[ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SIXTH NIGHT.]

HC Deb 22 February 1883 vol 276 cc597-687

Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment [20th February] proposed to Main Question [15th February.]—[See page 98.]

And which Amendment was, In paragraph 10, line 4, to leave out from the word "upheld," to the end of the paragraph, in order to insert the words "and we venture to express our earnest hope that the change of policy which has produced these results will he maintained, and that no further attempts will he made to purchase the support of persons disaffected to Her Majesty's Rule, by concessions to lawless agitation; and that the existence of dangerous secret societies in Dublin and other parts of the Country will continue to be met by unremitting energy and vigilance on the part of the Executive,"—(Mr. Gorst,) —instead thereof.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Debate resumed.

MR. J. LOWTHER

said, there appeared to be some misapprehension on the part of many of the speakers on the opposite side with regard to the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), which he thought it was desirable should be removed from the mind of the House, especially as those misapprehensions had found their way into the speeches of the two right hon. Gentlemen who had addressed the House from the Treasury Bench. The misapprehensions to which he referred were these:—First, that the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend in any way expressed approval of the action of Her Majesty's Government prior to the date to which it more particularly called attention. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, by a method of reasoning which he (Mr. J. Lowther) could not follow, attempted to fasten upon his hon. and learned Friend the position that he approved of the official career of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). With regard to that, he would simply say that, having ceased to be a Minister of the Crown, any comments upon his official acts might not unfairly be characterized, as some others had rather unfairly been described, as partaking of the character of ancient history. At the same time, he knew the right hon. Gentleman would not think he was acting with any discourtesy towards him when he said that the Home Secretary having drawn that inference from the statement of his hon. and learned Friend, he felt bound to disclaim in any shape or form its being assumed from his silence as to the specific acts of the right hon. Gentleman's administration that he endorsed his official procedure. The right hon. Gentleman would not expect him to pass any opinion on the Disturbance Bill, or the Land Act, or on the appointment of Land Commissioners. Those matters did not come within the purview of the Amendment, and, so far as he was concerned, he was disposed to pass them by. But Her Majesty's Government, as the Home Secretary informed the House, would continue to be responsible for every action performed by the right hon. Gentleman's administration during his existence in Office; and, therefore, so far as Her Majesty's Government was concerned, he did not feel equally at liberty to allow them to remain under the impression that their official acts during the first two years had been forgotten by the country or condoned by those on that side of the House. The other misapprehension to which he had referred had found its way into the speech of the Home Secretary, and more notably into that of the Attorney General for Ireland. The latter said that there came from that side of the House nothing but encomiums on the administration of Lord Spencer; and, therefore, as they were erroneously supposed to endorse the proceedings of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and had heaped nothing but encomiums on Lord Spencer, there must be very little indeed open to their censure. But the misapprehension to which he had now drawn attention was as gross a one as that of which he had previously spoken. Now, the administration of Lord Spencer had not even been referred to by his hon and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst), with one exception—namely, the administration of the Crimes Act. With the other proceedings of his administration the speech of his hon. and learned Friend had nothing to do. He had said that the Government of Lord Spencer, so long as it persevered in this course of action, would have the support of that side of the House. But he must not be supposed for one moment by saying that to express an opinion that Lord Spencer, as a Member of the Cabinet, responsible for the government of Ireland during the last three years, had any right to claim the gratitude of his countrymen on any grounds other than those to which he had just now referred. There was one act in the official career of the right hon. Member for Bradford which he did not hesitate to say deserved the recognition of the country, and one act only, and that was his withdrawal from the position he occupied. In the same way Lord Spencer would upon one ground alone command the confidence of those who sat on the Opposition side of the House; and that was as long as his Government persevered in the vigorous course of action upon which it had recently entered. Now, he did not like to make invidious comparisons. But the Home Secretary said the other night that he would accept the assistance of anybody, whoever he was, provided that his energies were enlisted in the maintenance of law and order. He would not make so general a statement as that; but he would suppose the case of a person offending against the ordinary canons of domestic life—let him say in being guilty of the imprudence of smoking in bed, and thus being the cause of setting fire to his room; and then saying to the household—"Do not raise an alarm; the fire engine will be of no service, for I do not believe that water is at all an effectual element with which to subdue fire. I have got a patent extinguisher in my possession; it is charged with the produce of an American oil well; it commonly passes by the name of petroleum; and though there may be a popular superstition as to the highly inflammable character of this oil, yet, if you trust to me, and not call the firemen, I will put out the fire." He thought that that was very much what had been done by Her Majesty's Government, including Lord Spencer, up to a certain time. If, however, the unfortunate man who had been the cause of the fire, whose remedy had failed to extinguish the fire, and, on the contrary, had promoted its growth, had in the last resort risked his own life with great personal bravery in assisting to rescue the inmates of the adjoining house, they would not be justified in declining to avail themselves of the aid he proffered to those who suffered from the calamity he had done so much to bring about. That was the position of the Government and Lord Spencer with regard to Ireland at the present time. Their exertions now in the cause of that law and order they had done so much to put down were gladly accepted by the Opposition, and they would strengthen their hands in every way in their power. On Thursday, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary—who was not now in his place—made a very special appeal to him. He went so far as to intimate that he (Mr. J. Lowther) was in honour bound, as an English gentleman, to offer an apology for certain expressions that he made use of last year with reference to what the right hon. and learned Gentleman—taking advantage of the absence of his Chief—made bold to call the "Kilmainham negotiations." He thought it rather too bad of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to so describe it. He should remember that the Prime Minister said—"It is an act done without any negotiation, promise, or engagement whatever." Without playing upon words, however, he would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House that on a previous occasion his attention had been called to the observation referred to. He remembered very well what took place, because the incident was impressed on his mind more especially from the fact that during the time that he had mixed in public life it so happened that, with that one exception, it never fell to his lot to apologize for, explain, or qualify any observation that he ever made. But on that occasion he pursued a course which was peculiar, as he had said, in his political career. He was charged by the Prime Minister with having used what he considered to be strong language on this subject. He was charged with having said that the Kilmainham—the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary having entered the House, he would say "arrangement," came within "measurable distance of infamy," and was scarcely distinguishable from an act of the grossest political corruption. Well, he at once, when called on, offered to the House the fullest apology in his power when he said—"I must offer my apology for the extremely inadequate language in which I referred to this incident, and the exceedingly mild terms which I applied to the matter." That was the apology he offered at the time; and since then a great deal had happened in connection with this subject. They had had conversations, explanations, and references to it, of various hinds; and if what had since taken place had thrown any materially fresh light on the question—had enabled him to form an opinion different from that to which he previously gave expression, he would, in the interests of the honourable character of public life in this country, gladly withdraw those expressions, and regret that he ever used them. But he was sorry to say that the more consideration he had been enabled to give to the matter had more fully confirmed the impression he originally formed. Charges of that kind, however, in his opinion, ought not to be freely bandied about between the opposing sides of the House of Commons without any notice being taken of them; and, therefore, he would remind the Government that every opportunity had been presented to them of instituting full and impartial inquiry into the whole of the circumstances connected with this incident, but that that opportunity had not been availed of by them, and that if the Government of the Queen did not think it consistent with their sense of honour to remain under charges of that kind, the remedy was in their own hands. The right hon. and learned Gentleman more especially drew attention to the fact that he (Mr. J. Lowther) said that the proceedings which culminated in the withdrawal of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) from Office were set in motion by a state of things that had its ramifications within the circle of the Cabinet. What he said was, he thought, an expression of an opinion which was shared in by the great mass of people in all parts of the country. They had seen that articles had constantly appeared in certain journals which were popularly believed not to be wholly dissociated from the influence of the Caucus. And the Home Secretary desired a withdrawal of the statement—why? Because it was denied by the right hon. Member for Bradford. He would remind the Home Secretary that they had it on high authority that "in vain is a net spread in the sight of any bird." The right hon. Member for Bradford was the last man to be aware of the machinations, and he would go a step farther, and acquit the Home Secretary of any likelihood to possess any information for precisely similar reasons, for he must confess to having a not very indistinct suspicion that the right hon. Gentleman himself (Sir William Harcourt) was marked out as the next victim. It had been pointed out that the Government as a whole were responsible for every official act committed during their continuance in Office, and it was a principle which they could not ignore. More than once he had said that the present Government, finding in Ireland a comparative state of order, had succeeded in producing a condition of affairs the most deplorable that ever existed in any country in the world. He was scarcely an impartial authority; but what did the Chief Secretary say of the state of things when he took Office? He said that he found the best elements in the country depressed, and the worst elements triumphant. This was after rather more than two years of that benign rule which they were told was to bring peace, happiness, and contentment to Ireland. The Chief Secretary went on to give the reason. He said— When we went to Ireland last May, we found society profoundly disorganized; we found the best elements in it depressed, and the worst elements triumphant. And how should it be otherwise, when, instead of the law being a terror to evil-doers, evil-doers were a terror to the law-abiding and industrious? There is no country in the world which would not go from bad to worse as long as crime was unpunished in proportion as it was grave, and that was the case in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman was not alone in that opinion of the result of his Predecessor's policy; but he felt a natural delicacy in expressing any opinion of his own tenure of Office. However much anyone might differ from him, no one would accuse the right hon. Gentleman of a self-seeking spirit. But he was able to turn to another impartial authority for a clear and definite expression of opinion as to the net result of the action of Her Majesty's Government in Ireland from their accession to Office up to the present time. As to the results of the mingled policy of conciliation and coercion, the President of the Board of Trade, speaking on the 1st of February, said— Ireland is still hostile and unreconciled. Coercion has failed to extort submission. Concession has been powerless to soften her animosity. I do not wonder sometimes that disappointment should fill the minds of men when they see the efforts, the unexampled and unremitting efforts, which were made in the last two Sessions by the English Parliament to do justice to Ireland, met by words of malice and insult, and followed by worse than words, by deeds, by crime, by violence, by cowardly assassinations. Personally, he had been subjected to a certain amount of, perhaps, not over scrupulous criticism; he had been hunted out of Office and out of Parliament; he had been denounced up hill and down dale all over the country; but he was happy to think that no one was ever able to pronounce upon his official career such a deliverance as he had just read. In the Queen's Speech there was a return to the old optimist delusions which had too long figured in Royal Speeches on the subject of Ireland; there was still the old fallacy of material improvement in the state of the country. He was perfectly well aware that the state of the country since the present Government had been in Office had always presented this one feature, which might hold out the promise of rapid improvement—that it was in such a state that human ingenuity could not conceive of the possibility of its being worse. This condition of things prevailed last year. So widely did the opinion gain ground that some of his own Friends were disposed to concur with the Government last year in thinking that at last they were about to touch the bottom of the apparently fathomless abyss, and that they might expect improvement. He was unable to share these optimist delusions, and, at the risk of being denounced as a pessimist, he pointed out that the grounds upon which the Government based their hopeful outlook were misleading, and should be excluded from the considerations of practical men. One reason assigned was that at the then recent Winter Assizes convictions had been obtained in cases of agrarian outrage; but he pointed out that these signs were delusive, because the jurors, who had courageously done their duty before their God and their country, were special jurors, and did not represent the popular opinion of the country. For that remark he brought down upon his head the strong denunciation of the Prime Minister, who asserted that the verdicts indicated an improved state of public feeling. On the contrary, he pointed out that the jurors in question were drawn from a superior class of society, instead of from the low class of which juries were composed under that most mischievous of measures, Lord O'Hagan's Juries Act. There was, as he had before remarked, a recurrence of the old fallacy in the present Queen's Speech. It was said that there was a sensible diminution of agrarian crime, and that the law was upheld, and this was regarded as a sign of improvement. But the fact was ignored that the jurors who had done their duty were special jurors, and in no way represented the masses of the people. It was suggested that popular feeling had been acted upon, not by the Crimes Act or by the vigorous administration of the Criminal Law, but by those disturbing elements which were popularly known in the mouths of Ministerial speakers as remedial measures. No one pretended or could suppose that murderers could be reached by measures of that kind. If there was an improved feeling one might expect to find it in the attitude of the people towards criminals; and yet they found that crowds assembled daily to cheer persons whom the Home Secretary, with his judicial mind, termed "culprits," but whom he (Mr. J. Lowther) preferred to describe as men charged with very grave crimes. That brought him to a point upon which he would like to say a word—namely, the popular feeling in Ireland with regard to British rule. He had stated on many occasions that, in his opinion, a large numerical proportion of the people of Ireland were bitterly hostile to British rule. It was a fact which he deeply deplored; but, in his opinion, no one deserved the name of a statesman who declined to recognize disagreeable facts when they were presented unmistakably to his view. He was told of someone who said of his statement to that effect last year—"It is perfectly true, but he should never have said so." On the contrary, he did not believe in playing the róle of the ostrich, and, burying their heads in the sand, decline to recognize palpable and unpleasant facts. It was said that in Ireland Government was unduly centralized. Nobody disapproved more than he did of undue centralization. He looked upon the judicious co-operation between the ordinary elements of society in local affairs as a great national boon. He had always considered the action of the unpaid magistrates in Ireland, the ex officio Guardians, the fiscal powers exercised by country gentlemen on the Grand Juries, and the respectable middle classes in the Municipal Corporations as of very great advantage in Ireland. What was the state of matters now? Where were the country gentlemen? They were in London or Paris. Where were the unpaid magistrates? Their lives were threatened—and in too many cases they had been actually taken—in the discharge of their duty. Where were the ex officio Guardians? They were hunted out of the board rooms. That was the centralization which now existed, brought about, he ventured to say, entirely by the action of the Government. What was the remedy for this centralization? They heard it popularly remarked that some Members of the Government entertained crotchets very closely bearing upon the wildest schemes propounded by the Party of Home Rule; and he hoped before the close of the debate to hear some authentic expression of opinion from the Government as to their views and intentions on this important subject. Scarcely any criminal was indicted for an offence who could not quote in his defence arguments which had been used by some Minister of the Crown. He noticed the other day the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench in Ireland in the case of the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He would read some extracts from an account of what passed on that occasion. This was not ancient history, but what occurred only the other day, and it conveyed a lesson which Her Majesty's Government should lay to heart as a warning against indulging in vague and reckless language in the future. This was what the hon. Member for Wexford said— But, my Lord, I would ask who stated that the Government we have in Ireland is the worst form of Government in Europe? If I said that I can imagine the thundering declamation that would he hurled against me by the Attorney General. It was not I who said it; it is the statement of the son of the Prime Minister, the son of the Gentleman at the head of the Government who is bringing forward this prosecution. 'The principle that a country has a right to regulate the affairs of neighbouring countries for its own convenience is a lawless and revolutionary principle, and no doctrine more utterly and intensely evil was ever hatched within the precincts of the Commune.' It was not I who uttered that statement. It is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Again, the hon. Member for Wexford said— Who told the Lancashire electors that…the disestablishment of the Irish Church had been brought about by the intensity of Fenianism? Is that a justification of Fenianism, or is it not? … That expression which I have quoted is entitled to be used as the charter of every secret society in the country. Who said that the blowing down of Clerkenwell Prison brought the disestablishment of the Irish Church within the range of practical politics? If it were used by me…it would be said I gave encouragement to secret conspiracies to indulge in similar blowings up, in burnings, in assassinations. It was not necessary for him to state who the hon. Member for Wexford informed the Court was the author of that most mischievous saying. In his opinion, Her Majesty's Government having stamped out every independent element that stood between the Executive and the masses of the people, having deprived themselves of the co-operation of the gentry and of the upper and the upper-middle classes in Ireland, now stood face to face with a hostile and disaffected people. It was right that the Government should clearly realize the position in which they were placed. If any idea were entertained that the support of the people could be purchased by further instalments of the property of the loyal and well-affected classes—if any, indeed, remained for further confiscation—such an idea might be dismissed as illusory. The Government should clearly realize the fact that they had to face the task of governing a country against the wishes and the opinions of the great mass of the people of that country. This was not a pleasant task, but it was one which could not be made more pleasant by an ignorant and an arrogant optimism, and by denying the existence of palpable facts. He did not say that the great mass of the people of Ireland would always remain in a state of ferment. Discontent in Ireland was always seething more or less vehemently, and although the dragon of discontent was sometimes scotched, it was never killed. The Government, by a wise administration of the law, and by encouraging the loyal element of society, might succeed in building up some support of the British Crown. They had got rid of the pillar of the Church, and they had got rid of the pillar of those who supported law and order among the owners of property. The land, under the auspices of Her Majesty's Government, had practically been handed over to the disaffected elements of society; but, nevertheless, by a vigorous administration of the law, and by protecting those who were in favour of the maintenance of British rule, the Government might succeed even now in preserving some form of society in Ireland. In conclusion, he expressed a wish that in the discussion of the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham, the House would realize the fact that there was an intention on the part of Members on that side of the House to support the Government in the maintenance of law and order, without for a moment withdrawing the opinion they had always consistently held, that the greatest evil which had hitherto befallen Ireland was the legislation introduced by Her Majesty's Government.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. Lowther) began his remarks by kindly saying that he should pass by all my actions in the Office in which I succeeded him. Perhaps he will not be surprised if I think I may return the compliment by saying that I can, without much interference with the arguments which ought to be brought forward this evening, pass by his speech. Only one remark I will make with regard to it. I think the right hon. Gentleman has really produced the best defence of hon. Members who sit below the Gangway from Ireland, and whom I shall have further to allude to before I sit down. The right hon. Gentleman's speech is the strongest defence over made for them, and far stronger, I think, than any they made for themselves. Considering the deplorable facts we have to contend with, of magistrates being murdered, of ex officio Guardians being hunted out of Boards, what did he say? Not that it was owing to what we considered to be unscrupulous and reckless agitation, but that it was brought about by the action of Her Ma- jesty's Government. There could not be a greater apology for hon. Members below the Gangway. But I would remind him that we found that the agitation was already begun, and in striving to put it down we had no assistance from what had been done under his administration. There was one remarkable omission in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. He had before him a very important Amendment—an Amendment which is really a Vote of Censure; and he, perhaps, of all Members of the Opposition, is the one who would be expected to give their reasons for that Vote of Censure, as it concerns that administration which he himself at one time conducted. Not one word has he said in support of the Amendment. He never alluded to it, except just at the very end, when he said that lie hoped some result would come from its discussion. I think he must have come to the opinion which, I imagine, is felt a good deal on the other side, that although there is an advantage in the discussion, it was a mistake to have brought forward the Amendment. The Amendment, if carried, will have the effect of destroying the Government at a critical time. No one can doubt that. It must be intended for the purpose of weakening the Government. If it was considered necessary to bring it forward, no argument has been shown or proof adduced in favour of that necessity; because the hon. and learned Member who brought it forward, and those who supported him, say they wish to secure that there should be firm administration of the law in Ireland; and, at the same time, they have said that they fully approve of the policy as regards law and order since my noble Friend (Earl Spencer) assisted by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, and with the Cabinet supporting them, assumed Office, and that they really can find no fault with that policy. That being so, there can be no necessity for the Amendment. It may be said—"Oh, this is only a mode of raising a discussion, and bringing forward in strong language a Vote of Censure; but we know it cannot be carried, and we mean it to be a sham Motion." But I must be allowed to say this matter is too serious to be treated in this way. I really do not know that there is more to be said regarding the Amendment itself; but I suppose some remarks must be made on the discussion which has followed the introduction of the Amendment. Several allusions have been made to myself, and to the difference which I was forced to realize between myself and my Colleagues. I wish the House to understand that I should not have referred to that matter unless it had been thus brought forward; and I do not know that I should have referred to it now, but that there are one or two mistaken impressions which I feel it is due to myself, as well as to the House, that I should endeavour to remove. Just before I allude to them, may I make one statement with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, and what other Gentlemen have said. All difference with my Colleagues was confined to that point upon which I resigned. I am responsible for all that was done before my resignation. I joined with them in this responsibility, and—I wish to make this statement—I received from them loyal Report. Allusions have been made to newspapers. It has not been my habit in this House to make any allusions or reference to articles in newspapers, and can it be that I am supposed to have been driven out of Office by articles in newspapers? Is there any Member on either Front Bench at this moment who would be hounded out of Office by articles in newspapers? We have to deal with articles in newspapers often enough, and we take those personal articles for what they are worth, knowing very well the country is not misled, or even very much led by them. I am sorry to have to make any reference to this, because there are questions of infinitely more importance than the comparatively personal one whether I was right or wrong. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary, in his speech, produced two impressions—I do not know whether the House felt them—but I think I must, to some extent, allude to them. I think the impression was given that I originated—I do not like to use the word "negotiation"—correspondence or com munication—

