Commons Sitting of 11 February 1884

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Standing Orders, nominated; Selection, nominated; Printing, Motion for Appointment; debate adjourned; Public Petitions, appointed and nominated; Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms (House of Commons), Motion for Appointment; debate adjourned.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Ecclesiastical Discipline and Public Worship Regulation Acts Amendment * [96].
First Reading—Pluralities Acts Amendment* [94]; Highways* [95].
Second Reading—Elections (Hours of Poll) * [2].

QUESTIONS.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—CONVENTION WITH SPAIN.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Convention which has been signed with reference to our commercial relations with Spain contains any stipulation that British and Spanish vessels shall be allowed to trade with Spanish ports on equal terms, both as regards the vessels themselves and the charges thereon, and as regards their cargoes; or if differential charges and duties are still intended to be levied by Spain against all commerce except that which may continue to be carried on under the Spanish flag?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Article 7 of the Protocol of Agreement laid before Parliament, and distributed last week, contains a full answer to the Question of the hon. Member.
  MR. MAC IVERasked whether the House was to understand that Her Majesty's Government had made no attempt whatever to relieve the British shipowners from the inequalities of which they complained?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Will the hon. Member give Notice of his Question?
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, he would repeat the Question to-morrow.

  ARMY (ENGINEERS' DEPARTMENT)—MILITARY FOREMEN OF WORKS.
  MR. H. S. NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for War, If his attention has been called to the unsatisfactory position of the Military Foremen of Works (Engineers' Department) as regards promotion; if it is a fact that all the Surveyors and Assistant Surveyors in this department are civilians, and that, consequently, no member of the Military branch of the department can obtain a higher position in the service than that of Serjeant Major, although some of these men have served in that capacity for a period of sixteen years; whether this branch of the service is not the only one in which Quartermasters' Commissions are not attainable as a reward for long and faithful service; and, whether the War Office will consider the possibility of taking some steps to remove the grievances of which these men complain?
  MR. BRAND: Yes, Sir; the attention of the Secretary of State for War has been called to the position of Military Foremen of Works as regards promotion. At present the Surveyors and Assistant Surveyors are all civilians appointed after open competition. The examination is open to the Military Foremen of Works, some of whom have competed, but hitherto unsuccessfully. There are three Military Foremen of Works, who have been sergeants-major for more than 10 years. There are no quartermasters in the Department itself; but these warrant officers are eligible for selection for promotion as quartermasters in the Army generally. The Secretary of State is giving consideration to this matter, with a view to admitting to the higher grades of the Department qualified and meritorious warrant officers.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—WEST BROMWICH SCHOOL BOARD.
  MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, after a consideration of the facts disclosed in the evidence at a coroner's inquest at West Bromwich in the case of the suicide of a school boy, consequent on the pressure to which he was subjected in order to force him through the examinations of the Code, he is still
  416
  of opinion that the Code requires no amendment?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, my attention was called to this lamentable case by the reports which appeared in the papers, and I directed that inquiry should be made of the Bromwich School Board as to the facts. I have received, in reply, a letter from the Clerk of the Board, and two local papers reporting the evidence given before the Coroner, and there is nothing in them to support the inference conveyed by the hon. Member's Question. The schoolmaster deposed on oath that the boy was a confirmed truant, and that lately he had refused to punish him for it, as he considered it useless. The letter states as follows:—
  "Last week he was absent from school four half-days, up to Thursday afternoon, when the master sent a message by a school-fellow to that effect to the boy's home. The mother said she had kept him away once only, and the boy admitted having played truant the other three times. … The master told me that the boy had not been threatened nor unduly pressed with his work, there being no necessity for the latter, as he would have been a sure 'pass' "
  The evidence given before the jury went to show that in various schools in the district unauthorized punishments were inflicted by assistant teachers, but not in this particular school. The jury recommended that, in future, all punishments should be inflicted by the head teacher, which is in conformity with the recommendations of the Education Department. The School Board state they are about to make a full inquiry into the whole case.

  OFFICE AND DUTIES OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER OF THE WESTERN PACIFIC—REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of the Report of the Committee appointed to consider the office and duties of the High Commissioner of the Western Pacific; and, whether he can state what steps Her Majesty's Government propose to take with reference to that Report?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Sir, the Report of the Committee referred to shall be given to the House without delay, but Her Majesty's Government have

  417
  not yet been able to come to any decision, nor, indeed, to give any full consideration to the subject. The question has been materially affected by the action and resolutions of the highly important intercolonial Convention just held at Sydney. This may probably modify conclusions which might otherwise have been arrived at, and the recommendations of the Report may prove to be, in some respects, inapplicable to the altered conditions of the case.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—RELIGIOUS PROFESSIONS.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that a circular has been addressed by the constabulary authorities in Dublin to the local constabulary authorities in Ireland, calling upon them to report upon the religion of the magistrates in their several districts; if so, what is the object of the inquiry; and, whether he will lay a Copy of the circular upon the Table of the House?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), a Return was ordered by this House showing, among other particulars, the aggregate number of magistrates of each religious persuasion in each county in Ireland. No inquiries of the character indicated in the Question were made, except such as were necessary for the purpose of preparing the Return to this Order. The Return was laid before the House in August last, but in the case of four counties the information given was so imperfect that it was deemed necessary to make further inquiry with the view of making the Return more complete.
  MR. SEXTON: Was the Return circulated?
  MR. TREVELYAN: It was laid on the Table.

  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT—BANKRUPTCY ESTATES ACCOUNT.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he can state what is the amount of the Bankruptcy Estates Account; what amount was transferred to that account from the account of the Accountant in Bankruptcy; whether any, and, if so, how much, has been invested; and,
  418
  also, what sums have been issued by the Treasury to the Board of Trade in aid of the Votes of Parliament to meet salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act of last Session?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I am informed that on the 7th instant the Bankruptcy Estates Account amounted to £230,095 19 s., and £80,462 4s. 9d. had been transferred from the account of the Accountant in Bankruptcy, £200,000 had been paid over to the Treasury for investment, and £1,869 had been paid in aid of the Votes of Parliament to meet salaries and expenses under the Bankruptcy Act.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE IN THE QUEEN'S COUNTY.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the Queen's County is not completely free from foot and mouth disease; whether there is any, and, if so, what, reason for continuing the Privy Council Order prohibiting the holding of fairs within the county; whether the regulations of the Local Sanitary Authorities have not been found fully adequate to guard against the introduction of the disease; whether the same authorities have addressed to the Lord Lieutenant remonstrances against the prohibition of fairs within their districts; and, whether the fairs usually held in the latter half of February at Mountmellick, Mountrath, and Maryborough are to be prohibited?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Queen's County is, according to the latest reports, free from foot-and-mouth disease. It remains under the provisions of the Privy Council Order prohibiting fairs and markets, because there were infected places in adjoining counties within the last 14 days. The regulations of the local sanitary authorities were not sufficient to guard against the introduction of the disease, because such regulations were made in only two out of six Unions wholly or partly within the county. The local authorities did remonstrate against the continuance of the Privy Council Order. The Lord Lieutenant did not feel that he would be justified in yielding to their wishes, but he caused them to be informed that he would favourably consider applica-

  419
  tions for licences to hold fairs wherever an infected place did not exist within 25 miles of the site of the fair. Under these conditions licences have been granted for the fairs at Mountrath and Maryborough. I am informed that a fair is not usually held at Mountmellick during the latter part of February.

