the Privy Council," and if the hon. Member for Wexford would withdraw his Amendment he (Mr. Joseph Cowen) would move to introduce these words instead.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there was one argument that had not been advanced. It had been pointed out earlier in the evening that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been a very confidential adviser of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster), and he thought it was very much more desirable to have gentlemen of position who were known and could be pointed out as advisers of the Government, than obscure men, such as were consulted by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, in whom the Irish people could have no confidence whatever. It was very likely that, in many cases of that sort, no one would know who the persons consulted were. They knew who Mr. Clifford Lloyd was; but there might be men quite as bad as he, and yet could not be pointed out. He was not giving a certificate of character to the Irish Judges—it was no part of

    1771
    his duty to do so; but he thought it desirable that gentlemen of official position, who were before the world, should be the advisers of the Government, instead of obscure men.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday next.

MOTION.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 11) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Local Government District of Workington, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DONSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 186.]
  House adjourned at five minutes before Seven o'clock till Thursday 1st June.