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I did not say that; I said you promoted it.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

My right hon. and learned Friend said I promoted it. That is hardly the case. This com- munication had begun, and the result was that I stated that I should take the same course with regard to the three Members of Parliament who had been arrested as "suspects" as I should take with any other "suspects;" that if I had reason to believe that from any public promise they had given it would be safe to let them out, I should let them out. I did not ask for such a promise—I should never have thought of asking for it—but if it had been offered, I should have undoubtedly thought it advisable to accept it. Why should I have accepted it? Mainly on this account—that this public promise would have deprived those hon. Members of what I conceived to be their power for evil which they had been using. I may add that directly that promise had been made, all the American subsidies to the Land League would have disappeared. What has since happened has caused a very great disappearance of those subsidies. I must say that I did not expect this promise. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell) is right in that supposition. I thought it was just possible that the promise might be made. I thought that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might have found out whither the course he was following was leading. But I was not sanguine in that matter. My right hon. and learned Friend mentioned some words that I used with reference to the visit of the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), in which I said there was hope and expectation. But he did not give the words which immediately followed. The words were—"I must say I was not sanguine as to the result of the visit of the hon. Member." The next impression which I wish to remove is this. My right hon. and learned Friend seemed to suppose, and perhaps the House would suppose, that it was solely because the assurances were not satisfactory to me, but were satisfactory to him and the rest of my Colleagues, that I left the Cabinet. That is not the way in which I should put it. It was because, not receiving assurances which I repeat I did not expect, I did not got the fresh powers which I thought absolutely necessary. It is true the assurances were not satisfactory to me because they were conditional upon the Arrears Bill, and because I did not want assistance from Mr. Sheridan, or from any other organizer of the Land League. I must admit that I thought these assurances were not only not satisfactory, but I did not desire any private communications with the "suspects." I felt that it would do more harm than good—that it would give the impression in Ireland that we could not govern without the assistance of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I may also mention that the name of Sheridan shocked me. I am quite sure that, had my right hon. and learned Friend had my experience, it would have shocked him also. Nothing can be more mistaken than the supposition which has been made, that Sheridan has been made use of by the Government. That is an absolutely unfounded supposition. From the moment that the Crimes Act was brought forward, or Notice given of it, Sheridan, I believe, took very good care not to be in Ireland. It was perfectly true the warrant under the Protection Act was not cancelled, and even when that Act expired Sheridan did not return. The chief and main reason why I could not, under the circumstances, assent to the release, was that we had obtained no fresh powers. What was our position? It was clear that we wanted those fresh powers. I am not going to fight the battle over again with regard ' to the Protection Act. I do not propose now to defend my administration of it. [Mr. CALLAN: Hear, hear!] I am ready to answer any detailed charges with regard to our policy if anyone makes them.

MR. O'KELLY

Mr. Speaker, before the right hon. Gentleman—["Order!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is in possession of the House. He is entitled to proceed without interruption.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I do not suppose that the hon. Member was going to make the charge that I have heard, that I was too lenient in the administration. Undoubtedly that Act would have been more efficient if we had had it two months earlier. It was stated that it would have been more efficient if a larger number of arrests had been made at first, or if the leaders of the agitation had been then arrested. I would ask those hon. Members who entertain that opinion to consider what would have been the feeling of the country, or of the House, if that course had been taken. You must judge by what was the state of things at the time—by the knowledge of the country generally of the agitation, and not by my own knowledge. I had to consider, from time to time, what could be done, and I had to sacrifice—as I believe any man in my position who attempted to do his duty would have sacrificed—sometimes my own opinion, and sometimes, as I well knew, my own reputation, for the good of the country. It would have been no advantage to the cause of law and order in Ireland to have brought forward measures which we knew would be contrary to the public opinion of the country, and could not be passed. Nothing would have been a greater success to those who were opposed to law and order than for us to have taken such a course. With regard to the Protection Act, I must say this. It would have been very much more efficient if we had combined with it some of the powers now possessed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan) and the Lord Lieutenant. But I do not believe that the House would have granted the powers at that time. I must say, in addition, that at that time it would not have been safe to rely solely upon even such an Act as that which has been passed. That Act depends upon witnesses giving their evidence; and without something like the Protection Act that I brought forward those witnesses would not have been so ready to appear. While the hon. Member for the City of Cork was in the full power of his agitation, I do not know that even the Crimes Act would have stopped the agitation. While he was in full power witnesses were afraid to come forward; and this, at any rate, the Protection Act did do—it struck from him his principal weapon to a great extent—the weapon of "Boycotting." Respectable Boycottors did not like Kilmainham, and it enabled me to depose the "uncrowned King of Ireland," as the hon. Member for Dungarvan called him.

MR. O'DONNELL

I never said anything of the kind.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

It enabled me to depose the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It also enabled me to break up the Land League; and, undoubtedly, by the help of that Act, we were beginning to produce a somewhat better state of things. It is not true that there were more murders. The murders were diminishing. April was a hopeful month; and if Kilmainham was very little terror to the murderer, it certainly prevented his committing murder. Murders were stopped and checked in many districts of Ireland. No wonder. For instance, I could mention a district in which at one time I had shut up almost every possible murderer. Undoubtedly we wanted greater power against secret societies. The Protection Act gave us little power to contend with secret societies. I daresay we shall be told—"Does not that show what a great mistake you have made. It was you who caused the secret societies." [Loud Irish cheers.] Those Gentlemen cheered the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Lowther). I wonder he does not cheer them in return. What does that cheer mean? It means that the Government should allow an open defiance of the law—should allow a system of terrorism to take advantage of laws which have been made for a perfectly different state of things, and not dealing with such an agitation as we have had to deal with—that they should allow that terrorism to continue unchecked, and let the unwritten law replace the law of the land, because, if those trying to break the law were defeated in that object, they might resort to secret societies. It is not my opinion that we ought to take that course. We were bound to assert the law of the land against the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends. And if secret societies followed from our so doing, the blame lies on him and his Friends; for when action at their instigation—"Boycotting," for instance—was found difficult, or impossible, or dangerous, then the men who were following their advice took, not very unnaturally, to secret societies, to outrage and murder. I must just say one word with regard to the Crimes Act, which, I am glad to say, has been passed and firmly acted upon since I left Office. I desire to correct one unintentional misapprehension with regard to that Act. I should not have mentioned the matter had not reference been made to it by my late Colleagues; but it is not quite correct to say that the provisions of the Crimes Act had been accepted by the Cabinet before my resignation. I had let my Colleagues know what I thought should be the main provisions of that Bill, the introduction of which I regarded as necessary and urgent, and I had had a draft prepared; but, in point of fact, the Cabinet had come to no actual decision with regard to those provisions, although it was admitted by all of us that some Bill of the kind was absolutely necessary. I should have made no allusion to anything about the Cabinet having come to a conclusion, had it not been for the remark made by my right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt). Let not the House for one moment suppose that my Colleagues had opposed those provisions, or that I had any notion at the time that they would oppose them—all I say is, that they had not agreed to them before my resignation. That was the condition of affairs when the question of the release of the three Members of Parliament came before us. Then came in the question of time, which, to my mind, was a very serious question. I do not know that I can do better than read to the House what I stated to the House at the time of my resignation. After saying that I believed that since that battle was begun—that is, the battle of law and order, which was begun in the time of the right hon. Gentleman my Predecessor (Mr. J. Lowther)—there never was a time in which it was more dangerous to relax the authority of the law, I went on to say that— There was a third condition, and that was the one to which I myself looked forward as the condition upon which we should be able to open the prison doors. That was the passing of a fresh Act, which seemed to be required by the special circumstances. I then said that I did not think that if my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been in Ireland he would have given the Rules of Procedure the preference. After alluding to what I conceived should be the chief and main provisions of the Act—namely, greater certainty of punishment and more appeals to districts to make them interested in the prevention of crime—I went on to say that— The Act should be passed, and then I had fully hoped that we might, at any rate, have tried the experiment not merely of releasing these three Gentlemen, or those who were arrested on similar grounds, but of releasing all whom we had detained without trial. This matter of the difference of time of release before the fresh powers were obtained may seem unimportant; but I had to consider the government of Ireland, and, to my mind, it would have made all the difference. I believe that if these terrible murders had not happened—if there had been no other immediate outbreak, somewhat similar to those murders, obliging a Crimes Act to be pressed forward—Ireland would speedily have become almost ungovernable; and the people of Ireland would have thought that, in fact, it was the hon. Member for the City of Cork who was governing Ireland. Now, I have very nearly said all I have to say upon this matter. There has been a great deal of almost grotesque statement with regard to it; but I will give what I believe was the simple meaning. My Colleagues had not been in Ireland, and I had. Had I been in their place, I might, perhaps, have thought as they did; but if they had been in mine I believe many of them would have done as I did. That is the only difference. We agreed upon other matters; and I cannot say how entirely I support their action ever since this difference of opinion occurred. I was delighted to hear how hon. Members on both sides of the House acknowledged the firmness, discretion, and ability of the administration of Lord Spencer and of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Trevelyan). One word I must say with regard to the administrative changes to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary alludes, and I simply say that in vindication of the police both in Dublin and in the country. My right hon. and learned Friend did not, I am sure, intend to make a charge against them; but naturally they are a sensitive body—they cannot but be so, with their dangers. What has happened with regard to the police is this. I am not aware—and I think my right hon. Friend my Successor will confirm me in saying that I am not aware—of any administrative change that has been made. There has been the appointment of a most able and courageous gentleman (Mr. Jenkinson). The only other administrative change, so called, was one which I myself initiated, and that was the dividing the disordered parts of Ireland into districts, which were put under special magistrates, in whom we had full confidence, and which I am glad to find has not only not been discontinued, but has been continued and further developed by Lord Spencer. But it is said that the police are more effective now than ever they were. Yes. But why? Because they have more powers. I do not like to name them individually, because I do not know how far they would be safe were I to do so, as it might increase their dangers; but there are men, both in and out of Dublin, whose lives I know, and they themselves knew, were in the greatest possible danger from day to day, owing to their attempts to detect crime. They were frequently on the right clue; but they were unable to follow it up until these fresh powers were given them. Take, for example, one clause of the Act to which hon. Members opposite below the Gangway objected—and I am not surprised at it—which has enabled witnesses to be privately examined. [Mr. O'KELLY: The Inquisition.] Inquiry was necessary into the murders that were going on. That clause has undoubtedly given the power by which men who murdered innocent men will, in all probability, be brought to punishment, and by which innocent men are made safer in the future. Under that clause it will become more difficult, nay, perhaps almost impossible, for agitation to be carried on by the fear of those innocent men that they may be murdered or maimed. That has become less likely on account of this inquiry, which has given great power to the police. I will just say one word more about the Amendment. May I make an appeal to the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), or, if he is not very accessible to it, to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, whether it would not be advisable, as we are all agreed, with very slight exception, in admiration of the present government of Lord Spencer, and as such an Amendment as this, if carried, would destroy, and cannot do anything but weaken that Government, to be content with the discussion and to withdraw the Amendment? I feel I cannot sit down without making some other remarks. Just one remark on a speech that was made yesterday. I am not in the habit generally of replying to any thing that is said by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). But there are some charges which cannot be made by anyone without the necessity of some reply being made to them. I understood him to say that I had been the cause of frequent collisions with the people, and of numbers of women and children falling before buckshot cartridges. I must just state what were the losses of life during my term of Office. I confess that I do look back with some satisfaction to the fact that, notwithstanding the comparatively powerful resistance to the law at the time, notwithstanding the efforts to stimulate misguided men in that resistance, I did manage to get through with so little collision, and that by accumulating large forces where collision was expected, and by giving warning that that force would, if necessary, be used, I did manage to prevent loss of life beyond what I believe was expected on either side. There were six persons killed besides policemen during my tenure of Office. On the 1st of June, 1881, a large force of police were assembled at Bodyke, in County Clare, to protect a process-server. A riot took place; the police had to charge the people, and one man was killed. Am I to blame for that? In Kilkenny, at a Land League meeting at Ballyragget on the 9th of October, 1881, a collision took place between the police and the people. Twenty police were injured, and one of the mob was killed by a bayonet thrust. Am I or the police to blame for that? In County Sligo, on the 2nd of April, 1881, four policemen, protecting process-servers, were attacked by a mob, and one of them was most brutally murdered; the police fired, and killed two men. They were perfectly justified in doing so. Nor in another case—which I admit was a sorrowful one—was anyone to blame. It was not a case of protecting servers of process for rent, but of protecting those who were serving notices for the poor rate. On the 27th of October, 1881, at Gratnill, County Mayo, the police were resisted, and were put in great danger, and then they fired, and I am sorry to say two women received wounds resulting in death. [Mr. O'KELLY: From bayonet wounds.] No; I satisfied myself upon that point. They were not bayonet wounds.

MR. O'KELLY

Why did you not allow the police to be tried? [Cries of "Name!"]