  EDUCATION (IRELAND)—COMPULSORY EDUCATION.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the proposed Bill for the promotion of education in Ireland will contain a provision for establishing a system of compulsory attendance; whether his attention has been drawn to the frequent disapproval expressed by Royal Commissions, and by Sir Patrick Keenan, regarding the district model schools; and, whether it is intended to dispense with them?
  MR. T. A. DICKSONasked, before the Chief Secretary answered the Question, if he would say whether the endowed schools of Ireland would be dealt with this year in the Irish Education Bill, and, if not, whether a separate Bill dealing with the endowed schools in Ireland would be introduced?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am not prepared to announce the provisions of the proposed Bill until I have an opportunity of making a general statement on the subject to the House. I am aware of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission over which Lord Powis presided in 1870 with regard to the model schools. That, I believe, is the only Royal Commission which has expressed any disapproval of them. I do not think Sir Patrick Keenan can be quoted as disapproving of these schools. His evidence before Lord Powis's Commission was in their vindication. The Commissioners of National Education have no intention of dispensing with thorn. In answer to my hon. Friend (Mr. Dickson), I have to say that the Bill dealing with those schools is being prepared by the Government, and if there is any probability of its being passed this Session, it might be introduced. Several Bills, however, take precedence of it. If the Government find that it is probable that the Bill will pass without opposition they will introduce it, otherwise they will not.

  MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES COMMISSION (IRELAND)—THE TOWNSHIP OF ARKLOW.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the decision come to by the Municipal Boundaries Commissioners, who took evidence in 1879, with reference to the extension or otherwise altering the boundaries of the township of Arklow, in the county of Wicklow; whether he has noticed, at page 13 of the Commissioners' Report to the Lord Lieutenant, presented to Parliament in 1881, that they refer to Arklow as one of eleven towns in which they "have lessened the area in which full taxation is to be paid," and, at page 15, as one of seventy-six towns with respect to which they say, "if the extension of the boundary proposed by us with respect to each of those towns is carried out; "what is the explanation of the apparent contradiction; and, whether any communication has been made to the Town Commissioners of Arklow in regard to the inquiry held by the Municipal Boundaries Commissioners respecting the boundaries of the town?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the recommendations of the Commissioners will be found fully set forth in their Report to which the hon. Member refers, and which, as he mentions, is already before the House. They could not be conveniently quoted at length in answer to a Question. I do not think there is any such contradiction in the Commissioners' proposals as is suggested. While recommending an extension of the boundaries of the great majority of towns under the Towns Improvement Act, they also think that in the case of some of those towns only a restricted inner area should be liable to full taxation. Thus the boundary generally would be ex-tended as on page 15, yet lessoned "for full taxation" as on page 13. No communication on the subject has been made by the Government to the Town Commissioners of Arklow.

  MERCHANT SEAMEN—DEATHS BY DROWNING.
  MR. CRUMasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the list of 1,123 cases, reported to the Registrar General, of seamen who were drowned during 1881–2 by accident other than

  421
  wreck, has been printed; and, if so, when it will be issued to the public?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN, in reply, said, he did not find there was published any detailed list of the cases of accident by drowning other than by wreck published in the Registrar General's Returns. He would endeavour to obtain some information on the subject, and would communicate it to the House.

  NAVY—TREATMENT OF DISEASE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether there is any truth in the statement made in The Army and Navy Gazette of January 22nd, that, in consequence of the large number of seamen suffering from venereal disease, orders have been given for men still diseased, but whose cases are not complicated, being sent to sea from hospital?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: Sir, I am not aware what may have been stated in the newspaper referred to; but it is a fact that orders were some time ago issued directing that seamen suffering from the simpler form of venereal disease, which is not syphilis, and which is quite capable of being treated on board ship, should not be detained in hospital, but should be sent to sea in the regular course of their service.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Will the hon. Gentleman give me a Return of the number of men sent in this manner?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: I will confer with the hon. Member on the subject.

  COAST AND SEA FISHERIES (IRELAND)—ADMINISTRATION OF THE FISHERY FUND.
  MR. LEAMYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, as one of the Trustees to aid Coast Fisheries, When and where the Report of the Trustees on the administration of the Fishery Fund in their hands for the year 1883 can be had?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, the Report has not yet been adopted, and will not, I understand, in the ordinary course be adopted for two months to come. If the hon. Member desires to obtain a copy of it when adopted, I would suggest that he should apply to the secretary to the Trustees.

  RAILWAYS—CHEAP TRAINS ACT—URBAN DISTRICTS.
  MR. FRANCIS BUXTONasked the President of the Board of Trade, with reference to the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, How many "urban districts" he has yet certified, in accordance with Clause 2, sections (2), (3); whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of such urban districts; whether he has found it necessary, in accordance with Clause 3, section (2), to order any Company to provide additional accommodation on workmen's trains; whether such orders have been complied with, and have resulted in increased facilities of locomotion; and, whether be can inform the House of the particulars of any such cases?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, no urban districts have been certified; but under Section 2, Sub-section 3 of the Cheap Trains Act of last Session, the Board of Trade has certified certain stations and portions of railways as being within urban districts for the purposes of the Act. There is no objection to a list of those stations and portions of railways being laid on the Table of the House; but it would, I think, be desirable to wait a short time until the arrangements are wholly completed. The Companies have shown no indisposition to comply with the provisions of the Act with regard to penny-a-mile traffic and workmen's trains, and, consequently, there has been no occasion for the Board of Trade at present to make any order upon them in the matter.

  IRELAND—OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR GENERAL, DUBLIN—THE TASK-WRITERS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that there is in force a Treasury Minute, by which permanent clerks in the office of the Registrar General, Dublin, are rendered ineligible to do the class of work allotted to task writers; whether, nevertheless, for some years past this class of work has been wholly or most wholly given to the permanent clerks in the office, and the task writers have been thereby deprived of employment and support, after some of them had served the department for many years; and, whether, if this be the

  423
  state of the case, any steps will be taken to amend it?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, I have looked into this question, and have received a Report upon it from the Registrar General. The Treasury Minute to which the hon. Member appears to refer, was a direction given in 1876, that piece work should be given as little as possible to the established clerks. I have satisfied myself that this direction has been carried out, and the so-called task writers have been benefited thereby.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—SUPER-SESSION OF LORD ROSSMORE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. Whether Mr. Eyre W. Preston, who holds the salaried office of Investigator of Tithe Rent-charge under the Irish Land Commission, is the same person as Mr. Eyre W. Preston whose name appears in the published list of the names of the Committee
  "Appointed by the Grand Orange Lodge of Ireland, to express in a tangible form their sympathy with Lord Rossmore, and their disapproval of the conduct of the Executive; "
  whether Mr. Eyre W. Preston and the other members of the Committee have published an "Appeal" for funds, in which they declare that the Government, by superseding Lord Rossmore, had "insulted the Orange body," and deserved "the most severe rebuke;" and, whether, if the member of the Rossmore Committee responsible for this language be the same person as the official of the Irish Land Commission, he will be continued any longer in the service of that Department?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this Question was referred to the Land Commissioners, and I have received the following communication from them:—
  "The Land Commissioners were not aware till now that Mr. Preston was a member of the committee referred to in the Question. They strongly disapprove of his conduct in having become a member of that committee, and they have called on him to resign his situation in the Land Commission. Mr. Preston has accordingly placed his resignation in their hands."