MR. SPEAKER

I must call upon the hon. Member for Roscommon not further to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman. If he does, I shall have to Name him to the House.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am well aware of what was stated by the Coroner's Jury, and of the verdict of the Coroner's Jury, I am sorry to say that, if the Coroners' Juries had been left alone, many legal murders would have been committed. [Mr. CALLAN: Ballina.] I have nothing to do with that. It took place after I left Office. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: The day after.] Now I will say nothing more about the hon. Member for Dungarvan. [Mr. CALLAN: Quite enough.] I had fully expected that the hon. Member for the City of Cork would have spoken in this debate. I should have troubled the House earlier, but I thought he would think it right to do so. It is quite true that the recent disclosures are not proofs; but it is also true that they have increased, not merely in this House, but throughout the country, the suspicion which formerly existed that the Land League organization, of which the hon. Member is the Chief, was concerned in the outrages that took place. I think that public opinion was expressed in this House and the Press—[Mr. O'KELLY: The English Press]—when it was said that Members of this House did expect that the hon. Member, considering what the charge was, would have attempted to remove that suspicion. [Mr. PARNELL: What charge?] That it was expected that the hon. Member for the City of Cork would have done so at the first meeting of the House without this Motion—[Mr. BIGGAR: What is the charge?]—at any rate, that he would have taken the opportunity afforded him by this Motion. I understand that he will address the House either in this debate or in moving his own Amendment. Now, I wish to state that, in my opinion—and I believe that it will be the opinion of many others—no mere disclaimer of connection with outrage will be sufficient. We have had disclaimers before; I am told that James Carey even wrote a letter of condolence to Miss Burke on the murder of her brother. Do not let the hon. Member suppose that I charge him with having planned any murder, or with complicity with murder. But I wish there to be no mistake that this I do charge the hon. Member and his Friends with. He and they allowed themselves to continue the leaders—he the avowed Chief—of an organization which not merely ostensibly advised and urged the ruin of those who opposed them, and avowed that doctrine of "Boycotting," which was to make life almost more miserable than death, but which set on foot an agitation, which organized or promoted outrage and incited to murder, of which the natural result and outcome was murder, and the hon. Member ought to have known this to be the natural outcome. It is very hard for me to understand how he did not know it, and how he did not separate himself from it altogether, and disavow and denounce it. Now, let me illustrate my meaning. We have heard of cases in which Gentlemen get into this House, and get out of it, by bribery. Very often the candidate or the Member is not found guilty of bribery himself. What happens is this—that he gives money, but takes very good care not to know what are the acts of bribery. But the bribery becomes rampant; and it is very hard, I believe, in some cases to say that these candidates have not known very well what were the means by which they hoped to get a seat in the House. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was not merely in the position of a candidate; he was also in the position of the Chairman of an Election Committee. He was the man who, more than any other, derived advantage and power, until we took it from him—power by help of this terrorism. What I say is—he has to show us how it was that he did not find out that this terrorism was so used, and what steps he took to find it out, or what steps he took to discourage it; but we know that he took none, and we know that he remained content to reap the advantages of this agitation. The hon. Member, I have no doubt, will make a full speech. It is rather difficult to discover whether he means to persevere in his Amendment. All I have heard was that we should get a few remarks to-night, and possibly might have the Amendment also. I should like to give him some assistance in framing his speech upon the Amendment. There are several points, and detailed points, upon which I think the House would expect information, and the country would be glad to get information. Questions have been asked about the funds of the Land League. The hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) was very bold with regard to these funds; hut nobody suspects him of being in the counsels of the League. I cannot conceive any sane men, connected or bound together for any purpose, bad or good, admitting the hon. Member into their counsels. Now, Sir, what I want to know is whether the hon. Member for the City of Cork, either before his arrest or since his release, has found out what has been done with those funds? The hon. Member for the City of Cork will, no doubt, say that during the time he was in kilmainham lie knew nothing. Certainly I did all I could to prevent communications between him and his associates outside. I earned opprobrium by sending Mr. Brennan away and isolating him. Supposing, however, that the hon. Member was, as I hoped he was, but as I fear he was not, shut out from communication with his friends, what steps did he take before this arrest to find out how these funds were used, and what step has he taken since his release? I have two or three questions perhaps more detailed to ask, and they shall relate to the period before the arrest, so that the hon. Member will not be able to plead his residence at Kilmainham as a reason for not according the information. I will first, however, make one remark with regard to crime before and after the hon. Member's release. It does so happen that as regards the most serious offence, murder—and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) to pay attention to this—that for the three months before the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork there were five agrarian murders, and in the three months afterwards there were nine, not including the murders of Lord Frederick Cavendish and Mr. Burke as agrarian murders. Now, I will ask questions relating to the period before his arrest, and I will give dates and particulars. I ask them because I want to know how far the hon. Member inquired into the actions of those with whom he was associated? He was, and is, responsible for them; and the only ground upon which he can escape responsibility is utter ignorance of their conduct; and if there was utter ignorance, it was a careless and, I may say, a reckless ignorance. I cannot believe in his absolute ignorance. Did the hon. Member, for instance, inquire into the actions of his trusted colleague, Mr. Brennan, the paid Secretary of the Land League of which he was President? [Mr. PARNELL assented.] The hon. Member says he did inquire. I ask whether these facts came before him? He must recollect that in the winter of 1880–1 an unfortunate child was murdered at Salford by an explosion of dynamite. Reference was made to the subject in the House of Commons, and the hon. Member, being the President of the Land League, then expressed himself thus— The only reason for this panic," said the hon. Member, "was that a tin containing dynamite was exploded at Salford, and the circumstances pointed to its being meant as a practical joke. What did his paid Secretary, the man who had been with him in America—["No!"]—well, with him at the same time when he was in America? ["No!"]

MR. O'DONNELL

The well-informed Chief Secretary!

MR. W. E. FORSTER

We are now talking of what he did while he was the Secretary of his Land League. On that very day this "practical joke" was thus spoken of. Mr. Brennan wrote to The Irish World— All sorts of theories are afloat concerning this explosion; but the truly loyal one is that Fenianism did it. This is what Mr. Brennan, writing as Secretary of the Land League, said to his friends in America, in order to keep up the flow of subscriptions. This is the impression he gave—Dynamite and conspiracy are succeeding; the light is beginning to spread; give us more money. Did the hon. Member not see that letter? [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] Oh! he did not. Then it does surprise me that the hon. Member did not read The Irish World. Why, his agitation was living at that time upon The Irish World; and I will venture to say that there was one column in The Irish World that week after week would be brought to the hon. Member's attention, and that was the subscription column. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] The hon. Member shakes his head. Plenty is said about the Irish World to excite his suspicion; and was he really that innocent individual that could think it safe or right to have his friends supported out of this money, and to have these charges made against this paper, and never look to see what this paper was doing? There is another of his colleagues—Mr. Sheridan. I am not asking what Mr. Sheridan may have done lately, with respect to which there is only, after all, the statement of Carey; but I am asking what the hon. Member must have known he was doing before his arrest. He called him the organizer of the Land League. Well, I refer to a speech on August 1, 1880. Did the hon. Member read that speech? It is very curious if he has not, because it is a speech which I believe was produced at the trial. Mr. Sheridan in that speech said— Organize yourselves; join the National Land Leagne; and by this means you will see your country what she once was—a free and prosperous country. What followed?— If we do not get these things through our Members of Parliament, I would ask you then to ring out your voices from the muzzles of Minie rifles, as well as from many platforms. Did the hon. Member approve of this? [Mr. PARNELL: Hear, hear!] Well, then, he did approve of what led to a great deal of violence. I do not myself believe he did; but he was content that the League should be thus organized, and that his power should be thus increased. This is the charge I make upon him—that he was reckless of the conduct of his colleagues, and was content to derive advantages from their violence, instead of doing what I should have thought any man of his education and position would have done—that is, that he would have declared, "This is a wicked and dangerous matter, and I will disavow all connection with it." There is another organizer of the Land League—Mr. Boyton. On the 5th of March, 1881, he said— We have seen plenty of landlords and agents that deserve to be shot at any man's hands. I have always denounced the commission of outrages by night. If you have to blow out a man's brains, you should blow them out by daylight.

MR. PARNELL

With regard to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman respecting Mr. Boyton, I think it right to say at once that immediately he heard that this was a charge on which he was reasonably suspected of inciting to murder, he wrote to this House to deny it. That denial was published in this House. He denied having made use of these words, or anything like them. The right hon. Gentleman is aware of the fact that Mr. Boyton made that statement.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am also aware of this fact, that when a man has incited to murder, and proof has been obtained of it, he is very likely, indeed, to write and deny it. But that speech was quite consistent with others which he made, and which he did not deny. What I' wish to ask the hon. Member is this. It was not in his power to drive out Mr. Boyton from the Land League after this speech was made, because he was arrested and shut up in Kilmainham. What I want to know is this—Did he know what sort of man Mr. Boyton was, who was his organizer? He had given him fair warning of what he was likely to do. Here is another speech, delivered on June 13— I want you to lift your voices and hands to fight for the green soil of Erin—For the short time this movement has been on foot no leader has ever gained so much for us "— and he might have added "for himself"— as our illustrious leader, Parnell. Did the hon. Member for the City of Cork ever inquire into the action of another of his assistants—Redpath—an intimate ally of the Land League leaders? Redpath spoke at the Land League Convention in Dublin—he was Mr. Sexton's right hand man; and at a banquet he publicly avowed his intentions to commit murder. I never heard any denunciation of Redpath afterwards. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOTOR: Read the words.] I will— No English nobleman would ever cross the Mississippi, or hunt deer or buffaloes on the American plains, without the risk of being shot by an Irish bullet. Did the hon. Member keep himself in ignorance of speeches such as that? Can we imagine that he did not know what effect they would have? They had two effects—thoy brought money into the Land League treasury, and thereby increased his power—they stimulated to murder, and incited to outrage. We have heard John Devoy alluded to. He made very strong statements with regard to an extensive system of firing cities. Has the hon. Member thought it worth while to try and find out what sort of agitation Devoy was conducting? He ought to have done so before he made use of it. It was proved in evidence that the printing manager of the Land League printed 5,000 copies of Devoy's letters for distribution. There is some little difference of opinion with regard to this Devoy. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin McCarthy)—there is a point where he began to show some symptoms of a desire to disavow this agitation, though he was always overruled, but eventually j this Dovoy was too much for him—the hon. Member declared for himself, and those with whom he acted in this House—I doubt, however, whether he spoke for anybody but himself at that time—that he utterly repelled the charges of the right hon. Gentleman, and he declared deliberately that they had no more to do with these schemes, plots, and plans than the right hon. Gentleman himself. But the hon. Gentleman was followed by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), who said— He, for one, would not remain silent and hear the cowardly and miserable attack made on his absent friend Mr. John Devoy. He never in his experience read of anything more cowardly or contemptible than that a man with the ear of the world —that is, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary— should use his power to destroy and blast the character of an honourable gentleman whom he (Mr. Dillon) had the honour to call his friend. Did not that stimulate the hon. Member for the City of Cork to find out for himself what sort of a man Devoy was? Has he taken any steps to find out? If so, will he give the result of his investigations? There is another friend of the hon. Member, or at least he was a friend of his—Patrick Ford, editor of The Irish World. He was a powerful and helpful friend of the hon. Member for months before his incarceration. There is some quarrel now as to how the money has been spent. At that time he was the main pillar of the Land League. Did the hon. Member find out how the money which came to him from week to week was got? I must take The Irish World as the recognized organ of the Land League? [Mr. PARNELL: No, no.] That is denied. For months the special Irish Correspondent of The Irish World was Mr. Brennan, the then paid official Secretary of the Land League. This is beyond dispute. His signed contributions appeared weekly until the time of his arrest. Here is what appeared in a letter of his— No copies of The Irish World hare boon received in Ireland during the past two weeks. It is thought the Government have intercepted them. Let those who have so generously assisted us in spreading the light, relax not in their good work; let them continue to aid us in the holy work in which we are engaged. The Irish World will find its way into Ireland in spite of the efforts that are made to keep it out—(Signed) THOMAS BRENNAN. Again, on January 2, 1881, I find these words— In the name of the Land League, I beg to tender to the readers of The Irish World, and to all co-operators, its sincere and most grateful acknowledgment.—(Signed) THOMAS BRENNAN It was not only Mr. Brennan; but here is a letter, dated January 26, 1881—no, it is a not a letter, but a telegram; they could not wait for a letter, but a special cablegram was despatched to The Irish World, commencing thus— The Land League has scored a victory. The ten-to-two disagreement of the jury, in face of the tremendous pressure of the Court, is everywhere accepted as having the effect of an acquittal. And the conclusion is as follows:— Thanks to The Irish World and its readers for their constant co-operation and substantial support in our great cause. Let them have no fear for its ultimate success. And that is signed "Charles Stewart Parnell." No wonder the hon. Member at that particular time thanked The Irish World; for on November 20, 1880, there had appeared in The Irish World, immediately before the opening of the trial, the following threat; and this, bear in mind, appeared in a paper a large number of copies of which were sent to Ireland and circulated from the office of the Land League:— I dare them to convict," says the writer, "I say, 'dare' advisedly. Let my words go forth. Accursed be the juryman who will dare to find these men (the traversers) guilty of any crime against the people of Ireland. No wonder, then, the hon. Member for the City of Cork thanked The Irish World. Did he not know what The Irish World was then doing besides helping him and trying to obtain for him an acquittal? On July 31, 1880, a dreadful agrarian outrage was committed in Mayo, in which a man was shot, who, after long weeks of lingering, at last died. On this The Irish World says— Somebody said long ago that it made no difference among neighbours who dies first. Those killings on both sides have been too long continued for us to hope that they will he discontinued. But every pistol shot will stimulate action … There are stirring times before us. Awaken your neighbours. It will soon be day-light. Is not that an incitement to murder? Another foul and brutal murder was committed. Did the hon. Member see this? Who was it took pains to conceal from him this paper? Another foul and brutal murder was committed, and this is how the organ of the Land League—the unofficial organ, perhaps—heads the paragraph— Another Land Thief Executed. Here, again, is an article in The Irish World of June 20, 1880, after reading which I should have thought the hon. Member would have said—"Not one penny more shall come to any Society with which I am connected from such a source as this." Here is what appeared in a paper circulated not merely in America, but in Ireland— Some think it an open question whether the political agent called 'dynamite' was first commissioned in Russia or first in Ireland. Well, it is not of much consequence which of the two countries takes precedence in this onward step towards civilization. Still, we claim the merit for Ireland. True the introductory blast was blown in England, and in the very centre of the enemy's head-quarters. But the work itself was no doubt done by one or two Irish hands, which settles both the claim and the priority. Again, on March 12, 1881, The Irish World says— London, consisting of 4,000,000 of the wealthiest people in the world, is at the mercy of its criminal classes, who number 250,000, guarded by only 2,500 regular troops, 10,000 policemen, and 10,000 men in Volunteer companies—the latter mere holiday soldiers. Make a note! Did the hon. Member, I ask, make a note? The article goes on— Spread the light! O, spread the light! No wonder, Sir, we have murders and outrages when we have a man of the energy, eloquence, and position of the hon. Member for the City of Cork condescending to carry on an agitation by the help of such means as this, and which could not be conducted without the money which was obtained by this ruffian print. I have now come nearly to the end of the questions that I have to ask the hon. Member in order to help him in his speech. Has he read the articles in The United Ireland?

MR. PAENELL

I have.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Does he approve of them?

MR. PARNELL

Yes.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

He does. Does the hon. Member for the County of Longford approve of them?

An hon. MEMBER: He is part proprietor of the paper.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

I do not know what the articles are to which you refer.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER

The hon. Member is part proprietor of The United Ireland. Does he approve of the articles?

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

What I have seen and read I do approve of.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I suspect the hon. Member has been very careful not to read the articles to which I allude. Is he aware that murder, arson, robbery, insults to the dead, attacks upon women were habitually described in this paper—which the hon. Member for the City of Cork approves of, and which the hon. Member for the County of Longford does not disapprove—as "Incidents in the Campaign?"

MR. O'BRIEN

Will the right hon. Gentleman state at what period any such paragraph appeared in The United Ireland?

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I am glad to find the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien) does not approve of them, although the hon. Member for the City of Cork does; and he is one of the largest proprietors of the paper. There is no question about this—that the heading is "Incidents in the Campaign."

MR. O'BRIEN

Excuse me. ["Order!"]

MR. W. E. FORSTER

And another heading describes these atrocious deeds as "The Spirit of the Country." Is that the way in which to put these murders and outrages before the people of Ireland? I am not now making a charge on the hon. Member for Mallow. I am not perfectly sure whether he was in Kilmainham at that time or not.

MR. O'BRUEN

Hear, hear!

MR. PARNELL

You know it very well.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

My charge is not against the hon. Member for Mallow, but against the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It is this—that he remains part proprietor of this paper; and I have not heard that he has attempted to disavow all concern with the articles published in that paper. Well, I have a general question to ask. It has been often enough stated and shown by statistics that murders followed the meetings and the action of the Land League. Will the hon. Member deny and disprove that statement? I will repeat again what the charge is which I make against him. Probably a more serious charge was never made by any Member of the House of Commons against another Member. It is not that he himself directly planned or perpetrated outrages or murders; but that he either connived at them, or when warned—

ME. PARNELL

It is a lie. [Loud cries of" Order!" and "Name, name!"]

MR. O'KELLY

It is alie. ["Name!"] It is a lie. ["Order!"] It is, I say, a lie. ["Name!"] It is a lie. ["Name!"]

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member for Roscommon has again interposed, and interrupted the right hon. Gentleman, notwithstanding my caution that he should not interpose. I must now carry out what I stated would be the course I should pursue, and I hereby Name Mr. O'Kelly to the House as disregarding the authority of the Chair.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

Mr. Speaker, as you have, in the discharge of your duty, Named Mr. O'Kelly as disregarding the authority of the Chair, I have to move that he be suspended from the service of the House.

MR. PARNELL (ironically)

Hear, hear!

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. O'Kelly be suspended from the service of the House."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

MR. MONK

I rise to a point of Order. The hon. Member for Roscommon addressed to the right hon. Member for Bradford these words, "You lie," more than once. The question I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this—Ought not the hon. Member to be desired by you to withdraw those words before the Motion is put?

MR. SPEAKER

The judgment of House in regard to the conduct of the hon. Member will be expressed by its vote. The Question I have to put is, "That Mr. O'Kelly be suspended from the service of the House."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 305; Noes 20: Majority 285.—(Div. List, No. 8.)

MR. O'DONNELL

I rise to Order. At the moment my hon. Friend the Member for Roscommon gave the lie direct to the right hon. Member for Bradford, the right hon. Member for Bradford had just said, "I find that some Members of this House connived at murder." ["No, no!"] It was in that form that the expression reached this side of the House; and I wish to ask you, Sir, as a point of Order, whether that language is permissible; and whether the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford should not be called upon for an explanation—an explanation in this House—which he will probably decline to give outside of it?

MR. SPEAKER

No notice can now be taken of the words stated to have been used by the right hon. Gentleman. If my attention had been called at the time, I should have acted as I thought right in the matter; but it is too late now to raise any question. Mr. O'Kelly will now withdraw.

Mr. O'KELLY

left the House after the Division had taken place.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

What I in tended to state when hon. Members did not permit me to finish my sentence was, that though I did not charge upon the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he himself directly planned or perpetrated outrages, I gave him an alternative, that either he connived at outrages, or when, warned by facts and statements, he determined to remain in ignorance; that he took no trouble to test the truth of whether these outrages had been committed or not, but that he was willing to gain the advantage of them. I have only one other question to ask—

MR. O'DONNELL

On a point of Order, Sir, as the measure of our language on a future occasion, I rise to ask, is the language of the right hon. Member for Bradford, which he uses under the Privilege of Parliament, in Order according to the Rules of this House?