  STATE OF IRELAND—INFLAMMATORY SPEECHES—MR. WILLIAM JOHNSON.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to thank the right hon. Gentleman, and to give Notice that I shall ask him, Whether his attention
  424
  has been called to speeches recently delivered by Mr. William Johnson, one of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fisheries in Ireland, and especially to a speech made in Dublin on the 8th of January; whether, in the opinion of responsible Law Officers of the Crown, such speeches are calculated to create hostility and ill-will amongst Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland; and whether, in view of the fact that three several warnings given to Mr. Johnson have been unsuccessful, he will now remove Mr. Johnson from his position?
  MR. GIBSON: I beg to give Notice that I will supplement that Question by asking the right hon. Gentleman, Whether any official of the Government who disapproves of their conduct is unfit to be in the Public Service?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I rise to say that the thanks of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) are not due to me. Mr. Preston was connected with the Land Commission, and his dismissal entirely concerned the Land Commissioners. As regards the argumentative Question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson), I shall be prepared on the proper occasion to give him a proper answer.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it was by his authority or under his instructions, or, if not, by whose authority or under whose instructions, that the Public Prosecutor appeared at the Lambeth Police Court, on 11th September 1883, to support a criminal information against two medical men, Dr. Bower and Mr. Keates, for the manslaughter of a child by the improper performance of the operation of tracheotomy, and by criminal negligence connected therewith; whether the medical officer of the Treasury, or any other medical adviser, was consulted before the Public Prosecutor was instructed to appear to support the charge; what were the circumstances which were held to justify the intervention of the Public Prosecutor in the case; whether he is aware that the magistrate, before whom the charge was heard, dismissed it without hearing the witnesses or the counsel for the defence, with the remark that it was "persecution rather than prosecu-

  425
  tion;" and, whether it is the intention of the Treasury to recompense Dr. Bower and Mr. Keates for the injury they have suffered from the appearance of the Public Prosecutor against them, and for the heavy expenses they have thereby been put to?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, as this matter did not come under the cognizance of the Home Secretary's Department, he would answer the Question. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had no knowledge whatever of the course taken by the Director of Public Prosecutions. He acted entirely on his own responsibility, and, he believed, acted rightly. He did not institute the proceedings in any way—in fact, when applied to at first, he refused to initiate proceedings. The father and mother of the child who died, on a sworn information, obtained a summons from Mr. Chance, the police magistrate, to summon these gentlemen before the Court. When that summons had been granted, the persons interested waited on the Director a second time, and stated that they were American subjects, and had no means of employing legal assistance. The facts were brought under the notice of the magistrate, and the Director of Public Prosecutions thought it right that they should have aid in a qualified sense. Special direction was given that a solicitor should attend and see that all the evidence, whether it told in favour of or against the accused, was properly-placed before the magistrate. The view was expressed that the Director of Public Prosecutions did rightly, and was entirely free from blame. There would be no compensation given in the case. As to the observation of the magistrate, that the charge was "persecution rather than prosecution," all he could say was that the witnesses in the case placed all the facts on both sides fully and impartially before him.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—THE PROCLAIMED MEETING AT KILLAVULLEN—A CHARGE AGAINST THE IRISH POLICE.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that, on the occasion of the proclaimed meeting at Killavullen on January 27th, the police charged a peaceable crowd before the
  426
  proclamation was read aloud by the resident magistrates and a reasonable time given for the dispersal of those present, as prescribed by section ten of the Crimes Act; by whom was the charge ordered; whether it is true that, as reported in The Cork Herald of January 26th—
  "The police rushed on the crowd, which included women and children, and struck them with the butts of their guns, the result being that two women, named Catherine Keeffe and Margaret Mahony, were badly injured, the latter sustaining several bruises on the side, while the former had a rib broken; "
  whether Mr. John O'Connor, on complaining that a woman had been violently thrown down by the police, was ordered into custody and assaulted by a policeman; whether it is true that bodies of people arriving at the village subsequently, unaware of the proclamation of the meeting (which was only notified publicly on that morning), were charged and assaulted by the police and pursued for several miles through the country; and, whether he is aware that the resident magistrate in charge (Mr. Eaton) had a few weeks previously declared from the bench that he knew this district for the last sixteen years, and did not know a more peaceful or orderly district in the country?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I am glad the hon. Gentleman has put this Question, as it affords me an opportunity of stating that the reports which have been circuculated with regard to this matter contain very great misrepresentations of the facts. Mr. O'Connor, of Cork, the principal promoter of the meeting, was served with a copy of the proclamation before he left Cork, yet he persisted in going to the proposed place of meeting. The proclamation had been posted early in the morning at every place of worship in the vicinity and the people obeyed it. There was no crowd and no police charge. Mr. O'Connor persisted in parleying with the Resident Magistrate, and about 40 or 50 people collected round and pressed in to hear what was going on. They were pushed back by the police, and two women, pressed upon by others of the party, fell. They were not badly injured, and they have since resumed their usual avocations. Mr. O'Connor was not assaulted by the police. When he persisted in remaining, in defiance of the proclamation, his arrest was ordered, but was not insisted upon or carried out.

  427
  A policeman laid his hand on him and advised him to go away quietly. It is not true that bodies of people, arriving afterwards, were charged and assaulted by the police, but a band of musicians were prevented from entering the village, and were followed by the police till they were clear of it. There is no doubt that they were aware that the meeting had been prohibited. Mr. Eaton's remark with regard to the state of the district referred to it as he had formerly known it. But very determined and continuous efforts have been made to get up an agitation against the payment of a police tax for constabulary stationed in the neighbourhood for the protection of a man named Hallissey, who had been cruelly "Boycotted" and threatened.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked whether it was customary in Ireland that when their superior officer ordered an arrest the police had discretionary power as to whether the arrest should be carried out?
  MR. HEALYasked were the misrepresentations referred to by the right hon. Gentleman in the police reports or in the public prints?
  MR. O'BRIEN: There is one portion of my Question that has not been answered. I asked whether the provisions of the Crimes Act had been carried out by the reading of the proclamation aloud, as required by the 10th section, and whether also a reasonable interval was allowed before the people were assaulted?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am not aware whether the proclamation was read aloud, but there was nobody to read it to, and Mr. O'Connor was served with a separate copy.
  MR. O'BRIEN: The second part of the Question has not been answered. Was sufficient time allowed to the people to disperse before a charge was made on what now is stated to be a very insignificant crowd?
  MR. TREVELYAN: According to my information there was no crowd.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CASTLEBAR PETTY SESSIONS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that at the Castlebar Petty Sessions on January 2nd the magistrates sentenced to seven days imprisonment a child named Anne Burke
  428
  for being found in a house from which her mother had been evicted; whether it is true that this child is only three years of age; whether, at the Petty Sessions held in the same place on January 23rd, Mary Burke, the mother of this girl, with Thomas and Catherine Burke, her children, were also fined for the same offence ten shillings, or in default a week's imprisonment with hard labour; whether it was legal to impose hard labour for such an offence; and, whether this sentence against the child of three years old will be carried out?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, this was a private prosecution for trespass. The case of Anne Burke was heard in her absence, as she did not appear in Court, and the magistrates, when passing sentence, were not aware of her ago. When informed of the fact, they at once directed that the warrant should not be executed. I am making further inquiry for the purpose of ascertaining how it happened that so young a child was summoned and who is responsible for such an occurrence. The case against the other members of the family was decided as stated. As regards the legality of the sentence that is a question of law as to which it is no part of my duty to express any opinion.
  MR. HARRINGTONgave Notice of further Questions on the subject.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—CASE OF WILLIAM HASTINGS.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that William Hastings, who had been sentenced in December last by Chief Justice May to six months' imprisonment, on a charge of a scandalous libel, was on Tuesday last released, by warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, when he had completed only two months of his term; whether he can state upon what grounds the Lord Lieutenant ordered this man's release, and at whose intervention; whether he can inform the House how often, during his present administration, the Lord Lieutenant extended this clemency to any prisoners convicted of a political offence; and, whether Hastings was treated during his imprisonment as a first class misdemeanant?
  MR. TREVELYAN: William Hastings was discharged by order of the Lord Lieutenant on Tuesday last on the

  429
  ground of ill-health, the medical officer of the prison having certified that he was of very delicate constitution, and that his life was likely to be endangered by further imprisonment. The case against him was a private prosecution for criminal libel, and was not a charge for a political offence. He was not treated during his imprisonment as a first-class misdemeanant, but his treatment as an ordinary convicted prisoner was modified to the extent of allowing him to communicate by letter with his friends and to supply himself with some books. The only case, so far as I am aware, of any person being imprisoned for a political offence since Lord Spencer came to Ireland was the case of Mr. Davitt and the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). In both these cases the term of imprisonment was shortened by the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked the right hon. Gentleman whether he did not consider the term of imprisonment with a plank bed which had been imposed on him (Mr. Harrington) was not for a political offence?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member's last Question was irregular, as it referred not to a matter of fact, but to an opinion.
  MR. HEALYasked whether the gentleman who had been released from prison was a person whose libels upon private individuals had been described by Chief Justice May as vile, scandalous, and atrocious; and whether the paper he published was not supported by Lord Spencer with Secret Service money?
  MR. TREVELYAN: As to the first Question, I believe it was so; as to the second, I cannot tell from what source the hon. Member gets his suggestions and ideas.
  MR. HEALY: You do not deny it.

  LABOURERS' (IRELAND) ACT, 1883—INTEREST ON LOANS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is a fact that the Lords of the Treasury have announced to the Poor Law Guardians in Ireland that they will charge at the rate of £5 7s. 2d. per annum for every hundred pounds borrowed under the powers of "The Labourers' (Ireland) Act, 1883," for the term of thirty-five years; and, whether it is true that all who borrow under the Land
  430
  Act of 1881 can do so for the same number of years at the rate of £5 per annum; and, if so, why it is that loans under the Labourers' Act should be charged 7s. 2d. per cent. per annum more than loans under the Land Act, notwithstanding the fact that the entire Union are security under the Labourers' Act?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the terms of repayment of these loans are those prescribed by the Labourers' Act, and there is no power to reduce the annuity to the figure of 5 per cent. as suggested by the hon. Member, that rate having been prescribed only by special clauses for loans under the Land Act.
  MR. O'SULLIVANwas understood to ask if the Labourers' Act did not provide that the loans should be repaid in instalments at the rate of £5 per annum for 35 years?
  MR. COURTNEY: No, Sir, there was no such provision.
  MR. O'SULLIVANintimated that he would ask a further Question on the subject.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—THE CATTLE TRADE BETWEEN ENGLAND AND IRELAND.
  MR. E. H. PAGETasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If he will immediately consider, in conjunction with the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, the propriety of suspending the cattle trade between England and Ireland for the last week of the present month, in order to secure the thorough cleansing and disinfection of all vessels employed in that trade, and thus prevent the serious risk of continuing the spread of foot and mouth disease by the constant infection of sound animals from Ireland when imported in tainted ships?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, this matter has been under consideration, and it was thought expedient to issue from the Privy Council in Dublin a Circular Letter to all Companies engaged in carrying animals from Ireland. The Companies were asked to adopt extra measures for the prevention of infection through the medium of vessels engaged in cross-Channel traffic; and it was pointed out that it would appea that this could best be done by tempo rarily withdrawing from the service each vessel, and by cleansing and disin-

  431
  fecting such vessel in a manner described in a Memorandum prepared by Professor Ferguson, and annexed to the Circular.

  UNION RATING (IRELAND)—LEGISLATION.
  COLONEL COLTHURSTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill to carry into effect the recommendations of the Select Committee of 1871, with reference to Union Eating in Ireland?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I regret to inform the hon. and gallant Member that I cannot hold out any prospect that the Government will introduce a Bill on this subject within any period that I am willing to name.

  IRELAND—ERECTION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN TOWNS BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES—LEGISLATION.
  COLONEL NOLANasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, If he will introduce a Bill to enable Town Commissioners to borrow money on the security of their tolls, for the purpose of building town halls?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, that the power had been expressly taken away by legislation, and was vested only in sanitary authorities. It was in the power of Town Commissioners to apply to have themselves made such, and it was not intended to introduce a Bill to confer the power referred to.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—RIFLE RANGES AT WORMWOOD SCRUBBS.
  MR. BOORDasked the Surveyor General of Ordnance, Whether it is intended to close the rifle ranges at Wormwood Serubbs, or to restrict the use of them in any way; and, if so, seeing how seriously such a course would impair the shooting efficiency of many Metropolitan Volunteer Regiments, whether another range, with equal facilities of access, will be provided in the immediate neighbourhood of the Metropolis?
  MR. BRAND: Sir, the Wormwood Serubbs ranges are now closed in consequence of the danger to the prison. In order to enable the Volunteers and other troops to continue rifle practice at
  432
  Wormwood Scrubbs, an officer was sent to Brussels to inspect the Tir National range in that city, which was stated to be perfectly safe. The report of this officer is now under consideration. There is no intention of providing another range in the immediate neighbourhood of the Metropolis, as it is believed that the Wormwood Serubbs ranges may be made perfectly safe.

  TURKEY IN ASIA—NAVIGATION OF THE TIGRIS AND EUPHRATES.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has obtained any success in regard to the free navigation of the Tigris and Euphrates?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No further interruption of the navigation on the Tigris and Euphrates has taken place. Negotiations are proceeding with the Porte for a permanent settlement of the question.