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is not out of Order.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

I have only one further question to ask. The hon. Member for the City of Cork and the hon. Member for Mallow purported to show that they felt indignation against the perpetrators of the Phoenix Park murders. Will the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when he makes his speech, give us the terms in which he expressed indignation against previous murders? I will not detain the House more than a few minutes; but I must be allowed to make one or two statements. I daresay the hon. Members will tell us that they made certain attempts to discourage assassination. Let me give the House the form in which these attempts to discourage assassination were clothed. Very early in the agitation, before the Protection of Life and Property Act and the Crimes Act were passed, long before the hon. Member was sent to Kilmainham, a terrible murder was committed in Kilkenny. The hon. Member had an opportunity of using his influence to prevent murder; he had an opportunity of showing that he disapproved it, and of imitating the example of O'Connell—an opportunity of showing that he would not gain advantages by crime and outrage. But how did he deal with this murder, in which one man was killed, another wounded, and by which their father, who was on the car, was made miserable for life? He said— I have wished, in referring to a sad occurrence that took place here of shooting, or attempting to shoot, a land agent in this neighbourhood, that recourse had not been had to such measures, as it is entirely unnecessary —that is the way in which the hon. Member discourages assassination— and absolutely prejudicial, where there is a suitable organization amongst the tenant themselves. The hon. Member knew that there had been agrarian murders before in Ireland; he knew what the temptation would be to commit them; he had had the opportunity of showing how he would head what he called, and what I think my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Jesse Collings) called yesterday, a Constitutional agitation; and this is the way he discountenanced crime. Well, I must give one further quotation. I do not know whether the hon. Member for cavan (Mr. Biggar) is in his place. I am sorry he has gone. I dare say the hon. Member will speak in the debate on the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, by which the hon. Member would, if he could, make these crimes as unlikely to receive punishment now as before. The hon. Member for Cavan, in a speech at Castle-island, on October 10, again before the Protection Act was passed, discouraged assassination in this way. He said— There is another question which has been raised very much. The Land League has been unfairly charged with shooting landlords. It is no part of the duty of the Land League to recommend the shooting of landlords, for a great variety of reasons. This is no new quotation; it was given at the trial at which the hon. Member for the City of Cork was acquitted, or, rather, was not found guilty—thanks not a little to the threats of which I have already read one from The Irish World. Then the hon. Member goes on— I never gave any advice of the sort. Mr. Huseey may be a very bad man, but there are plenty of other men as bad as Mr. Hussey; and if anyone is charged with shooting or offering violence to the landlord or his agent, it is the duty of the Land League to see that the person who is charged shall have a fair trial. [Home Rule cheers.] Oh, exactly! We know the old story of "Don't nail his ears to the pump!" Was there ever a better exemplification? We do not particularly advise the shooting of Mr. Hussey; he is a very bad man; but if you do shoot him, you will be well defended. There is another speech in the same month— It is your duty to give your assistance in a manner which you can easily do. We do not recommend the shooting of landlords; that is an extreme measure, and certainly we cannot recommend it. [MR. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!] And besides, it is held undesirable for the interest of the cause that it should be done, for this reason—that when such things take place they are blazoned forth in all the English newspapers, and prejudice is excited in the English mind against the Irish Party, which is calculated to interfere to a material extent with the advocacy of my friend Mr. Parnell and others on hehalf of the tenant farmers. When the hon. Member talks about attempts to discourage assassination, what I say is this—that no speech could have been made more calculated to cause fresh murders, and at the same time to keep the man who made it free from the law as it then was, than this speech. Well, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had a substitute for murder, which was to make murder unnecessary. It was "Boycotting." I do not need to quote again the speech of the hon. Member at Ennis. It was not a mere outburst, but a plain proclamation of the mode in which the agitation was to be carried on—that a man should be tabooed in his shop, in his family, and even in his church; that his life should be made a perfect misery to him; not only that he should be ruined, but that mere pecuniary ruin should be nothing compared with the suffering he was to undergo if he was not to keep the unwritten law of the hon. Member, and obey the will of himself and his myrmidons. That is the mode in which the hon. Member would have made murder unnecessary. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in a powerful speech made last year, used these words in reference to "Boycotting," and they are very true. He said— The creed of 'Boycotting,' like every other creed, requires a sanction, and the sanction of ' Boycotting'—that which stands in the rear of 'Boycotting,' by which alone 'Boycotting' can be made thoroughly effective—is the murder which is not to be denounced. Was the hon. Member so ignorant of the passions of his fellow-countrymen that he did not know that this must be the result? What was the effect on the minds of the people of Ireland? They did not draw the line. Those miserable wretches who planned the murders in Dublin; they took not, indeed, the letter of the hon. Member's advice, but what seemed to them its spirit. They said—"We do not know how to draw the line between ruining a man and killing him; we find killing the easier, and we will carry out that as the principle which has been pointed out to us." And, talk about this as a Constitutional agitation! Some Members yesterday were referring to it as such, and appealing to us that we should not allow liberty to be invaded by putting down a Constitutional agitation. There never was such an attack on liberty as was this terrorism. This is the first time in the history of either England or Ireland, so far as I know, in which an agitation has been conducted by appeals to personal injury to individuals, and not by appeals to the voter or to public opinion. There hag been strong language, there has even been rebellion; but it is a new experiment in agitation, of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork may claim the great credit—that he would endeavour to succeed, not by appeals to constituencies and public opinion, but by terrorism and injury of individuals. No wonder that from such an agitation as this has followed the first political assassination which has disgraced our annals for hundreds of years. Now, at last, the meaning of this agitation has been discovered, and there is an abhorrence of it in England and Scotland. I believe there are many hon. Friends of mine who have considered me irreconcileable with the hon. Member for Cork; but I have felt that until he expressed his regret and repentance for having set on foot such an agitation as this, I would hold no communication or conference with him. I said there was abhorrence in England and Scotland; but there is also abhorrence in Ireland, but not so much as there ought to be, because of the success of the efforts of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends in demoralizing the Irish people by intimidation and by terror. But they are beginning to find out the meaning. [An hon. MEMBER on the Irish Benches: Mallow.] Yes, the constituency of Mallow was threatened. But they are beginning to find out the meaning, even although the shopkeepers of Mallow did not dare to vote against the hon. Member, because of the threats that were brought to bear upon them. There are many grounds for discouragement in the state of Ireland. It is not for any man who has been connected with its government to deny them, or to be sanguine. There have been illusions, and they have disappeared. There is, however, one ground for hope—nay, there are two grounds for hope and encouragement. One is that the Irish Government has now the power to uphold the law, and will use it; and the other ground is that the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his fellow-chiefs in this so-called agitation have been found out, and that the hideous cruelty and wickedness of this agitation have been unveiled and unmasked and exposed. I have only one further remark to make. I repeat, I have so framed my questions that the hon. Member will find that he cannot plead his residence at Kilmainham as a reason for refusing to answer them.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was no doubt the best judge of what was required from him in regard to his honour and interest in this matter. If he did not rise on the moment to take up the challenge which had been thrown down to him, he presumed that the hon. Member had good reason for it. His silence, however, could not be long protracted, and when it was once broken the result might be a considerable prolongation of the debate. He differed with those who had thrown doubt on the opportuneness of the Amendment before the House, believing that, as there had been so many changes in the policy of the Government, it was especially important at the present moment that they should record their satisfaction at the existing state of things, and should express the hope that no further changes would be introduced. In spite of the warnings given, and especially of the warning of Lord Beaconsfield, there had been no less than four changes of policy by the Government in Ireland. It was needless to recapitulate the misfortunes which resulted from this unwise course of action; they were well known, and could be clearly traced to the effect of the vacillating policy he had referred to. He admitted that there was one objection to debating the subject at present, and that was the absence of the Prime Minister. Had the right hon. Gentleman been present, he might have imported some heat into the discussion; but as he was absent they had to be contented with the utterances of minor authorities, and therefore they found themselves reduced from the high level at which the subject was treated by the Prime Minister, to the comparatively low degree of moral treatment to which it had been subjected at the hands of the Home Secretary. The Prime Minister had always denied that there were negotiations with the "suspects" in this matter. The Home Secretary, however, had abandoned that ground, and had specifically admitted that there were negotiations, and that there was no objection to that term being used. Yet they had the words of the Home Secretary to show that he was fully as well aware as the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had shown himself to be of the character of those persons with whom he entered into negotiations; indeed, on the 3rd of March, 1881, the Home Secretary used practically the same language as the right hon. Member for Bradford had done that evening, only in a more compendious form. The Home Secretary was, therefore, under no illusions on this point; and according to his own showing, the only difference between him and the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was that he was a successful, while the right hon. Member for Bradford was an unsuccessful, negotiator. It was plain that from the first the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) recoiled from the ignominy of engaging in transactions with such men as Kilmainham contained. Besides the abortive negotiations between the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for the City of Cork negotiations were entered into by the hon. Member and the Prime Minister and the President of the Board of Trade. The latter right hon. Gentleman was disgusted with the terms offered for acceptance, and so, after five hours consultation between the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), it was decided by those Gentlemen that an offer of co-operation with the Liberal Party in Liberal business should be made, and a promise given that the "no rent" manifesto should be withdrawn. A letter containing these terms was then submitted to the Cabinet, and yet the Prime Minister afterwards stated that there had been no negotiations or engagement. It was the object of those who approved the Amendment before the House to condemn the communication which undoubtedly took place, and to induce the House to place on record its desire that there should be no more tampering with treason. The Government last Session denied the negotiations, and challenged the Opposition to move a Vote of Censure. Circumstances, however, occurred which rendered it almost impossible at the moment to bring on such a Motion. His right hon. Colleague (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) did indeed give Notice of a Motion of Censure; but it was only given on the day preceding the Phoenix Park murders. Amidst the general consternation which that event created, one thing became evident—that the Government policy must be reversed; and, although there was a strong feeling among Members on the Opposition side that some decided action should be taken with respect to the Kilmainham negotiations, the time was allowed to slip by, and the Opposition, feeling even more strongly than the Government the necessity of passing some measure to prevent the recurrence of such horrors, gave their best assistance in passing the Crimes Act, and deferred the discussion of the other questions. The matter crept up last Session, when he (Mr. R. J. Yorke) endeavoured in vain to obtain from the Government an opportunity of discussing it; but his efforts were successfully parried by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. Another point was that the letter of the lion. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), but with a passage suppressed, was allowed to be read, and the President of the Board of Trade declared that he had forgotten all about it. Finally, all the terms which were the subject of the negotiations were carried out on one side and the other, and were actually in force at the present time. With regard to the Irish policy of the Government, if anyone desired to challenge it, he was always told that it was either too early or too late, and that it was the duty of an Opposition not to criticize, but to propose an alternative policy. But, surely, when the Government blundered inexcusably, it was not the duty of the Opposition to suppress their opinion and to withhold from the country what they believed to be the real truth of the matter. he wished to place upon record his opinion that it was the duty of the Government, as soon as the Prime Minister returned, themselves to move for the institution of an inquiry. In vindication of their own conduct, as well as in the interests of the country, the Government ought to assent to a Committee of Inquiry. He believed it would come to that sooner or later, and no oratorical ingenuity, no casuistry of argument, no persistency of affirmation or vehemence of denial would hide from the country the truth of these transactions or prevent it from being ascertained that the Government had, by the institution of negotiations with men whom they knew to be traitors, jeopardized the public peace and betrayed the best interests, not only of Ireland, but of the entire Empire.

MR. BARRY

said, he held a very decided opinion that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was inexpedient and inopportune; and he thought it was unfair and unjust to discuss in the House a matter involving life and death, more especially when that matter was only in the first stage of magisterial investigation. He thought that the enormity of the crime with which those persons were charged, and the terrible penalty which society would insist upon, and the law inflict, if that charge was sustained by the evidence, would have been grave considerations, which should have guided the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, and saved a lamentable display of Party tactics. He would not have taken any part in the discussion, holding the opinions he did as to the inexpediency of the Amendment, but for the indirect charge which had been made against Members of the House, and the cowardly chorus of abuse and insinuation which had been poured forth from the British Press within the last few days, and which did not deserve from Irish Members anything than a feeling of unmixed contempt. Was it because a handful of desperate men, driven to desperate courses by a wild and irrational exercise of the power of the Government; was it because of that the Leader of the Irish people, and the whole body of the Irish Representatives, were to be charged with sympathy with crime and complicity with murder? It had been extremely hard that night to sit and listen to the tirades of abuse and villification thrown out by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster).

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

MR. BARRY,

resuming, said, that in the course of the debate an attempt had been made to hold up the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) as the saviour of society, and who was thwarted in his efforts by the Cabinet. The appearance of the right hon. Gentleman in such a light would be laughable and ridiculous, were it not for the ghastly accessories attaching to his unfortunate period of Office. If they only took the statement made the other day by that infamous wretch James Carey—and he certainly could not believe his statement to be true—but taking the statement as he told it, they said that at the very time when the policy of the right hon. Gentleman was in full wing, when he had from 900 to 1,000 men in gaol, when he was sweeping into the prisons the élite of Irish society, the only men who could walk the streets of Dublin with perfect immunity were those who were planning and plotting crime. If that story was true—and it seemed almost incredible—the late Chief Secretary himself was being followed about by bodies of armed men. Such a statement was the most sweeping condemnation that could be imagined of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, who used the forces of the country in every direction for the purpose of crushing legitimate opinion in Ireland, and who made the profound mistake of confounding discontent with crime. He was not going to reproduce the terrible series of horrors that had marked the administration of the right hon. Gentleman; but for a great deal of the crime which had taken place in Ireland, he in his heart and soul believed him to be responsible. It could not be said that the Government were not warned of what would be the result of their policy of coercion. They had the experience of history, which of itself should have warned them. Was it not there recorded that in every country where liberty was trampled upon and freedom crushed, that the people took refuge in secret conspiracies and combinations? The Government were repeatedly warned from those Benches that if they insisted upon coercion, that if they persisted in closing up every avenue of political life in Ireland, that if they would not listen to discontent and remedy the grievances, the result would be that the people—the wilder and more reckless spirits—would inevitably be driven into secret combinations, and the ranks of conspiracy would be largely augmented. This warning came from men who were treated with indifference—from the Representatives of the Irish people—men who ought certainly to know the feelings of those whom they represented—and it certainly came very badly from those who were thus warned now to turn round and taunt the Irish Members, if not with being the actual instigators, at least with being sympathizers with outrage and crime and murder. He had often noticed in that House that a certain complaint had been urged against the Irish Members of the Land League because they did not denounce the crime that took place in Ireland. He had had the honour of addressing a meeting in Ireland during the most heated period of the Land agitation, and he denounced it with his own lips, and heard ministers of religion do so in scathing language; and it was characteristic of the Land League meetings throughout Ireland that crime was deprecated and outrage denounced. How, then, could crime be associated with their name? Upon no higher ground than upon that of policy, outrage and crime were the worst things that could take place for the Irish National League. The one thing which could retard their progress and damage their movement was that crime should take place and be associated with their organization; and he contended that if it had not been for the Land League and its influence, there would have been infinitely more agrarian crime than took place during the most heated period of recent events. In 1847 and 1848—the last period before the present acute agrarian agitation—considerably more agrarian murders took place than in 1881 and 1882. Since he had been a Member of that House he had noticed that whenever there was a great display of national antagonism or an opportunity offered of insulting the people of Ireland, the two Members for the Dublin University were always well to the front, eager to fan the passion and prejudice that might be for the moment aroused against them; and so long as that passion and prejudice remained, so long would that small territorial class in Ireland dominate and rule the country. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, in his speech, seemed to be greatly alarmed lest the Government should show an accession to popular opinion in Ireland, and particularly alarmed lest his hon. Friend the Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) should got any power in the government of the country. He would tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that at least they had not behind them the prestige of failure; he would tell him that they had not gained the hatred and contempt of the great mass of the Irish people; he would tell him that in spite of Tory opposition and weak indifference, the extension of public liberty in Ireland was coming, and that a government for the people and by the people was very soon likely to be realized, and that neither Tory combination nor Tory and Whig opposition, though it might retard, would prevent the fulfiment of what he had predicted. In dealing with the Amendment, it was extremely difficult to speak fully whilst the men were being tried, and whilst the only evidence against them was the testimony of an infamous scoundrel; and it would have been more in keeping with the usages of the House if the hon. and learned Member for Chatham had chosen some more fitting time for the discussion of this question. The speech made that night by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) certainly did not take the Irish Members by surprise, because it was only a repetition of the dreary indictment which they had been accustomed to hear from him during the last three years; but, in spite of the attempt made by him to stir up feelings of hostility in the breasts of his countrymen against the Irish Party, he was certain it would fail, because, in the course of a few days, when passion had passed away, and when it became perfectly clear in what a limited though vicious circle this latest development of Irish politics moved, and how free from any complicity in the evil business were the Members of the. Irish Party, he was sure the English people would be ashamed even of having permitted themselves to be led away by speakers like the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, and by the great body of the British Press.

MR. J. N. RICHARDSON

said, that during the debate observations had been made which called for comment from Irish Members sitting as he did upon the Ministerial side of the House, and unless he seized the opportunity of expressing his opinions he should be doing a serious wrong, not only to himself and his constituents, but to the Lord Lieutenant and his Chief Secretary, who were charged with the serious duty of administering affairs in Ireland. In making these comments he must take exception to many remarks which had been made on the other side of the House; but he agreed with the majority of the speakers on his side in regarding as unnecessary and uncalled for, and as calculated to embitter Party feeling, much that had been said in support of the Amendment. Both sides of the House, he considered, might be much better employed in endeavouring to ameliorate the condition of affairs in Ireland, whatever the cause of that condition of affairs might be. It was urged that the debate would nerve the Irish Executive to a certain point of vigour, and induce them to carry on the government as they had done of late; but he could not see the necessity for action of that sort. No one, he thought, could imagine that either of the two great Parties in the State considered that Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary required any such assistance to encourage them to continue to carry on the government of Ireland with vigour. He had listened yesterday with a feeling of pain and consternation to the speech of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). Although he was willing to acquit the hon. Gentleman of any intention of conveying the idea which his words certainly conveyed to himself, yet he contended that throughout that speech there ran a tone of palliation and condonement for the fearful and awful crimes which had stained his unfortunate country, and had culminated in the terrible tragedy of the Phoenix Park. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan said he willingly repudiated assassination; but he added—"Of what avail will such repudiation be?" Again, the hon. Member went over a long series of crimes committed in other countries, and quoted the case of the Cato Street Conspiracy in London, the object of which, he said, was to murder all the Members of the Cabinet, and said that surely, compared with this, the scheme described by James Carey might be regarded as a quiet and a modest one. Again, he would acquit the hon. Member of knowing the exact meaning of the words he used. It had often been said by public speakers, and he applied it to himself as much as to any other Irish Member, that Irish Members got up to speak without the least idea of what they were going to say, that they continued to speak without having the least idea of what they were saying—[Cheers and laughter]—and that they sat down without the least idea of what they had said [Renewed laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite by laughing meant to offer that as an excuse for the words used yesterday, he should be satisfied; but otherwise he must deprecate such a speech, not as being dangerous in that House, but as being, in the present state of the country, highly dangerous when reported and circulated broadcast among a most excitable people. Turning now to the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), he observed that the noble Lord said that after three years of Liberal rule the Government had so increased the detestation of Irishmen for England that in this country the very name of Ireland had become one of reproach. The noble Lord was a master of rhetoric, sometimes heedless rhetoric. But when he spoke of the detestation with which Irishmen regarded England, he used the words Irishmen in a large sense. He (Mr. J.N. Richardson) should not have complained if the noble Lord had qualified his remark, and said, "many" Irishmen; but when he said "all" Irishmen he denied his proposition altogether. The noble Lord left out of his calculation a large number of respectable, law-abiding Irishmen not living in Ulster, but in the other parts of Ireland. He also left out the men living in Ulster, who were just as much Irishmen as any others. He was not surprised that the noble Lord should have ignored Ulstermen, because last Session he stated roundly that the Government did not care two pence halfpenny for the Ulster Liberal Members, and the noble Lord gave it to be understood that he valued them at about the same appraisement. But if the noble Lord should ever become, as was by no means unlikely, a Member of a Tory Administration, he would find that the Irishmen dwelling in Ulster were not altogether to be ignored. On behalf of himself and those about him, he offered, as an Ulster Member, his respectful but cordial support to Her Majesty's Government in this trying crisis. He believed it was a matter of congratulation to themselves and the country, not so much on account of the rich and powerful, who were able to protect themselves, but of the poor herdsmen and bailiffs, who could not, that such men as Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary were in Ireland carrying out the principles of law and order. It was no light thing for men, let alone tender ladies, to leave their quiet homes in England for a spot which was not only within gunshot, but within a stone's throw of the place where a dear Colleague lost his life. Yet such had been the action of those two gentlemen and their families, and such had been the action of one who, in the earlier part of Lord Spencer's régime, was known as "Spencer's Fairie Queen." It would hardly become him to say anything in support of such a nobleman. His words were feeble, but he should not be doing his duty to his constituents or to the Government if he did not express his sincere pleasure and congratulations at being able to sustain Her Majesty's Government in their present efforts.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he was surprised to find an Irish Member supporting Her Majesty's Government. It was the Members from the North of Ireland who had encouraged the Government in the fatal course of coercion which had so nearly ruined their country. For his own part, he execrated the Land League; but he thought the time to have attacked it was when it was strong, instead of waiting until it was covered with the opprobrium, deserved or not deserved, of the recent terrible events. He could not but admire the honesty and courage of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), although he did not consider him to be a heavensent administrator. But, in the striking and forcible speech in which he attacked the extreme Irish Party, and accused them of connivance with, and responsibility for, the terrible crimes which had been committed, how could he acquit his own late Colleagues of a large share? The state of things was well known to the Cabinet, and yet the Government were willing to employ one of the worst agents of the assassination conspiracy, Mr. Sheridan, under the disguise of restoring order. All the charges which the right hon. Gentleman had brought against the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) might have been brought against the present Ministry. The Home Secretary, in an extremely laboured and flaccid speech, had praised the right hon. Member for Bradford, and yet denounced the Administration of Ireland before the late Chief Secretary's fall. But the right hon. Member for Bradford's position had been seriously weakened before he left Office. He had for six or eight months before his retirement urged the necessity of fresh powers. He had expressed the wish that his Colleagues should have visited Ireland to see the necessity of such powers. The right hon. Gentleman had referred with contempt to the Press; but he ought to have remembered that it was owing to the influence of a Press directed by his own Colleagues that he fell. He had himself, six weeks before the right hon. Gentleman's retirement, heard that he would leave the Government. In journals directed by the President of the Board of Trade, it was said that the right hon. Gentleman would have to retire. The weakness of Irish Administration was caused, not by the fault of the right hon. Gentleman, but because he was thwarted by his Colleagues. The notion that the right hon. Gentleman's life was in danger was also ridiculed by journals of that class. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman, if he ever contemplated the possibility of again being in a Liberal Ministry, would realize the importance of those matters, and the existence of intrigues which were not even yet at an end. The right hon. Gentleman had cut away from the Government the solo argument on which they relied—namely, the superior organization of the police. The right hon. Gentleman had demonstrated that there really had been no improvement in the police. The detective force remained practically the same as before. The first result of the change of Administration from Earl Cowper and the right hon. Member for Bradford to Earl Spencer and the present Chief Secretary was a revolt among the members of the Police Force. But the right hon. Gentleman had truly said that the reason of the improvement was that the police had powers now which they had not then. It was those powers which had enabled the police to bring the gang of assassins to justice. If such powers had been granted to the right hon. Gentleman in the autumn of 1881, the improvement in the state of the country would have taken place at an earlier date. But the right hon. Gentleman had said that Parliament would not have granted such powers. What did that mean? It meant that the Government would not have sup- ported him in asking for such powers. His Colleagues were not loyal. The Home Secretary had admitted what, of course, he could not deny. That right hon. Gentleman had also admitted that the hands of the Government were weak before the introduction of the Crimes Act. Why was that so? It was because the Cabinet were divided, and refused to give the right hon. Gentleman the powers which he asked. The Home Secretary had tried, without success, to prove that the late Government were responsible for the condition of Ireland. Now, there was no doubt that there was a considerable increase of crime during the latter part of 1879, and in November of that year the number of outrages rose to 170. The late Government, however, took immediate action. Mr. Davitt and his colleagues were arrested, and from that moment the average of crime steadily decreased, until, in the middle of 1880, it reached the lowest point of 63 agrarian crimes in a month. The present Government then came into Office, and reversed the policy of their Predecessors, with the consequence that in the December of that year the number of such agrarian crimes reached the enormous number of 866 in the month. The statement of the Prime Minister, with regard to the absence of crimes in Ireland, had been made deliberately in answer to Lord Beaconsfield's warning as to the state of things in that country; and it was by the accuracy of the respective views of those two statesmen that their political capacity should be judged. The fact was that Ireland was in a state of peace, order, and comparative satisfaction when the present Government received the reins of power, and that before they had been two years and a-half in Office crime in that country had attained its maximum. No doubt, the germs of evil were in Ireland; and it required firmness and statesmanship to cope with them. These requisites were forthcoming under the late Administration; and the history of the country under the present Government showed how deficient they were in those much-needed qualities. With regard to the Kilmainham compact, he held that the Government had conceded everything and practically obtained nothing in return. They had conceded the release of the "suspects" and the release of Mr. Davitt; they gave the promise of the Arrears Bill and of further Irish legislation; and had the advice of the most advanced section of the Cabinet been taken, even further concessions would have been made to Irish lawlessness. If any Member of that House could be justly charged with being responsible for the present state of things in Ireland, it was the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The Prime Minister had made his statements at Mid Lothian with regard to the condition of things in Ireland in ignorance of the facts; but the President of the Board of Trade had spoken with a full knowledge of the real state of the ease. The President of the Board of Trade, in referring to the Land League, stated that its objects were legal and praiseworthy, and were deserving of support, and went on to assert that to stifle that agitation would be to prevent reform. Yet this was the agitation which had been so forcibly denounced that evening by the right hon. Member for Bradford. Now, the Irish Party were covered with ignominy—Cries of"No, no!"]—he meant that the recent disclosures in Dublin had rendered them intensely unpopular in England; and it was unworthy of the Government, looking to what had happened in the past, to denounce them, when nothing fresh had been discovered that the whole world did not know before. The fact was that the Government had availed themselves of the services of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, to say nothing of one of the worst men connected with the League—Mr. Sheridan, of Tubbercurry—as long as they were useful to them, and now they could not sufficiently denounce the hon. Member's conduct. The real "No. 1," indeed, of Ireland, who was responsible for the demoralization of Ireland, was Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government, which was willing to use the Irish movement for its own purposes, was mainly responsible for the terrible demoralization of the Irish people. That demoralization was both moral and political, moral as shown by the sympathy and encouragement accorded to the assassins, and political as shown by the result of the Mallow Election. It was impossible, in the present state of Ireland, to introduce any scheme of county government, for all men of respectability were being chased off the boards, and were being replaced by what he might call the very lowest and most violent class of the Irish people.

MR. T. D. SULLIVAN

No, no; nothing of the kind. They are the most respectable men in the community.

MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT

said, he had great respect for the hon. Member (Mr. T. D. Sullivan); but he believed that no class in Ireland had more cause to rejoice at the presence of the British garrison in Ireland than the moderate and respectable section of the extreme Irish Party to which the hon. Member belonged. He believed that what happened in the French Revolution would be repeated in Ireland, but for the existence of the British power. The hon. Member, after having done away with the landlord, would himself have fallen a victim—[Mr. SULLIVAN: Oh, no. Not at all.]—to the Bradys and the Kellys and the M. Caffreys, who would even have deposed the uncrowned King of Ireland. The Secretary of the Treasury, in his recent Pindaric ode on anarchy, had said that anarchy was the beginning of a new birth. That was false, for no country had ever benefited by anarchy. Anarchy was as fatal to Ireland as it had boon to France. In praising anarchy in view of what the Government had done in Egypt and Ireland the hon. Member for Liskeard had done a most mischievous thing. The time had come for the country to ask itself what good from first to last had the Irish legislation of the Liberal Party done to that country. Prom 1868, when they disestablished a loyal and civilizing Church, down to 1882, when they passed the Crimes Act and the dishonest Arrears Act, every single bit of their policy had been fatally ruinous and cruel to the unfortunate country. Many earnest Roman Catholics would have preferred the civilizing influences of the Protestant Church to have remained. In 1870 was passed a Land Act which the Prime Minister promised would be final. Ireland then had a slight period of repose through the intervention of a Conservative Government and a wise and statesmanlike Administration. It had been frequently said that the mischief of Ireland came from abroad and that the agitation was imported from America. No statement could be further from the truth. The difficulty of the United States was the Irish population, and the difficulty in this country, was the Irish population. He believed that the Irish required to be treated like a high-spirited and noble steed, not one moment throwing the reins on its neck and the next cruelly curbing it. They required a firm, quiet, resolute, and statesmanlike rule, such as they experienced at the hands of Lord Beacons-field. When well, steadily, and firmly governed no country was so easily managed as Ireland. But when the reverse it would always be a trouble. Prom 1868 Liberal policy in Ireland had had but one result—that of unsettling and disturbing the country. The Prime Minister boasted that he was going to destroy a Upas tree. The first branch of that tree was Protestant ascendancy. That he had destroyed, and what was the result? The Protestants were leaving Ireland. [Cries of "No!"] In the county of Tyrone alone 15,000 Irish Protestants had left. The second branch to destroy was British garrisons; and the third branch, or rather the trunk of the tree itself, was the Union between England and Ireland. But the people of this country were determined that, whatever might be the power and eloquence of the Prime Minister, he should not destroy the ties that bound England, Ireland, and Scotland together. The Prime Minister, in destroying one Upas tree in Ireland, had set up another Upas tree—that of sedition, lawlessness, and revolution.

MR. A. ELLIOT

said, the eloquence of the hon. Member who had just sat down had been largely founded on the mere gossip of the Lobby, and the hon. Member was not the only Member on that side of the House who based his observations on such grounds. The hon. Member had told them of an intrigue in the Cabinet by which the right hon. Member for Bradford had been driven out of it; and he had told them that that intrigue was supported and managed by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. That charge rested simply and solely on the gossip of the Lobby. [An hon. MEMBER: And newspapers.] He had told them that not only did the President of the Board of Trade take that course, but that he had supported himself by newspapers under his direction, one of these being The Pall Mall Gazette, and another The Birmingham Gazette. He had yet to learn from other sources that the President of the Board of Trade was pro- prietor of these papers. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had taken the same course as the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) when he said that Lord Spencer had entered into an intrigue, the object of which was to drive from the Cabinet the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, because he demanded those powers which, when he (Lord Spencer) became Lord Lieutenant himself, were found to be necessary. That was what he ventured to characterize a most improper statement to make. All the talk about treason and truckling to crime was little better than mere Party capital. The whole matter had been brought before the House by the right hon. Gentleman himself, and also by the Home Secretary, and there was very little difference between them in their account of it. It would appear that a Bill for the further maintenance of order was in contemplation, and had been accepted before the right hon. Gentleman's resignation; but there was a difference as to when it should be brought forward, and the reason the right hon. Gentleman resigned was because it could not be brought forward then and there. He, for one, was entirely opposed to any such scheme as making the maintenance of order conditional on the passing of any particular measure. But the main reason why he (Mr. A. Elliot) rose to address the House was that, after the strong feeling excited throughout the country by the revelations made in Dublin, and the excited feeling that would be caused by the very remarkable, the very strong and telling speech of his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, it would be most disastrous that that feeling should pass away without strong measures being taken to root out those conspiracies and organizations which were disgracing Ireland. They had to do there with a state of things which was quite unique, almost a state of revolution, and no ordinary measures would suffice to put it down. The Government had now got on the scent of much of the crime that existed, and were tracing it up, and he hoped they would leave no stone unturned to root out fully all these abominable conspiracies. But he said the state of things was exceptional, and an exceptional remedy should be found. He ventured to recommend to the Government that they should take the measure which was taken so very strongly in 1867 with reference to the Sheffield Trade Union outrages. What was done then was to send down a Commission, armed with exceptional powers. A Commission should be sent to Ireland, movable from one end of the country to the other, with the express object of tracing up, as far as they could be traced, the branches of these organizations. They should have power to put witnesses on oath, and compel them to answer, and to give them an indemnity that they should not be proceeded against in the event of their bringing out matters which incriminated themselves. The Crime Act was not sufficient, and should be supplemented by such powers as he had indicated, in order that the British and the Irish public might know with whom they had to deal. Now was the time to do it. They really must investigate thoroughly, without fear or favour, and trace up the conspiracy as far as they could. No private investigation would do. The British and the Irish public had a right to know how they stood in regard to these conspiracies, and whether their public men were affected. Certain newspapers were still denouncing the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. But supposing they were—why, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was one of the most popular men in Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman had been down in Scotland, and there was probably only one other man—the Prime Minister himself—who would have had the sort of reception that was given to him. If there was one thing more than another that endeared him to this country, it was the way in which he was held up to detestation by those who were always minimizing and palliating and apologizing for the perpetration of crime. The hon. Member for Wexford County (Mr. Barry) had told them that it was quite a mistake to suppose that these crimes were not denounced by Irish Members. It was denounced at meetings in Ireland. But really it was presuming too much on the ignorance of England and Scotland to make statements like that. They might, perhaps, judge of what Irish Members said at meetings in Ireland from what they said in that House; and it was an absurdity to tell the House that if Members wont to Irish meetings, they would hear outrages denounced there.

MR. BRODRICK

said, he thought there were many matters connected with the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) that deserved the notice of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman had told thorn that the effect of the protection of Person and Property Act would have been much greater if it had been reinforced by some of the provisions of the Crimes Act; but they had a right to have an explanation from the Government as to why that course was not taken long before the right hon. Member for Bradford resigned Office. There would have been no difficulty in bringing forward a thorough measure for the government of Ireland, but that there was a feeling that among the Radical Members there would not be a very loyal support. There was a general disposition among hon. Members speaking from the other side to ignore the extent to which the agitation in Ireland had been the result of the injudicious speeches and action of the Government and their supporters. The government of the country, however, could only be carried on by a vigorous and consistent policy; and he contended that the policy of the present Administration had been weak and vacillating. "When they came into Office the Ministry declared, in May, that they had no intention to introduce any legislation of an exceptional character for Ireland. That was followed three months later by the introduction of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, and also by the gratuitous announcement of the then Chief Secretary for Ireland, that he would not undertake to govern Ireland in the coming winter without the passing of some such measure. The great difficulty which the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had to contend with in his administration mainly arose from the fact that when he most needed support there, were Members of the Government going about the country who, by their indiscreet utterances, led the Irish people to believe that the Cabinet were disunited. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), for example, made his remarkable speech at Birmingham, in which he declared that "force is no remedy;" and his right hon. Colleague the President of the Board of Trade expressed opinions equally tending to weaken the hands of the right hon. Member for Bradford in executing the law. The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had also expressed sentiments calculated to force the hands of the Government on a subject on which the present Leader of the House had announced that the Ministry wore not prepared to act without some guarantee for peace and order in Ireland being first obtained; and he (Mr. Brodrick) was much surprised, and much regretted the fact, that that hon. Member had not attempted in his place in the House to justify the remarks he had thought fit to address to his constituents. The hon. Member for Leeds had been challenged on several points. "Were his views, for instance, in accordance with those of the Government to which he belonged; and, if so, to what extent were the Government bound to give effect to them? On the other hand, if his views were not in accordance with theirs, how came the hon. Member to think himself justified in delivering views in opposition to Her Majesty's Government? James Carey had stated at Kilmainham Court, on Saturday, that the reason why Mr. Bourke had been murdered was an article which appeared in The Freeman's Journal—a paper notoriously inimical to English rule. That article declared that a total and radical change in the personnelof Castle officialism in all its branches must be effected if the heart of the Irish people was to be won back to any respect for the law or any confidence in the Administration. Now, the hon. Member for Leeds, speaking in December, charactorized the form of Government in Ireland as being as bad as it could be—as, in fact, the worst in Europe; and, on a later occasion, he had also uttered in the country sentiments conceived in the same spirit and couched almost in the same language as that article in The Freeman's Journal.Were speeches of that reckless character calculated to assist the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland in their arduous duties? Made as they were by the junior Member of the Government, and by one who had better means than any other Minister of impressing his views on the man who had the most power to give effect to them, surely such rash and inconsiderate speeches were worthy of the severest condemnation, if they were not capable of being justified in that House. He (Mr. Brodrick) entirely disapproved of the encouragement given to those who were agitating for the severance of the Empire by such utterances as those of the hon. Member. If the speech of some anonymous scribbler in an obscure journal had such an effect in Ireland, it was quite clear that the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, who was not a mere private Member, must be particularly dangerous, seeing they must inevitably raise hopes which, unless fulfilled, would unquestionably lead to agitation. He desired to hear some explanation given for the extraordinary change in the policy of the Government in May last; for otherwise, if they had no reasons to give for it, the House might some day find them returning equally unexpectedly to their old method of treating the country.