  FRANCE AND MADAGASCAR.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has received from the Government of France any precise statement of the objects for which hostilities are continued in the Island of Madagascar?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No statement beyond that contained in the Papers already laid before Parliament has been received from the Government of France.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: On that question I should like to ask why the Report of Commander Johnston, which detailed the insults offered to the British Flag, has not been published in the Blue Book?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Perhaps the hon. Member will give Notice of the Question.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE SHANNON.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is aware that much damage was caused last summer at Meelick by the neglect of the authorities to raise the new sluices on the Shannon, and thus to avert the summer

  433
  floods; and, if he will give directions that the sluices be raised in time next summer?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, on August 20th last I answered a Question to the same effect as this one. The slight delay which unfortunately occurred in raising the new sluices on the first occasion of their being brought into use will not recur. There have, I believe, been floods since last Summer, and no complaints have been received.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN)—THE TELEGRAMS.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can inform the House why the telegrams sent by Sir E. Malet to Hicks Pacha are not included in the Egyptian Papers lately published; and, whether he will lay upon the Table without delay any telegrams or other communications sent by Sir E. Malet or Sir E. Baring to any Egyptian officials in the Soudan? The right hon. Gentleman added: I may say, in explanation, that I refer to any telegrams or communications sent by Sir Edward Malet or Sir Evelyn Baring, and whether originating from Her Majesty's Government or the Egyptian Government.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Sir, the Foreign Office have no cognizance of any telegrams from Sir Edward Malet to General Hicks beyond that given as an inclosure in Egypt, No. 22, 1883, No. 80, and the telegram, the full substance of which is given in Sir Edward Malet's despatch of July 2, No. 59, page 72. Sir Edward Malet's telegram of June 22 to General Hicks, referred to in inclosure No. 2 in No. 58, page 7, was evidently an inquiry made respecting some Italian missionaries believed to have been captured by the Mahdi.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: May I ask the noble Lord whether the correspondence that has taken place between Sir Evelyn Wood and General Hicks will be produced? Some letters have passed, I know, between these officials, and I think they ought to be produced.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I think that is a Question of which I may fairly ask Notice.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Do I understand the noble Lord that no telegram or other communication has passed between Sir Edward Malet or Sir Evelyn Baring and any Egyptian officials except those which he has named?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I answered the Question on the Paper.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: The Question on the Paper is this—
  "Why the telegrams sent by Sir E. Male to Hicks Pacha are not included in the Egyptian Papers lately published; and, whether the Government will lay upon the Table without delay any telegrams or other communications sent by Sir E. Malet or Sir E. Baring to any Egyptian officials in the Soudan?"
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: My answer, I think, quite covered the second part of the Question as well as the first—namely, that the Foreign Office had no cognizance whatever of any such communications.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: May I ask the noble Lord, and, if he does not like to answer it, I will give him Notice of it for to-morrow, whether it is a positive fact that the Foreign Office are unaware that the following telegram was sent from Sir Edward Malet to General Hicks Pasha:—
  "Orders have been sent by Cherif Pahsa to Suleiman Pasha, the Egyptian commander-in-chief in the Soudan, that no military movements are to be made without your advice and consent, and, consequently, that you are virtually commander-in-chief; that if he hears from yourself that your orders are disobeyed Cherif Pahsa will repeat them; and that you cannot be made commander-in-chief because the rebellion is a religious one, and if a Christian were publicly appointed to the head of the army to put it down, it would probably fan fanaticism."
  I wish to ask if such a telegram could have been sent without the Foreign Office being cognizant of it; and whether the noble Lord will say whether such a telegram was sent, and, if it was, was it not strictly an official telegram, for which Her Majesty's Government must be directly responsible?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I shall be obliged to ask the noble Lord to put that Question on the Notice Paper.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I have another Question—if the noble Lord cannot answer it now I will give Notice of it—whether he will inquire from Sir Edward Malet and Sir Evelyn

  435
  Baring if any such communications or telegrams have been addressed by them; and, if so, whether copies of them will be laid on the Table?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Certainly I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of that Question.
  MR. O'DONNELL: With regard to the telegram of which the noble Lord knows nothing, and of a Question as to which he requires Notice, is it true that the telegram is already printed in No. 2?
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it has been brought to the knowledge of Her Majesty's Government that the Egyptian authorities lately set on foot a system of man-hunting to get recruits for Baker Pacha's regiments to fight the Mahdi; whether, at Zagazig and other Railway Stations, black men were seen chained together by the neck, and guarded by Baker Pacha's gendarmerie; whether these were men who had been pressed or captured to serve against the Mahdi, and whether these prisoners were described as. "volunteers;" whether about one hundred and fifty such "volunteers" were obtained in a few days in the neighbourhood of Zagazig; whether he is aware that Baker Pacha stated openly in Cairo that all he could do with such men as those placed under his command would be to shut himself up at Souakim or get massacred in an attempt to reach Berber; and, whether the enrolment of "volunteers" above described, and the opinions of Baker Pacha, were known to the English representatives at Cairo some six weeks ago?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No reports in this sense have been received at the Foreign Office.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: In consequence of the answer of the noble Lord, I shall, on the earliest day, call attention to the subject.

  ARMY—MILITARY STAFF CLERKS.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has any objection to lay before the House a Return showing the number of Commissions obtained by Military Staff Clerks of the General Staff, as compared with the numbers of those obtained by
  436
  Non-Commissioned Officers of all other branches of the Service?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the hon. Member can have the Return if he will move for it as for a definite period—say the last five years.

  TUNIS—THE CONSULAR JURISDICTION.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether, in surrendering the British Consular Jurisdiction to the French, in Tunis, any arrangement was entered into for the settlement of pending claims of British subjects; and, whether any steps have been taken to give effect to this arrangement?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Papers laid before Parliament contain a full answer to the Question of the hon. Member. Steps are being taken to give effect to the arrangement for the settlement of pending claims.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the noble Lord state whether there is any chance of these claims being settled within a reasonable time? They amount to about £500,000.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I have just stated that steps are being taken to give effect to the arrangements for a settlement.

  THE BANKRUPTCY ACT—APPOINTMENT OF RECEIVERS.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is a fact that before the appointments to Receiverships in Bankruptcy in certain towns were made, Liberal Members of Parliament were allowed to address the officials of the Board in elaborate speeches in support of particular candidates?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, I think this Question is rather an extraordinary one, and I have not the least idea of what it refers to; but I will endeavour to answer it with that disqualification. I am not aware that there is anything which prevents Members of Parliament, whether Liberals or Tories, addressing officials of the Board of Trade upon any subject; but I certainly think that it is quite unnecessary that they should address them in elaborate speeches, because all my officials, as far as I know,

  437
  are very intelligent, and would understand what was meant without any-elaborate explanation.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if after the Liberal Members of Parliament had addressed the officials of the Board of Trade with regard to these appointments, he can still say he was ignorant of the politics of the candidates for the offices?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: What I have stated is, that I am not aware of the politics of the majority of the gentlemen who have been appointed. [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] Oh, yes; I am certain that I am absolutely correct in what I am saying—that I was not aware of the politics of the majority of the gentlemen who have received these appointments. In some few cases I do know what their politics were. For instance, I know that the politics of the gentleman whom I have appointed for Birmingham are Conservative. That statement, therefore, is absolutely correct; but in reference to what the hon. Member had said, I have already told him I am not aware of any case in which any Member, whether Liberal or Tory, has been addressing elaborate speeches to the Board of Trade in support of particular candidates.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I will ask the right hon. Gentleman if the junior Member for Edinburgh did not address the officials of the Board of Trade in a speech of three quarters of an hour's length in support of the candidature of the candidate for Sheffield?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I think it is a Question which had better be addressed to the junior Member for Edinburgh. All I can say is, that this is the first time I have heard of any such incident.
  MR. DIXON - HARTLAND: After the answers I have received from the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to give Notice that I shall, at the earliest possible moment, move the following Resolution:—
  "That in the opinion of this House the extensive patronage conferred on the President of the Board of Trade under the Bankruptcy Act of 1883 has been used for political purposes; and that the violation of the pledges given to this House with regard to the exercise of this patronage deserves the severest reprobation of Parliament."