MR. GIVAN

said, that much had been made of the remarks of the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) and his alleged advocacy of Home Rule; but need he remind hon. Members opposite that the present Conservative candidate for Dublin County had himself supported such a measure. The observations of hon. Members opposite were, therefore, somewhat inconsistent. He did not desire to occupy the attention of the House with a lengthy speech; but he wished to call attention to one remark which fell from the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). The hon. Member, while censuring the present Government for the crimes which had taken place in Ireland since they had come into Office, made use of one significant expression which he (Mr. Givan) entirely agreed with. He said—"No doubt, the germs of the disease existed in Ireland at the time they took Office." That was true, for not only the germs of the disease, but the disease itself existed. And how could it be otherwise, since the Government, between 1874 and 1880, had done scarcely anything to relieve the people from the grievances under which they laboured, as regarded the Land Laws? So that not only did the germs exist, but the disease itself was to a considerable extent developed. As he had said, it was not his intention to discuss at any great length the Amendment before the House; but he could not help stating that many of the speeches which had been made, both below and above the Gangway on the opposite side of the House, had been delivered for the purpose of wasting the time of the House, of casting discredit upon the Government, and of weakening the hands of Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland in the onerous and delicate duties they were now discharging in Ireland. He had listened very carefully to the speeches of hon. Members opposite, but nothing had been said as to what could be done for Ireland in her present condition; nothing to throw oil upon the troubled waters; there had not been a single suggestion or hint as to the solution of the problem connected with the Irish affairs. Various charges had been levelled against the Government. Hon. Members below the Gangway complained that the liberty of the Press had been restricted, and that the Irish people were under a despotic and alien rule. He had endeavoured to form some judgment with regard to the charges, and he had come to the conclusion that hon. Gentlemen above the Opposition Gangway were far from right, while those below the Gangway were wholly wrong. As to the Kilmainham Treaty, that charge had been disposed of long since by the Prime Minister, in language as unequivocal as the English language afforded. Complaint had been made of the release of the "suspects;" but nothing which had since occurred in Ireland had changed his (Mr. Givan's) opinion, that in releasing the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the other "suspects" the Government exercised a sound and wise discretion, and to their doing so could in no way be traced the crimes which succeeded. In the Province with which he (Mr. Givan) was more particularly connected, and which had been almost free from crime, and where they, as a matter of course, had no sympathy with criminals, a part of Ireland that had always been, and he trusted always would remain, loyal to the British Crown, the release of the "suspects" was entirely approved. Some time previous to its taking place, a resolution was passed at an influential meeting in Belfast, as to the inexpediency of further detaining the hon. Mem ber and the other "suspects," and was presented by himself (Mr. Givan) and the hon. Member for County Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), who sent what they considered a very reasonable reply—namely, that although he was willing to release them, he could not conscientiously do so until he saw a cessation of crime in the districts to which they belonged, and that immediately that took place he would order their release. In the right hon. Gentleman they had the fullest confidence; and he was bound to say that they believed that he conscientiously discharged his duty, and that no man could have fulfilled it better towards even those who now turned round upon him. He agreed with hon. Members opposite that Ireland could not prosper until life and property were secure, and the Crimes Act was working to that end. Under the "Boycotting" rules of the Land League, there was no liberty, nothing but terrorism; and those who were loyal to the Crown, and wished to discharge their ordinary duties, were under restraint by reason of its terrorism. Thanks to Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, a different state of things was being brought about; and he hoped that the Government would not be deterred by any of the speeches made during the debate, or by any other consideration, from persevering with the further remedial measures which North and South alike demanded. Thus alone would peace be firmly secured, and the country restored to a condition which would be satisfactory to the people of England as well as to the people of Ireland.

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

said, that, of all the remarks made by hon. Members, the remarks which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Gosehen) had made the other day appeared to him (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to take the most sensible and rational view of the Amendment then before the House. The right hon. Gentleman had appealed to the House whether it was fair to assume the truth of the statements which, at the present moment, were only in the shape of evidence at a preliminary inquiry. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought he might also submit this to the House—that the charge upon which these men were committed for trial was a charge involving their life or their death. And that had also been urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon. But, at the same time, he could not help remarking that that view did not strike the right hon. Gentleman or his Friends till the Treasury Bench were attacked. In every previous speech from Liberal Members the guilt of the persons accused in this preliminary investigation had been assumed, and it was not until the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) made an assault on the Ministry that this spirit of fair play had suddenly dawned upon them. It was extremely disappointing that so grave and serious an occasion had been thought worthy of no better purpose than the exchange of Party recriminations that had taken place. The welfare of the people of Ireland, who were so deeply concerned in the results of present events, and in the policy which the House of Commons might be induced to adopt, might have suggested to hon. Members on both sides considerations more dignified than those which had been brought forward. He was more than astonished at the manner in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) and others had attacked the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) respecting the speech he had recently made there. They had behaved to him as if they had been Zulus assegaing an enemy. The hon. Member for Leeds did not require his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) advocacy, and he certainly did not seem to have received much advocacy from his own side. Yet, speaking for his hon. Friends around him, he could assure the hon. Gentleman that the majority of the people of Ireland would always regard with feelings of gratitude the truly statesmanlike observations he had made. The debate that evening had been opened by a right hon. Gentleman who formerly occupied the position of Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. J. Lowther), and whose policy in that capacity, he thought, had been the most disastrous—always excepting the inimitable example of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther), having held that Office, had favoured the House with his statesmanlike views of the policy which, he thought, ought to be adopted towards Ireland. He first of all said that the ex officio Guardians had been driven from the Poor Law Boards, and that the resident gentry had been expelled. By whom and by what means? He next said that the whole course of the Liberals had been wrong. They had disestablished the Church, and given over control of the land to the disaffected. In other words, he thought that the tenure of the English power in Ireland would be on a securer basis if the majority were compelled to pay for a church which they did not believe in, and if 5,000,000 of people could be starved and evicted by 10,000 upholders of English rule. The right hon. Gentleman had used various architectural figures of speech. He spoke of the Church as a pillar of English rule. He spoke also of the building up of the organization of English rule. The plan and policy which he suggested would be just as reasonable as to fix a pyramid on its apex. The right hon. Gentleman was followed by his immediate Successor in Office (Mr. W.E. Forster); and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had heard several commentaries on that right hon. Gentleman's speech, mostly of a eulogistic kind. It had been spoken of as a great effort, a powerful speech, but mainly as a magnificent indictment; but the hon. Gentleman who applied these epithets forgot that the best way of describing it was that it was a grand indictment divisible into two parts. One part applied to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), but the other part was against the right hon. Gentleman's own Colleagues. With regard to those two sections of the indictment there was a marked distinction—that which applied to the hon. Member for the City of Cork was stale and flat; that which was against his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) Colleagues had the merit of novelty and vigour. The right hon. Gentleman's attack on his Colleagues was more than justified; and, if it could be substantiated, there never was anything to equal in political perfidy, if such a phrase were Parliamentary, the throwing over of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland by his old Colleague the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. The right hon. Member for Bradford had often been described as an honest, candid, and dexterous debater. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) never doubted his dexterity, whatever he might think of his other qualities; and never did he display his dexterity more than in his reply to his old Colleague the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He was full of shrugs, and smiles, and innuendoes. He began by saying he had always received the loyal support of his Colleagues, and then, taking up the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, there was not a point in that speech which he did not traverse and contradict. Said the Secretary of State, by way of accounting for the change in the condition of Ireland—"The police had been re-organized;" said Mr. Forster—"The police had not been re-organized." Said the Secretary of State—"There has been no change in policy, because the new Coercion Act, the Crimes Act, was sanctioned by the Cabinet, before Mr. Forster left it; "said Mr. Forster—"It is a mistake to say that the Crimes Act was accepted by the Government." Said the Secretary of State—"Our policy was continuous, because the Government accepted the Crimes Act which Mr. Forster drafted." "But," said Mr. Forster, "the Crimes Act was accepted with this difference, a difference of time." And that makes all the difference in the case. The right hon. Gentleman wanted it taken up immediately; but the Government wanted to postpone it till after certain financial arrangements, and after the Procedure Rules were passed. The plain and inevitable inference to be drawn from the whole matter was that the Government meant to introduce, but did not mean to pass that measure. It was intended that the Crimes Bill should be hung up, or inserted in a pigeon-hole, had it not been for the appalling tragedy in the Phoenix Park. Still, said the right hon. Gentleman, he received nothing but loyal support from his Colleagues. But he immediately added, with a meaning smile, if the Prime Minister had lived in Ireland, as he had, he would have given the Crimes Bill precedence. In fact, the indictment of the right hon. Gentleman against his late Colleagues went to show that the policy he advocated and which he pressed, and in regard to which he always complained of being opposed, was only taken up by the Government in consequence of their hands being forced by the Phoenix Park affair. Passing from that to the second part of the indictment, which related to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he J (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would venture to I describe it as stale, flat, and unprofitable. [Cries of "Oh!"] Was there a single count in that indictment that had not already been brought by the right hon. Gentleman on previous occasions against the hon. Member? Was there a single passage from any speech or journal which had not been quoted over and over again, either by himself, or by the enterprizing young gentleman who fought his battle in the Press, and was kind enough to put words into the mouth of the ex-Chief Secretary? It was a hash of an old dish. There were crises when the English people were seized with the spirit of blood frenzy. ["Oh, oh!"] That was what one of the best of English writers said. Had there not been blood frenzy in the course of the Indian Mutiny; and had not the Liberals said the Conservatives were guilty of blood frenzy when they set their faces against Russian aggression? And now there was the blood frenzy against the Irish people. ["Oh, oh!"] He knew very well what he was saying was true, and they knew it too. It was when the tide ran high, especially if it were a foul tide, that political tricksters trimmed their sails. Political adventurers were always able to gain advantage in crises such as that, especially if their malignant passions were concealed with an unctuous exterior, and under a tongue apparently rugged, and manners so boorish, that good nature suggested them to be artificial. He could not but admire the coolness with which the right hon. Member stood up in the face of recent events, and, to use his own expression, "without one word of repentance for his guilty and mischievous past." He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would say this deliberately—that not only on the testimony of those Benches, but on the testimony of his own "loyal" Colleagues, there never was an administration, in Ireland so disastrous, so mischievous, so futile, as the administration of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. What spoke his own "loyal" Colleague, the Secretary of State for the Home Department. What said the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. George Russell), who seemed to be even more Forsterite than the right hon. Member for Bradford himself? They said that the coercion which was introduced on the recommendation of the right lion. Gentleman, and passed principally and through speeches made by him, was the most disastrous of ail recent legislation. "We found," said the Secretary of State, "that the Coercion Act was a miserable failure, because the more persons we imprisoned the more outrages were committed." Therefore he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would say, according to the testimony of the "loyal" ex-Colleague of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the Coercion Act introduced by the right hon. Member for Bradford was chiefly responsible for the largo and disastrous increase of agrarian outrages. There never had been in Ireland, at least since 1847, more grave, more serious, or more odious crimes than those of the last two or three years. That no one would deny; but, at the same time, there never was a more bitter hatred of the law; there never was a more sullen feeling of discontent than at the present moment. What was the cause of all that? Who was the man? Who was the origin of this increase of crime? Who was the man that caused the increase of disturbance? Who was the man? ["Oh, oh!"] I will tell you if you wait. Listen, and I will tell you, by the words of your own Friends. The man who was the cause of all this was the man who led the van of coercion. Let them go back to the origin of this measure. What was the real case upon which it was founded? It was the increase of crimes in the months of December and November, 1880; and if they looked to the Blue Book which was placed upon the Table they would see the shocking indecency of the manner in which the statistics of offences of that time were concocted. Did not they remember the look of horror, astonishment, and bewilderment that came over the Irish Benches—that came, too, over the face of the Prime Minister, and of almost every other hon. Member in the House—when the Blue Books were produced; and when single offences were made to appear sometimes as three, sometimes as four, and sometimes even as seven distinct offences, and when the knocking off the head of a haystack and the breaking down of three perches of a fence was dignified to the same category as if it were murder? That was the man who was responsible for the state of affairs in Ireland. On him, on his head, lay all the guilt, all the horror, all the crime. He was its creator, he was its parent. As his titular Chief said, he was the man who was to drive discontent under the surface; and, by his attempt to do so, he brought forth that terrible harvest of crime that had shocked and bewildered the civilized world. He was the real culprit. And yet, in the face of all that, the right hon. Gentleman had the audacity to come down to that House and charge the hon. Member for the City of Cork with the crimes which had been committed. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Land League in severe terms. It carried out its decrees, he said, with violent speeches, with "Boycotting," with murder. ["Hear, hear!"] Hon. Members cheered that observation; but did hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House forget the seriousness of the charge involved in it against the Government they supported? If the League carried out its decrees by outrages, by "Boycotting," by murder, why did not the Government suppress the League? The Government had the same powers in May that they had in October, and in October the Land League was suppressed. No new powers were bestowed on them in October that they had not in May; and by virtue of the powers existing, or which at least they said existed, in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant long before they came into Office, they could have suppressed the League in May. Therefore, if their charge were most true, as he would say, it was most false that the Land League carried out its decrees by violence, by outrage, and by crime, then he would say that the real responsibility for all that occurred rested on Her Majesty's Government—on the head of the right hon. Member for Bradford, and not upon the heads of the leaders—the popular leaders—who were merely the creation of popular forces, but upon the heads of the responsible Government that had all the forces of the Empire at their back. He was assuming their own case. He did not say whether it was true or not. He did not like to use any expression with regard to the statements of the right hon. Member for Bradford, but he would say this—What did hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition Benches say? What did their organs in the Press say? What conclusion might any person fairly draw from all that had occurred? What conclusion but this—that the reason the Government did not suppress the League in May, in place of in October, was not because there was any change in the policy of the League and its leaders. No. If the Land League was all that the right hon. Gentleman said, if it was such as he described it to-night, then the impartial historian would say that the Government allowed the Land League to exist in May because they had not got a Land Act; and they suppressed it in October because they had passed their Land Act; and if that charge be true, then why turn round on the hon. Member for the City of Cork? Why did not the Government search their own hearts and consciences instead of charging that the hon. Member connived at murder? If the charge were true that the League was a murderous institution, how uneasy ought the hearts and consciences of Her Majesty's Ministers to be when they allowed, according to their own account, that organization to continue to exist, although with one word it was scattered to the winds; and yet, in face of all that, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford came down to the House with his unctuous bearing, appealing to the passions of the tiger with the air of a lamb. But it was not for the right hon. Gentleman to re-hash that old story. His Government, he (Mr. T.P. O'Connor) maintained, condoned the outrages of the Land League by passing the Land Act. On that point he would like to give them a few opinions from both sides of the House, and belonging to widely different political Parties, the first being the opinion of a right hon. and learned Gentleman on that side of the House, so that he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) might appear to be impartial. The late Conservative Attorney General for Ireland, speaking in the Dublin Rotunda,said— They may deny and protest just as they like; hut everyone knows that if it were not for the Land League meetings and crimes and outrages that have too often occurred, there would he no Land Act, or if there was a Land Act it would he very different from that on the Statute Book. That was the testimony of a political opponent of the Government. Now he came to that of a political friend of the Government—the most recent, he could scarcely say the most valuable, addition to it. Lord Derby, in an article written in the moments of his statesmanlike retirement, and published in The Nineteenth Century, said—"Fixity of tenure is the direct result of two causes—Irish outrage and Party Obstruction." He could give yet another authority, the authority of a man who was also a Member of the Government; and, in quoting his words, he might say, in preface, that he thought the observations were conceived in a friendly spirit to Ireland, and were very sound and sensible. The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) at Liskeard said that— Speaking broadly, nothing has been done in justice to Ireland, simply because justice demanded it; the successive steps of justice which have been taken have been taken because we could no longer resist. Was not that quite true? Then he would say, when the right hon. Member for Bradford talked of demoralization, that it was the Liberals themselves who demoralized the Irish people—[Opposition cheers—and they, too (the Tories), because they did not grant Catholic Emancipation until their statesman, the Duke of Wellington, said he anticipated a civil war. The terrible annals of Irish history showed that, according to the acknowledgments of the very Ministers who had carried measures of reform for Ireland, they had ever delayed those measures until their hands were forced either by crime or clamour. When they, on both sides of the House, refused to do justice to Ireland until there were violence and rebellion in the land, might he not well say that it was they who had demoralized and diseased the minds of a great portion of the Irish population. The efforts of all true friends of Ireland, and of all of those who by Constitutional means were endeavouring to redress the wrongs of Ireland, and their most eloquent harangues, were dumb and innocuous in the face of the fact that the revolutionary could always say—"Oh, we murdered somebody, or we blew up some prison, and thereby got justice." He wished, with the indulgence of the House, to make a few observations on some of the points of the carefully prepared and elaborate speech of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland. He asked why the hon. Member for the City of Cork did not act like O'Connell. Did not the right hon. Gentleman know that unctuous Ministers with rugged tongues and candid manners in the days of O'Connell used to bring the same charges against him as were now made against the hon. Member for the City of Cork? If he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had time to consult the pages of Hansard, he could show that charges even more odious and equally unfounded were made against O'Connell. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork might take this consolation—that his successor in the Irish Leadership would be unfavourably contrasted with him. It was curious that the right hon. Gentleman's quotations from newspapers against the Land League were prefaced with the inquiry in reply to some remarks of an hon. Gentleman—"Who pays any attention to articles in newspapers?" "Did hon. Members," exclaimed the right hon. Gentleman, "imagine that Ministers could possibly be driven from Office by the comments of any newspapers?" Yet, in the second section of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman laid before the House every crazy sentence he could find in the lunatic correspondence of any newspaper, home, Continental, or Antipodean, and pressed it against the members of the Land League. Such was the right hon. Gentleman's accuracy with regard to Mr. Brennan, that he spoke of him as having accompanied the hon. Member for the City of Cork to America, when, in truth, Mr. Brennan had never set foot on American soil. Then he quoted a telegram to The Irish Worldfrom Mr. Brennan, or, rather, a telegram purporting to be from Mr. Brennan. In the telegram the writer stated that there were two theories regarding the explosion at Salford Barracks—one that it was intended as a practical joke, and the other—the theory of the Loyalists—that it was the work of Fenians. The right hon. Gentleman asked—did his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork see that telegram? Well, even if he did, it only amounted to the statement of the opinion of Mr. Brennan, as correspondent of The Irish World, that the outrage which the hon. Member for the City of Cork hoped would prove to have been no more than a mere accident, was described by the Loyalists as the foul work of Fenians. Then the right hon. Gentleman took up the case of Mr. Sheridan, and asked whether the hon. Member for the City of Cork employed the services of Mr. Sheridan. But did not the Government know at least as much about Mr. Sheridan as his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork? And did not the right hon. Gentleman allow Mr. Sheridan to leave the country? He would not state his belief with regard to the truth or falsehood of the charges made against Mr. Sheridan, and he thought it unfair to bring forward as absolutely true statements which had never been proved. Then the right hon. Gentleman spoke about Mr. John Devoy, and such was the absolute ignorance which this responsible statesman manifested at these terrible moments of national passion, that he professed not to know that the speech which he attributed to Mr. Devoy had been denied a score of times by that gentleman. With regard to United Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman's laborious researches only enabled him to find two headings, which spoke certainly in a tone of levity of certain occurrences; but the candid right hon. Gentleman from Yorkshire forgot to tell the House that these miserable headings appeared in United Ireland, when the editor, the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), was in prison, when 14 other members of the staff were also imprisoned, and when six others were in flight. The right hon. Gentleman did not state that fact, though he knew it well; and he knew also that neither the hon. Member for Mallow, nor the hon. Member for the City of Cork, would be allowed, though they asked permission, to see the files of United Ireland, for the headings for which they were now made responsible before the blind jury of national opinion in this country. He thought he had answered most of the charges of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had the hardihood to declare that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork was deposed from the Leadership of the Irish people. Far from it. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the loyalty of the Irish people to the hon. Member for the City of Cork was never more unquestionable than at present; and if anything could strengthen their attachment to him it would, be the unscrupulous and calumnious attacks of the right hon. Gentleman. Mallow gave its answer on that subject yesterday; Westmeath would answer it to-morrow. They had fair chances of success in Portarlington, and did not despair even of Dublin County; and whenever the Government should make their appeal to the verdict of the country, they would find that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork would come to that House with a far larger majority of the Irish Representatives at his back to demand the rights of Ireland, with a force that no English Minister could withstand.

After a pause,

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

rose, and said: Sir, I did not rise until you were about to put the Question; and I believe the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition did not rise also, because we understood, from what we supposed to be accurate information, that it was the intention of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to move the adjournment of the debate; and we were of opinion that, although that would be an extremely inconvenient course, and although the House has anxiously waited, during the progress of the three days' debate, to hear any explanation the hon. Member can give, we still were of opinion that if the hon. Member desired to make a reply to the very grave charges that have been made, and the very serious questions which have been put to him in the course of the debate, it was due to him that he should have time, even at some inconvenience to the House, to prepare his answer to those charges. But, Sir, it appears that it is not the intention of the hon. Member to avail himself of that opportunity of making any reply to the grave charges which have been brought against him and the Land League, of which he is the Chief. I do not desire to comment on the attitude which the hon. Member and his Friends have assumed.

MR. PARNELL

If the noble Marquess will excuse me, I wish to say that it is my intention to move the adjournment of the debate at the usual time.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

If it was the intention of the hon. Member to move the adjournment of the debate, he must be perfectly aware that, unless I had risen, the Question would have been put, and it would then have been too late for the hon. Member to have moved the adjournment. And, therefore, Sir, I do not understand the attitude of the hon. Member when he says that it was his intention to move the adjournment of the debate, when, at the same time, he was taking a course a few minutes ago which would have prevented the possibility of his doing so. I do not, however, wish to comment tonight, in anything I have to say, upon the attitude which has been assumed by the hon. Member; but I should have thought that the observations which were addressed to him and his Friends by the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson), and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster), were such as to have called for some reply from the Leader of that Party. Still, I admit that, if they prefer to take that course," it is one which it is perfectly competent for them to take, and of which they must be the best judges. Public attention, public curiosity, public indignation, have been strongly aroused by the imputations which I do not say are proved, but which are, at all events, cast by certain recent proceedings which have lately taken place in Dublin upon the proceedings of the League. It is possible for the Land League leaders to say that they decline to take any notice of a proceeding of that description, which is at present only a preliminary proceeding, and which has not been judicially sifted and substantiated. No man is bound to criminate himself; and if the League and its leaders prefer to maintain silence with regard to these imputations, and to wait until something is judicially substantiated against them, it is competent for them to take that course; but, on the other hand, they must not be surprised if the House and the public draw their own conclusions, and make their own inferences from a course such as that. It might be said that their silence admits, that there is, at all events, a primd facie case against them. [Cries of"No, no!"]

MR. T. P. O'CONNOR

Six of our Members have spoken.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I know that certain hon. Members from Ireland have spoken; but they have not addressed themselves specifically to refuting the imputations cast on the League by the preliminary proceedings at Dublin; and the House, I think, has a right to expect that not only the Members of the League, but the Leader of the League himself, will come forward in this House and make a statement dissipating those imputations, and that he will do more—namely, that he will offer to place at the disposal of the House, of the Government, and of the country, all the material for enabling them to form a judgment as to the foundation, or want of foundation, for those charges.

MR. PARNELL

In point of fact, to discuss the evidence.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I have heard, on former occasions, the Members of the Land League comparing the agitation in which they have been engaged with that conducted upon the same scale and in the same manner as those of the Anti-Corn Law and the Reform Bill, and other Constitutional agitations in this country; but, Sir, I can imagine what would have been the conduct of the leaders of those agitations if one-tenth part of the suspicious inferences which have lately been drawn with regard to the conduct and the action of the Land League had been cast upon the action of those associations. I have not the slightest shadow of a doubt that, at the very first breath of imputation, the leaders of those agitations would have come forward and have placed at the disposal of the whole world every material and every means of forming a judgment, and of conducting a searching inquiry into their truth or otherwise. In the absence of any defence or statement from the hon. Member, I will not refer further to-night to that portion of the debate which has turned upon the action and conduct of the Land League. Before I advert, for a few minutes, to the immediate subject of the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), I will say one or two words upon another part of the subject which has been somewhat irregularly imported into the discussion. I have been asked to give further explanations as to the legislative intentions of the Government with regard to Ireland. Now, Sir, I maintain that the present occasion is not the time at which we can be legitimately called upon to discuss the question of legislation which has been adverted to. I stated, on the first night of this debate, that the legislative intentions of the Government, so far as it has been possible at present to form them, are to be found in Her Majesty's Gracious Speech. We should regret, no doubt, if it should be found that in the present Session Parliament is unable to devote any time to any of the various wants of Ireland which could be provided for by further legislation; but the Government have no intention of proposing large changes, which are likely to give rise to very strong differences of opinion and very strong Party divisions, which would be likely to absorb a very large portion of the time of the House, or to propose important measures which have not been mentioned in Her Majesty's Speech. Reference has been made to a speech or speeches which have been delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone). I think it would have been better if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), instead of making a rather violent personal attack upon my hon. Friend, had stated what were the portions of the speech to which he took exception, and had given the House some quotations or extracts from the speech which he so strongly impugned. For my part, I must say I have never read any full report of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds. I have seen, and I expect that most, if not all, hon. Members have seen what was evidently an extremely short and extremely imperfect report of that speech in The Times, and I frankly admit that if that summary contains an accurate description of that speech, there was much in it in which I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. [An hon. MEMBER: Then, why does not the hon. Member get up and explain it?] I think it was eminently unfair of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to condemn a speech, passages from which are not quoted, and of which the only description in the possession of most of us was evidently a most incomplete and imperfect summary. There is much in that speech with which I, at all events, probably, will be unable to agree; but no Government, that I am aware of, has ever been held bound by or responsible for expressions of opinion of all its Members, especially Members of the Government who are not Members of the Cabinet. No one can lay down that doctrine more strongly than the late Lord Bea-consfield did. I remember that he most emphatically repudiated any responsibility whatever for a speech to which reference had been made, and which had been delivered by the noble Viscount lately Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon). Reference has been made to the relationship of the hon. Member for Leeds to the Head of the Government; but, if we are to go into questions of relationship, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentlemen who sit opposite, and who were Members of the last Government, whether they desire to be held responsible for all the opinions which have at all times been expressed, especially with regard to Ireland, by the son of the late Lord Lieutenant (Lord Randolph Churchill). We claim, and I think fairly, to be judged by the expressions of opinion—not of every Member of the Government addressing his constituents, or addressing public meetings in the country—but by the opinions expressed in this House by Members of the Cabinet who are especially responsible for the conduct of the affairs of Ireland, and by Members of the Cabinet who are responsible for the general conduct of the policy of the Government. Sir, the question to which reference has been made, of the government of Ireland by the Castle, or the government of Ireland in the counties and in the municipalities, is one much too large for a debate of this incidental character. Probably that government is one which is very far indeed from being a perfect one. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) the other day, in addressing his constituents at Hawick, spoke with great power and clearness of the enormous strain which is placed upon the chief Members of the Irish Government by the multiplicity of officers and duties and the responsibilities cast upon them. It has been repeatedly admitted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, and by Members of Administrations drawn from both sides of the House, that many anomalies exist in the county government of Ireland. Efforts have been made by Governments of both sides, by the preparation of measures, to reform some of those anomalies, and some of those abuses. I have no doubt that at the proper time it will be a subject well worth the attention of the Government, and of Parliament, to attempt, in some respects, to reform the government of Ireland, both at its centre at the Castle and in the counties. At the same time, my opinion upon that subject has been recently expressed in a speech which many Members of this House have read, and in which I have nothing to contradict or alter. I am certainly of opinion, whatever changes it may be necessary or desirable to make, that this is not a time, that the state of political feeling in Ireland is not such as would make it desirable that the Executive Government of Ireland should be relieved of any of the responsibilities which now lie in them, or be deprived of any of the powers it now exercises for the maintenance of public order and for the repression and detection of crime. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) stated that we had destroyed all the available elements of local self-government, and that unpaid magistrates, country gentlemen, and ex officio Guardians had been driven from their posts. I maintain, in the first place, that it is a gross exaggeration to say so, and that there are still many country gentlemen in Ireland who have taken a great interest in their local districts—men of substance and respectability, who now, as they have always done, remain at their post, and continue, to the best of their power, to give an active and a loyal assistance to the Government, and to administer to the necessities and to the wants of their respective districts. But if that statement of the right hon. Gentleman be the fact, which I maintain to be an exaggeration, I do not see how it touches the questions we have been deliberating upon more or less for the last two years. We do not acknowledge that the legislation with regard to land has been the cause of the distress or the departure from their districts of these gentlemen. On the contrary, we have always maintained that it is that legislation which has saved that class from the inevitable destruction which awaited them, on account of the bitter hostility of all other classes, unless some attempt had been made to reform the Land Laws of Ireland, under which such a state of things was possible to exist. Sir, with regard to the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham, I am not going to repeat the observations which I made the other night, as to the somewhat remarkable attitude which has, on this and other occasions, been assumed by the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote). It is, however, most remarkable that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, who spoke this day week, gave no indication that the Irish policy of the Government was to be impugned with the sanction of the responsible Leaders of the Opposition. It may be said, and has been said, that since then the revelations recently made at Kilmainham have made it necessary that attention should be called to the transaction alluded to by the hon. and learned Member. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University said it was impossible that the House should not discuss a subject that was being talked of all over the country. Now, that does not appear to me to be a good cause for impugning the policy, past and present, of the Government with regard to Ireland. What took place at Kilmainham made no difference whatever in the position of the Government a week ago. The Government must be judged, and it has been admitted by those who have attacked us on this occasion must be judged alone, by the knowledge which was in its possession at the time of the transactions referred to, and nothing which has since come to light can affect the policy or the wisdom of the transactions which are now being impugned. All the information which is in the possession of the right hon. and learned Gentleman now was in his possession a week ago. If it was the intention of the Opposition to challenge the conduct of the Government with regard to Ireland, I maintain that it would have been a more dignified course to give Notice of their intention, instead of once more following on the heels of a certain section of their own Party, and being again led into the Lobby by those whom they profess to lead. It would have led to a less consumption of time at a period when the unnecessary consumption of time is becoming a somewhat serious matter. It is within the knowledge of everyone that the time at the disposal of the Government before Easter is very limited, and there is a considerable amount of Business which must necessarily be transacted before that time, and an undue prolongation of this debate must lead to a considerable amount of public inconvenience. But I regret it the more because the Amendment appears to indicate some disunion in the House of Commons, wherein I believe practical unanimity prevails among the enormous majority of the House. I believe there is but one opinion—that the Government of Ireland, during the last nine months, have been working energetically, wisely, prudently, and firmly for the purpose of restoring peace and order in that country. But when the great Parties in the House are divided upon a matter involving confidence in the Irish Administration, I cannot help thinking that that course will load to a very mistaken impression in Ireland. Sir, I regret it also, because I believe that this Amendment will be interpreted as an expression of censure upon the policy which has produced the Land Act and the Arrears Act—measures which I believe are admitted by a great number of Irish Conservatives also, to be as necessary for the peace and order of Ireland as any repressive legislation or any repressive administration could he. I believe that this Amendment, if carried, will be interpreted as an expression of opinion that Parliament is now of opinion that we should rely on coercion only. I think that that would be a most unfortunate interpretation. When I addressed my constituents a short time ago, and said that I desired to approach this subject in no Party spirit, I spoke the most sincere conviction in my mind. I believed then, no I believe now, that the question of Irish policy and Irish Administration is one far too serious to be made the subject of political faction. I admit that mistakes may have been made on both sides. I admit that we have been disappointed—that many of us formed too sanguine hopes of the immediate effects to be produced by the intended remedial legislation, and that those sanguine hopes have been disappointed; but if we have erred on that side, I think that our opponents have erred too much in the other direction, and have too obstinately closed their eyes and ears against the real grievances which did exist in Ireland, and the real evils which had to be remedied, before any improvement in the state of that country could be effected. I trust that Parliament will not now say anything which will either now, or at any future time, deter it from examining fully, and, if necessary, legislating boldly on any proved grievances, and applying remedies for those grievances. But while I regret, for these reasons, any apparent division of opinion in this House on Irish matters, I do not altogether regret the discussion which has taken place. I think it is possible for us now to see—I think myself, at all events, that I can see more clearly than I have ever done before—what is the exact nature of those charges which were so vaguely and, at the same time, so passionately urged against us in regard to the transactions that took place in the early part of last May. I venture to think that there has been much misunderstanding with regard to those transactions, and I think it is one of the misfortunes of the course adopted by the Opposition in regard to them that that misunderstanding has not been earlier cleared away. [An hon. MEMBER: We moved for a Committee.] When did you move for a Committee? At what date? These transactions took place early in May, and they were made the subject of irregular and daily debate on almost every day in that month, on Motions for Adjournment and in interpolated discussions on the Arrears Bill; and the discussions were renewed from time to time on other occasions during the whole of the Session, and on every platform in the country; but, notwithstanding our repeated challenges, notwithstanding, I may say, almost our entreaties, the Opposition neither then, nor at any time till now, have formulated anything in the nature of a direct impeachment of that policy. When did the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire (Mr. J. R. Yorke) give Notice of his intention to move for a Committee? He never did so until he was asked to do it by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. He explained that he had not the slightest desire to do it, and that it was only in reply to my right hon. Friend's entreaty that he had ever consented to put his Notice on the Paper at all. Moreover, the giving Notice of a Motion for a Committee did not formulate the charges against the Government. We have had every sort of imputation and insinuation made against us; but it was not distinctly specified for the judgment of this House what was the exact charge brought against us. And even now, Sir, the opinion of the House is to be taken on an Amendment which only very indistinctly shadows forth what is the actual nature of the charge preferred against us. As far as I can understand that charge, I believe it is alleged that about the beginning of last May the Government made, or contemplated making, a change in their Irish policy; that at that time they had formed the intention of abandoning all reliance upon the operation of the Protection of Person and Property Act, that they virtually renounced the intention of replacing that Act, which was about to expire, by any other coercive legislation, and that they had determined to rely for the future upon the assistance of and co-operation of the Land League and its leaders for the maintenance of peace and tranquillity in Ireland. Well, Sir, I believe that to be substantially the nature of the accusation that has been brought against us, and, in order to see what is the foundation of that charge, or whether there be any shadow of foundation whatever for it at all, it is necessary to see what was the condition of Ireland about that time. The Protection of Person and Property Act had not, as has been asserted, completely failed; it had partly succeeded and had partly failed. In justice to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), it must be remembered that, to a certain extent, it has succeeded. He had, through the assistance of that Act, succeeded in defeating the agitation of the Land League, and in suppressing the "no rent" policy—the policy of a refusal to pay rent; by its assistance he had put down all open resistance to the law, and he had succeeded in repressing the practice of "Boycotting." Under his administration the attempts which had been made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and some of his Friends to defeat and to impede the operations of the Land Act, and to prevent the tenants from going into the Court, had failed. To that extent, therefore, my right hon. Friend had been completely successful, through the assistance of the Protection of Person and Property Act. In other respects he had failed. My right hon. Friend had failed, as he himself acknowledged that he had, to put down secret outrages and crime. A large number of persons were, at that time, in prison under the operation of the Act on mere suspicion and without trial; and in all parts of the House, on the Opposition side as well as on this side, there was arising a great suspicion and jealousy of the operation of the Act, at a time when the duration of the Act was approaching its close. It became, at that time, necessary for my right hon. Friend, and for the Government of which he was a Member, to consider what steps should be taken in that condition of things to supplement and replace the Act which was about to expire. Above all, there was the most urgent question of administration to be decided—whether it was necessary, expedient, and justifiable to detain in prison the Members of Parliament and others who had been imprisoned, not upon suspicion of actual complicity with outrage, but upon specific charges of promoting agitation calculated to disturb the peace of the country. That, Sir, I say, was the urgent question which Her Majesty's Government had to decide. Their attention and the attention of Parliament was about to be called to it by an hon. Member from the opposite Benches, and it was not improbable that a strong opposition would have been raised to the continued imprisonment, without trial, of this large number of political prisoners. The Government had, therefore, to decide, as best they were able, whether it was necessary, or, if not so, whether it was justifiable to detain these prisoners any longer in gaol. Was it desirable? I fully supported the measure taken in the autumn of 1881, because I believed the hon. Member for the City of Cork was engaged in an agitation of a character, and possessed an amount of influence in the country, which would have enabled him to defeat the operation of the Land Act and to make the government of Ireland an impossibility. But I have said that in May last the immediate object of that measure had been attained. Open resistance to the la w was put a stop to, and there was no reason to fear that upon the release of the hon. Member and his Friends the agitation would be able to reach more formidable dimensions. At the same time, if it had been believed that the hon. Member and his Friends would make use of their release from prison for the purposes of delusive triumph, or that they would resume the course of conduct they were pursuing at the time of their imprisonment, such a measure would have been unjustifiable. It was therefore necessary for Her Majesty's Government, in any way which was open to them, to ascertain what was the state of mind and what would be the probable conduct of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends, and, if possible, the extent of their political influence. That was, so far as I am concerned, so far as the great majority of the Cabinet was concerned—I believe, so far as the whole Cabinet was concerned—the object of the communications which took place between the Government and the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It is alleged that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to abandon reliance on the law, and to rely upon the assistance and support of the Land League. Sir, I absolutely deny that at any time such a policy was propounded to Her Majesty's Government; much less was any such policy ever adopted by them. I was curious, during the whole of this debate, to know by what arguments an opposite contention is or can be supported. An attempt has been made to use the name of Sheridan, which was mentioned in the Memorial read to the House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. That name was mentioned by the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea); but, Sir, what proof is there that the offer, if it was an offer, or the suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, was ever accepted by the Government, or by any Member of the Government? The suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was apparently that he would desire to make use of Mr. Sheridan, a leading organizer of the Land League in the West of Ireland, for the purpose of discouraging outrage. If the Government had designed to rely upon influence of that description, proposals would have been made for the revocation of the warrant which the right hon. Member for Bradford had issued for the arrest of Mr. Sheridan. But I am not aware that such a suggestion was ever made or ever crossed the mind of any Member of the Government at the time, or that it was ever contemplated to take any step whatever in concert with the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It has been stated by my right hon. Friend himself, that the war-want against Sheridan under the Protection of Person and Property Act, remained in full force until the expiration of that Act. Sir, we have heard a great deal about the intrigues supposed to have gone on in the Cabinet for the political assassination of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) has said, to-night, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department had called upon him to disavow and retract an assertion which he had made, and which had been distinctly contradicted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford himself. But to that suggestion of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Gentleman replied that he had nothing whatever to retract; that he re-asserted everything he had stated on the subject, and that the denial of my right hon. Friend as to the existence of intrigues could have no weight, because he was the last person in the Cabinet to know what transactions were going on behind his back. The right hon. Gentleman committed himself to an allegation with reference to this matter, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford has contradicted, and which, nevertheless, has not been withdrawn, nor apologized for. The right hon. Gentleman, in May last, speaking in Yorkshire, said Mr. Forster was a good man struggling with adversity, but that he had disloyal Colleagues, who were conducting clandestine negotiations to a great extent, wholly unknown to him, and that machinations were at work to oust him from the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend was not in the House when attention was called to this statement; but the next day, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, who was more agreeably engaged, my right hon. Friend did positively contradict the assertion.