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RECENT ORANGE MEETING IN DUBLIN—THE COUNTY COURT JUDGE OF ARMAGH AND LOUTH.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. R. W. Gamble, Q.C. who attended a recent Orange meeting, held in Dublin, in support of Lord Rossmore, and in condemation of the Executive for having superseded him in the Commission of the Peace, and who by his presence concurred in those proceedings, is the same person as Robert Wilson Gamble, Q.C. County Court Judge of Armagh and Louth; and whether, if so, the Government will consider whether it can be allowed that a person in a judicial position should publicly associate himself with approval of the conduct of a superseded magistrate and with attacks upon the Government?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Question has only been recently placed on the Paper, and I have not been able to ascertain myself, nor have been able to learn from Dublin, what meeting it is the Question refers to.
  MR. SEXTON: The meeting on the 24th January in the Rotunda.
  MR. TREVELYAN: Now that I am aware of the date I shall make inquiries.
  MR. SEXTON: I shall repeat the Question on Thursday.

  FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (IRELAND)-PORTUMNA FAIR.
  COLONEL NOLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the district around Portumna is free from foot and mouth disease; and, if so, will he grant a licence to hold a fair in that locality?
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, that the Lord Lieutenant had agreed to the granting of a licence for Portumna Fair on the 15th instant, provided no new outbreak occurred in the meantime.

  IRELAND-PAYMENT TO SURGEON WHEELER.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland, By whose advice was Surgeon Wheeler's demand against the Government (for attendance on a wounded landlord) resisted; whether it was deposed in evidence that the Government were willing to pay him £700,

  439
  while his claim was £1,147 18 s.; whether the Government employed the Attorney General, the Solicitor General, and Mr. Dodd (instructed by Mr. Lane Joynt), to resist his claim before a jury; if he can state what amount was marked on the briefs of the Government lawyers, and how much they obtained as "refreshers;" whether it is the fact that the Government ultimately admitted in Court the full claim of Surgeon Wheeler, that the case was withdrawn from the jury, and that they had to pay, in addition to their own costs, the costs of three opposing Queen's Counsel; and, if he can state what the taxed costs of the Plaintiff amounted to, and how much the suit has cost the Government altogether beyond the £1,147 18 s. originally claimed, which they subsequently admitted in Court was due to Surgeon Wheeler?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER), who was very imperfectly heard, said, the demand was resisted on the advice of the then Attorney General and Solicitor General for Ireland. The Government considered the claim too large, but were willing to pay £700 on foot of it. The Government employed the counsel named in the Question. It had never been usual to state the amounts marked on the briefs of Crown lawyers, and he could not state the amounts. The Government defended the action on the faith of a memorandum of terms which had boon handed to Surgeon Wheeler by direction of the late Mr. Burke, who was afterwards assassinated. After the trial had been commenced, Mr. Wheeler stated that he had had a conversation with Mr. Hamilton, in which the amount of the fees was agreed upon. Mr. Hamilton, when appealed to, although he could not recollect the conversation, would not undertake to swear what occurred. Hence the Government admitted the claim, and, as a matter of course, had to bear the costs of both sides. The taxed costs amounted to £208 14 s. 7d., and the suit would cost the Government, as he was informed, about £400, in addition to the £1,147 18 s.
  MR. HEALYgave Notice that on the Estimates he would move to reduce the salary of the hon. and learned Gentleman by £400.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER)said, he
  440
  thought it right to mention that on the occasion in question he happened to be counsel for Surgeon Wheeler.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION—LEGISLATION.
  MR. H. TOLLEMACHEasked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, If the Government have any intention of bringing in a Bill this Session for the Conservancy of Rivers and Prevention of Floods?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, Bills for this purpose have been introduced in five Sessions by the late and by the present Governments. That is not in itself a very encouraging circumstance. At the same time, I am so sensible of the need and the strong desire for such a measure in parts of the country that, notwithstanding the difficulties which beset any measure that would deal effectually with the subject, I shall be disposed, if the progress of Business should afford a reasonable prospect that the judgment of the House could be obtained upon it, to bring one in.

  PARLIAMENTARY PAPERS (IRELAND)—DELAY IN PRESENTATION.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can explain the delay in presenting the Returns granted by the House last year on the subject of Trial of Prisoners; Valuations in Boroughs and Counties; and, Evidence in the Lease Clause of the Land Act?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied, that he thought there was no avoidable delay. The Returns were ordered quite late last Session. The first two were presented on the 22nd August; but the House did not order their circulation. He thought there might be some better system of communication between private Members and the Irish Office as to Returns. The first Return was now deposited with the Librarian; the Return on Valuations was, he believed, laid on the Table to-day. The Reports of Evidence in cases under Section 21 of the Land Act would, he understood, be ready in a few days.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he was much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and asked the Secretary to the Treasury, who had the appointment of the Committee for printing the

  441
  Returns, was it the fact that private Members who obtained Returns which were not ordered to be printed by the House had to ask the Librarian, who acted for the Committee, for permission to see them, whereas the Returns obtained by Members of the Government were printed as a matter of course?
  MR. COURTNEY: Oh, no; it is not a matter of course at all. It is a matter of discretion.

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact, as stated by the Paris correspondent of The Times, that active negotiations are going on between France and England with a view to the co-operation of the former power in the struggle against the Mahdi and the pacification of the Soudan; and, whether it is contemplated to issue another joint Note?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statement to which the hon. Member refers has certainly been made in error. I am aware of no such negotiations.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a letter from Tewfik Bey, Commander of Sinkat, which appeared in The Standard newspaper of the 22nd, and especially to the following portion:—
  "I am in a very miserable position from want of proper provisions. I will do my utmost to resist up to the end of January, but unhappily I have hardly enough provisions to last to the 23rd. I pray you to induce the Government to send a relieving force with provisions as soon as possible, even before the 15th of January, after which our condition will be miserable in the extreme. The soldiers have become weak, and grave sickness has already begun; should the worst come to the worst, we will endeavour to cut our way through, when our fate is in the hand of God; "
  and to the following remarks of the Correspondent of The Standard:
  "Whether Sinkat falls in the meantime or is relieved, the above letter is interesting, and worthy of publication, as showing the indomitable spirit of this young civilian. If all those who hold the Khedive's commission had but a tenth part of Tewfik's pluck and energy, the regeneration of Egypt would be an easy task. The garrison of themselves would have yielded long ago were it not for the determination of their leader; "
  and, whether, in view of the fact that this brave officer and his garrison are in
  442
  deadly peril within thirty miles of the Red Sea coast, of which Her Majesty's Forces are now in occupation, Her Majesty's Ministers will take immediate stops to rescue the garrison of Sinkat from destruction; also, whether his attention had been called to the following communication from the Correspondent of The Times in that morning's paper:—
  "Within four days of a British Army, 7,000 strong, within a few hours of a port where a British Admiral is tardily allowed to take the supreme command, are a small starving garrison who, having given signs of unusual heroism, are allowed to treat with barbarians for their bare lives, this request being refused, and the whole of them probably massacred? "
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Before my right hon. Friend replies to this Question, I beg to ask him three other Questions, of which I have given him private Notice. First, Whether the Government has received any information confirming the telegram from Cairo, through Router's Agency, in this morning's newspaper, stating that—
  "A less gloomy view now prevails concerning Tokar and Sinkat. It is reported that a convoy of provisions has succeeded in entering Sinkat."
  Second, Whether it is not the fact that Sinkat is less than 40 miles from Suakim, which is now occupied by a British force, and that Tokar is less than 20 miles from the port of Trinkitat, which is within a few hours' sail of Suakim? I ask these two Questions in the hope that the relief of these garrisons is still not impossible; and I, therefore, also ask my right hon. Friend whether the Government intend to take any steps to relieve the garrison of Sinkat, or that of Tokar?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With regard to matters to which the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) calls my attention, the first of them relates to a state of circumstances long gone by, and with regard to which we can only say we regret that the present circumstances are more hard and grievous than existed before. With respect to the statement made this morning to which he refers, it appears that, so far as I can catch the purport of it, that it is more a question for debate and discussion than for an answer to a Question. The Question of the hon. Member associates itself with the wider Question put to me by my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster), to which I will reply. I will say that I

  443
  have no doubt that the statement of distances given by my right hon. Friend is probably accurate. On the Question itself I would say at the present moment we are very sensible of the deep interest attaching to the question of the extrication of the whole of the Egyptian garrisons from the Soudan, with respect to which we are not able to say positively, except as to the garrison of Khartoum, what is the actual condition of any of them. We share entirely the deep sympathy which is felt for those garrisons. But with regard to the inquiry whether it is in the view of the Government practicable to make any attempt towards the relief of the two garrisons in particular, I would say that we quite recognize the special features in the case of those two comparatively very limited garrisons; but it would not be possible for me, in an answer to a Question, to mate a statement satisfactory to the House. Conditions, diversity, and importance beyond what my right hon. Friend seems to contemplate by his inquiry are involved. All I can say is, I think the only satisfactory course would be, that in the very earliest opportunity in my power, in the debate to-morrow, I should state fully the views of the Government upon this question, that it can be made the subject of free comment, and when, also, I hope to be in possession of somewhat fuller material.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the first part of the Question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: We have no telegram upon the subject whatever.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Can the right hon. Gentleman state whether Sinkat and Tokar are within the territory over which Admiral Hewett has assumed a British Protectorate, and whether it is the case that the officers and crews of a French and an Italian man-of-war wished to land at Suakim in order to protect the interest of foreigners at that place, and whether they were prohibited from doing so by Admiral Hewett?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I wish, first of all, to refer to the term "Protectorate," which the noble Lord inadvertently used; and which, he says, Admiral Hewett has assumed over a certain portion of territory. There is no such Protectorate. But Admiral Hewett has received full authority as Governor to act
  444
  in Suakim itself, both on the island and on shore.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: From whom?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Naturally he has received authority from the Ruler of the country. That I assume to be the case, just in the same manner as General Gordon has received a commission with regard to the Soudan. I make no doubt of it. Then the noble Lord asks whether the crews of French and Italian vessels have expressed a desire to land in Suakim for the protection of their respective nationalities, and have been prevented. We have no intelligence, I think, of any sort to that effect; and, moreover, I do not think it likely that any such refusal would be necessary, because, I believe, there is not the smallest doubt with regard to the security of Suakim under the orders of Admiral Hewett.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Would the right hon. Gentleman favour us—I do not ask for the minute instructions—but can he favour us with the nature of Admiral Howett's appointment or appointments? He is, I understand, in the service of Her Majesty. I presume he has some commission from Her Majesty on the subject, and apparently, from what the right hon. Gentleman has said, he has also a commission from the Egyptian Government. It would be very convenient if we could be informed of the nature of those powers which are given to him.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: As Admiral Hewett is Admiral commanding-in-chief of the East Indian Station, and is in full pay of Her Majesty, is he not in command of Her Majesty's ships?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Well, Sir, I believe that the intelligence of Admiral Hewett's command has been conveyed to Her Majesty's Government in the very briefest and most succinct and decisive terms, and I cannot imagine that there can be any difficulty in presenting it to the House.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to decline to state to the House until to-morrow, whether the Government intend to take effective measures for relief of the garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar or not? It seems to me that this is a question—[Ministerial cries of "Order!"]—which, in order to allay the intense anxiety of

  445
  the country on the subject—["Order, order!"]—ought to be answered without a moment's delay. I do not ask for any details, but for a simple answer to the Question.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am very sorry—though I attach all due weight to the opinion of the hon. Gentleman—that I cannot answer the Question further than I have already done. My object is to lay the views of the Government and the information that they possess before the House in such a manner that it can he made the subject of debate. I have already stated that it is not in my power at present to fulfil that intention. The hon. Gentleman really speaks as if it were in our power to create means of observation by the word of command. That is not so.
  LORD JOHN MANNERS: May I ask this Question of the right hon. Gentleman? I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he purposes tomorrow to place before the House the views and opinions of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the possible relief of these garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar. What I think the House really wants to know is not what are the views and opinions of Her Majesty's Government, but what have been or are to be their acts. I therefore venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether we are to understand that no instructions have been sent, either to Sir William Hewett, or any other British commander, to procure the release and safety of the garrisons?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The instructions and the actions of Her Majesty's Government will be conformable to their views and intentions, subject to the correction of Parliament, and I must decline, after what I have said, to enter upon any question as to what Her Majesty's Government have done or have not done down to the present moment, only stating that it will, in my opinion, be found by Parliament that no part of this case has been neglected by them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I hope I am not out of Order in saying I understand my right hon. Friend's answers, especially the first, to be that although he cannot give a definite reply to-day, yet that the Government have not come to an absolute decision or given up all hopes of relieving these garrisons. ["No, no!" and "Hear, hear!"] I
  446
  assume that to be the tenour of his first reply. I wish also to ask whether the Government have received confirmation of the report that General Gordon has arrived at Berber; and also whether they have heard if he has or has not left Berber?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I not wonder at all at what has been stated by my right hon. Friend; but if I were to make any comment upon it, probably it would lead to discussion beyond the Rules of the House. Respecting General Gordon, we have received intelligence of his arrival at Berber. I may also state that General Gordon has informed us—of course very briefly and succinctly—that he has received numerous messages, but he does not state from where; but I have no doubt these are messages from within the Soudan, expressing pleasure at his appointment. We do not know whether General Gordon has left Berber.
  MR. GIBSON: Bearing in mind that we are on a question of hours, and of vital importance, and that these garrisons may be massacred within the next 12 hours, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the authority given to Admiral Hewett comprises in it a discretion, if he is able to act with the powers at his disposal, to march to the relief of Tokar to-night or to-morrow morning?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already been obliged by considerations of my public duty to decline to make any further statement on the subject.
  VISCOUNT EMLYN: Is there any truth in the report which appeared in The Standard of to-day to the effect that the military authorities at the War Office have given orders that no more English officers shall be allowed to join the Egyptian Army?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: That statement is not accurate. No such orders have been given. It is, however, the fact that, looking to the efficiency of the British troops serving in India, it is not desirable that more officers or noncommissioned officers should be taken from that force to serve in the Egyptian Army. No obstacle will be placed in the way of a supply of officers and non-commissioned officers from home.
  SIR JOHN HAY: I wish to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, if he will inform the House whether any special telegraphic instructions have been sent