MR. J. LOWTHER

How could he know what was going on behind his back?

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

The statement was that "clandestine negotiations were being conducted to a great extent, wholly unknown to him," and the reply of my right hon. Friend was this— Now that the statement has been alluded to in this House, I think it due to my late Col- leagues and myself to say that the right hon. Gentleman has been absolutely misinformed. The fact is, as I have already stated in the House, I was cognizant of the negotiations to which the right hon. Gentleman doubtless alluded, although the time came when I felt I could no longer share any responsibility with regard to them. Can the House doubt, after that statement, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire committed himself to the assertion that negotiations had been going on between the Government and the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends, which wore not known to the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant?

MR. J. LOWTHER

I said my impression was that, in addition to overt negotiations, clandestine transactions were conducted wholly unknown to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

With whom? The insinuation of the right hon. Gentleman was understood by everyone here to be that negotiations were going on behind the back of my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant with the hon. Member for the City of Cork. My light hon. Friend was in a position to know everything that was going on between the hon. Member for the City of Cork, when in prison at Kilmainham, and persons outside, and he has stated that he was cognizant of the negotiations going on; that up to a certain period they were made with his knowledge. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire explained his statement, for the benefit of the House, by saying that it was announced by official Members of this House that communications had taken place between Members of the Cabinet and Irish Members, without, as far as the evidence went, the concurrence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. My right hon. Friend took the earliest opportunity of declaring that these negotiations were made with his knowledge; but, notwithstanding that denial, the right hon. Gentleman has tonight assorted the accuracy of everything he formerly said on this subject. It was the duty of the Government, it was necessary for the Government to inform themselves by the only means which were available to them as to what would be the probable course of conduct of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends if they were released from Kilmainham. It was impossible for them to have public communication with them; it was impossible they could judge of their probable course of conduct from their speeches delivered in Parliament, or those delivered in the country, and the hon. Member and his Friends had no opportunity of publicly announcing their intentions. But offers were made to place the Government in possession of their views; and I say the Government would have failed in their duty if they had not adopted these means, or any other means which lay in their power, to ascertain whether it was safe or whether it was right to release those Members. It seems to be the opinion of some hon. Gentlemen that these hon. Members were suffering punishment for offences of which they had been convicted. But that was not the case. They were imprisoned as an administrative act for the preservation of peace and the maintenance of order in Ireland; and when the moment arrived at which, in the opinion of the Government, it was no longer necessary for those purposes that they should be detained in prison, it was the duty of the Government, without any agreement or without any ulterior consideration, to release those Members. There is some difference of opinion between my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenaat with regard to the introduction of what is now known as the Crimes Act. The Secretary of State for the Home Department stated with perfect accuracy that the Government had determined to bring in that measure before the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford. The late Chief Secretary said this evening that he thought no actual decision on the subject had been arrived at in the Cabinet until later. Sir, I think that when my right hon. Friend made that statement he had forgotten what he must be perfectly familiar with—namely, the manner in which these matters are conducted in the Cabinet. The usual course had been taken with regard to these proposals. There is nothing in the nature of a second reading of a Bill in the Cabinet. The usual course is, that when the principle of a measure is accepted, the details in the draft proposed by the responsible Minister are submitted to a Committee of the Cabinet. That was precisely the course taken on the occasion in question. My right hon. Friend made his general proposals, and those proposals were, some time before his resignation and after his resignation, under the consideration of the Committee of the Cabinet. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER dissented.] Sir, I think it is very easy, notwithstanding the opinion of my right hon. Friend, to supply an explanation on this point. My right hon. Friend, at the time in question, on account of the arduous duties which he had to discharge, was frequently absent for a considerable time from London. I am perfectly convinced that a Committee of the Cabinet was appointed before the resignation of my right hon. Friend; and if he was not aware of the fact, it must have been simply because of his absence in Dublin. I, myself, attended a meeting of the Committee, for the further elaboration of the measure to a form very much resembling that in which it was introduced to the House. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: That was after the resignation.] I have satisfied myself by inquiries I have made this evening that the Committee was appointed, and that the measure was under the consideration of that Committee before the resignation of my right hon. Friend. I do not wish to impugn the perfect good faith of my right hon. Friend in the statement he has made; but, at the same time, I am of opinion that if there is any disagreement between us at present, it is no doubt attributable to the absence of my right hon. Friend in Ireland. Sir, it is alleged that the Prime Minister had announced in this House the intention of postponing the introduction of the measure referred to, until the Rules of Procedure had been decided upon. No doubt, that decision was announced by my right hon. Friend to the House, and I think it is a decision not at all likely to cause surprise to any one who reflects upon the disposition of Parties at that time. I should like to know what chance there would have been of passing the Crimes Act in this House, without the adoption of some alteration in the Rules of Procedure? It is true that the measure was passed without an alteration of the Rules; but the House must recollect the impression— the tremendous impression—made upon itself and upon the whole country by the fearful event of the 6th of May, and that the position of affairs was, in consequence, entirely altered. At the time of that terrible event, the House must recollect that Obstruction was in full force; that there was great dissatisfaction in all parts of the House with the administration in Ireland; that the Bill would have encountered the most vehement and determined opposition on the part of the Irish Members; that it would not have been at all cordially received by many hon. Members below the Gangway, and that it would not have met with anything like the unanimous support of the Party opposite. I would ask them to consider what would then have been the prospect of the speedy passing of such a measure as the Crimes Act, without the adoption of some improvement in the Rules of Procedure. I think many people would say it would be impossible to pass such a measure. I believed then, and I believe now, that one of the chief causes of disorder and opposition to the law in Ireland, was the successful resistance a Party in this House had been able to make to the authority of Parliament itself; and I believe that one of the best steps that could be taken for the pacification of Ireland, and for the restoration of law and order in that country, was to show that the authority of Parliament was paramount. Both for the purpose of passing the Crimes Act, and for the effect to be produced in Ireland, we thought it was very essential that the Rules of Procedure should be discussed by the House. But, Sir, if there is any disposition to doubt that the Government were desirous of urging on the passing of this measure with all possible speed, there is another circumstance I should like to remind the House of. On that very day—the 6th of May—the day of that fearful event in the Phoenix Park, an offer was made to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote), that in order, if possible, to facilitate and expedite the progress of the Procedure Rules, with the view of approaching the consideration of our Irish Business, in which this very measure was included, we were willing, in spite of our opinions, to modify the Rule with regard to the closure of debate, and to concede the Amend- ment to be moved by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson'). That offer was made to the right hon. Baronet, with the view, and solely with the view, of enabling the House to come at once to the consideration of our Irish policy, the policy of which this Bill was an essential part. Well, Sir, I regret that I have been compelled to detain the House so long; but one more matter was referred to by my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), on which I must say a word. My right hon. Friend seems to doubt the administrative changes in regard to the Police and Constabulary which have been referred to by the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, and my right hon. Friend, I regret to observe, seems to think that what has fallen from the Secretary of State may produce some feelings of dissatisfaction and discouragement in the minds of the Irish Constabulary and the Metropolitan Police. I do not think my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State uttered one word which could be calculated to produce that effect. We have never made, and never thought it necessary to propose, any change with regard to the officers or men either of the Constabulary or Metropolitan Police Forces. We fully relied on their loyalty, their zeal, and their good conduct. All that we have done with regard to them is to give them those rewards and to make those improvements in their position they had amply earned. No change was made, and we did not consider any change was necessary, in the organization of the Police Forces; but, without wishing to cast the slightest imputation upon the zeal or the ability of the commanding officers of those Forces, the Irish Government has taken a step which is often taken in military operations by the General commanding. Changes have been made in the superior officers, both of the Constabulary and of the Metropolitan Police Forces, and the opinion is that those changes have conduced to that efficiency which has produced the present result. Further than that, a distinct change has been made. The Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was at all times over-burdened with work, and he had not sufficient time to devote proper attention to the business and management of the police and the detection of crime. The Government have appointed an Assistant Under Secretary for Police and Crime, who has relieved the Under Secretary of all the details of this class of work, only a general superintendence being left to the Under Secretary. This Assistant Under Secretary has immediately under his supervision the Dublin Police Force and the Irish Constabulary. The appointment of this officer has no doubt greatly tended to the benefit of the whole Police Service, and it has been an administrative change of no small importance. The ability which has been brought to the discharge of his duties by Mr. Jenkinson, has been no smaller than the success which has lately attended the efforts for the detection and the punishment of crime. These are administrative changes of no slight importance, and the Government take credit for the effect produced by those changes. I am sorry I have been obliged to trespass upon the time and patience of the House so long, and, in conclusion, I will simply ask the House what course it proposes to take with regard to this Amendment? The Amendment appears to me to be a somewhat singular one, and one brought forward at a somewhat singular time. The two great Parties in this House are agreed that, in the main, during nine months of considerable difficulty, during events of grave importance, the Administration of Ireland has been well and efficiently and ably conducted; but, notwithstanding this fact, we are about to be asked to pass a Motion which will, if carried, have the effect of removing this Administration from Office, and which, whether it be carried or not, cannot fail to weaken to a certain extent the hands of that Administration. Sir, it is indeed remarkable that during the period of nine months that we have passed through, the great Party opposite could find nothing in the condition and state of Ireland to which to call the attention of the House. The transactions alleged to have taken place nine months ago were not challenged at the time, and would not have been challenged now but for certain revelations which have just been made. There is in this Motion a reference, a veiled and covered reference, a reference by innuendo, to the transactions of nine months ago, and I trust and believe that the House will not assent to, but will, on the contrary, by a large majority, resent the attempt to impute to Her Majesty's Government any misconduct in regard to those transactions.

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

SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE

I presume, Sir, that the Government do not intend to object to the adjournment of the debate, and that we shall, therefore, have to resume and conclude this discussion when we meet again tomorrow. I should have been glad if we could have completed the discussion this evening. I think it would have been very convenient if we could have done so; but it is impossible not to feel that the very important speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) imported considerations into this debate which render it not unreasonable that it should be carried further. I only wish to say two things at this moment. In the first place, I think the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) has rather unfairly commented upon what he considers the delay on the part of hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House in challenging the proceedings of last May. The position taken up by us in not challenging those proceedings by a formal vote was taken on grounds and considerations of expediency, and out of regard for the national interests. We felt that, however open the conduct of the Government might be to remark, it was not right, under the peculiar circumstances of that time, to bring forward any Motion on the subject. The circumstances have now changed, and not only so, but a great flood of light has been thrown on the business both by what has been going on in Dublin, and by such speeches and revelations as those we have listened to to-night. We shall be prepared, in the fullest manner, to accept the challenge which the noble Marquess has thrown out. Independently altogether of this debate, I shall take the opportunity to-morrow of stating the manner in which we propose to meet that challenge.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) has said he will be prepared to-morrow to meet the challenge of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). He received the challenge on the 16th of May. The House will re member that when the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour)—

LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish, Sir, to draw your attention to the new Rule, passed at the instance of Her Majesty's Government last November, which provides, I think, subject to your ruling, that on a Motion for the adjournment, the debate shall be strictly confined to the matter of such adjournment. I submit to you, Sir, that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not making any remarks that had the remotest connection with the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) made observations to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department is now replying. I do not consider he is thereby infringing the Rules of the House.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I imagine that the new Rules are not altogether devoid of the principle of rectitude. I know the opinion which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) entertains of the new Rules, and I am surprised he did not rise to Order when his Leader—or shall I call him his Follower—was addressing the House. ["Oh, oh!"] I think I have a right to say that. Sir, I do not wish to detain the House long, and therefore I will only say the right hon. Gentleman (Sir Stafford Northcote) has anticipated the speech he is going to make to-morrow. He has said that a debate has been challenged upon this point. [Interruption.] I am calling attention to a matter of fact.

MR. CALLAN

I rise to Order. I have to ask you, Mr. Speaker, if the Secretary of State for the Home Department is now confining himself to the strict terms of the Motion for the adjournment of the debate?

MR. SPEAKER

I have already said that the right hon. Gentleman is not, in my opinion, out of Order.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I hope, out of respect to the Chair, that we shall have no further interruption. [Interruption.]

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is in possession of the House.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

I will not detain the House two minutes. I only wish to mate a few observations upon what the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) has said. He said that we had challenged a discussion on this matter. I desire to say that the Prime Minister did distinctly challenge a discussion on this matter on the 16th of May. When the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) moved the adjournment on this question, it was pointed out by the Prime Minister that that was not a proper manner in which to bring it to issue. The right hon. Baronet the Leader of the Opposition did not accept the method offered, stating that he would not take up the question at that time, owing to the gravity of the position of Irish affairs. Well, I would ask the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who sit behind him, whether they think there is no gravity in the position of Irish affairs now? Do they believe that the gravity of Irish affairs is less serious at this moment than it was at that period; and I would ask them whether they do not think—

MR. GORST

I rise to Order. I would ask you, Sir, whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to go into these matters?

MR. SPEAKER

The right hon. Gentleman is now transgressing the Rule.

Question put, and agreed to.

Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.