  447
  to Admiral Hewett, who as Commander-in-Chief in the East Indies and Red Sea, has no authority to act upon the Littoral or upon the shores of the Red Sea without instructions from home; and, if so, what are his instructions?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: We are in constant communication by telegraph with the Admiral; and no doubt any instructions given to him will be announced to the House by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government to-morrow, so far as he thinks it right to do so.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I wish to ask whether I am quite right in understanding that it is the deliberate intention of the Prime Minister that the House and the country shall be left in absolute uncertainty until to-morrow as to whether the Government intend to take any means or no means at all to relieve these garrisons?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers, I should like to ask him a Question with reference to his reply to the last part of my Question, as to whether the Government intend to take immediate steps for relieving these garrisons? The right hon. Gentleman stated that it was not in the hands of Her Majesty's Government to take these steps.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I said nothing of the kind.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Now, I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman this Question—Is it not the fact that on the 22nd of December last Sir William Hewett gave Her Majesty's Ministers full information of the state of peril in which the garrisons were; and whether it is not the fact that, within four or five days' march, at the furthest, from Suakim, there are 7,000 British troops available?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman refers to what Sir William Hewett knew with regard to these garrisons in December. I do not recollect dates or particulars; but unquestionably there was knowledge at that time that these garrisons were in danger. Perhaps I might extend that, and say that there were other garrisons in the Soudan which were in danger. The hon. Gentleman seems to forget that at and after that time means were organized by the Egyptian Government for the relief of those garrisons, which it
  448
  was believed and confidently expected would prove sufficient.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I wish to ask whether the Government will give the House any Papers before the debate to-morrow? [Ministerial cries of "No!"] Why not?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I will take care to communicate with my noble Friend. I do not know what the state of the case may be. It is a matter for the Foreign Office. I will take care that the latest information is laid on the Table—the latest that can be had tonight.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I am speaking not only of the Foreign Office, but also of the Admiralty. Why should we not have all this information in our hands?
  MR. W. H. SMITH: It is of the highest importance that the despatches of the Admiralty in particular should be laid on the Table; because the right hon. Gentleman can understand that Sir William Hewett could not have taken the position offered by the Khedive without the sanction of the Government.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I perfectly understand that, and I may say confidently that what has been done has been done with the concurrent action, so far, of the two Governments, the permission of Her Majesty's Government apparently being necessary. I quite agree with what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman, but I am not able to commit the Representatives of the two Departments, but they will do their best to lay their Papers on the Table.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I wish to ask whether there is any truth in the statement which has been made public to the effect that General Gordon has requested that decorations should be forwarded to him for distribution among the population of the Soudan; and, if so, whether the right hon. Gentleman can state the nature of those decorations, and whether they are of English or Egyptian origin?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am not of opinion that any advantage is to be gained to the Public Service by giving details of the means which General Gordon would have to use in the execution of his most difficult duty. The right hon. Gentleman will understand that it is not through any discourtesy that I decline to answer him.
  MR. ONSLOW: I wish to ask the Government, whether it is intended to ask for a Vote of Credit to cover the cost of the despatch of troops and ships of war?
  SIR HENRY TYLER: Will the right hon. Gentleman toll us what amount of force we have available at the Red Sea?
  [No answer was given to these Questions.]

  SOUTH AFRICA—CETEWAYO—REPORTED DEATH.
  COLONEL MAKINS: I beg to ask the Under Secretary for the Colonies, Whether the Government have received any official confirmation of the melancholy tidings of the death of Cetewayo?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Yes, Sir. We received a telegram, which was published in all the papers on Saturday.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH).
  Mr. BRADLAUGH, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton, without being called upon by Mr. Speaker, advanced to the Table. Mr. Speaker thereupon called him to. Order; but he nevertheless proceeded to read from a paper, in his hand, the words of the Oath, and having kissed a book which he had brought with him, signed the said paper, and left the same on the Table.
  Mr. SPEAKER, having again called Mr. Bradlaugh to Order, addressed him as follows:—"Mr. Bradlaugh, you have come to the Table without being called by me, according to the Rules and Orders of the House, and have gone through the form of taking and subscribing the Oath, in your own way, without any of the prescribed formalities; and I must call upon you to withdraw until the House has considered your conduct, and the position you have assumed."
  And Mr. BRADLAUGH withdrew accordingly, below the Bar.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I need hardly say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Prime Minister, the Leader of this House, desires to rise I will give him the opportunity; but, assuming that he does not, I intend to do so, and I see no
  450
  indication of his intention to do so, I shall call the attention of the House to the position in which we stand. It appears to me that the proceeding which we have just witnessed on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh is not in the nature of taking the Oath in accordance with what the Statute law prescribes. Of course, it is necessary that the Oath should be taken when you, Mr. Speaker, are in the Chair; and at the moment when the Oath, or the form of taking the Oath, was gone through you were not in the Chair—you were standing on the step, and you were calling the hon. Gentleman to Order. Under these circumstances, I understand that the matter is entirely open to us. I, therefore, propose this Resolution, which is the same as that moved and carried in this House in several previous Sessions of Parliament—
  "That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and of the 4th May 1883, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh he not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and of the 4th May 1883, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. C. 72."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think it may be convenient that I should follow immediately the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman has acted with perfect courtesy—there was no indication of an intention on my part to address the House or occupy its attention. It was a serious question—when first the Government found that they were unhappily placed in a state of difficulty with the House—it was a serious question, on which there were differences of opinion, whether the Government ought, or ought not, to have made themselves so far the instruments and servants of the House as to take the initiative in giving effect to a Resolution of which they deeply and pro-

  451
  foundly disapproved. But the decision was taken by us, and we adhered to it for several years; and the House, I think, will feel that to recede from it now would be a proceeding totally without dignity on our part, and quite hopeless of giving satisfaction to anybody. It is much better that the right hon. Gentleman, who represents on this occasion the judgment of the majority of the House, should indicate to the House what he thinks the proper course to take, and that then we should listen to what he states in an equitable and candid spirit. Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has given us his construction—he has put his own construction—upon the act which has just been performed by Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, and I will give my reasons why I do not follow him in placing any construction whatever upon it. It has been discovered in the course of these proceedings that if Mr. Bradlaugh should sit and vote in this House, so as to raise the question of penalty, that question could not be effectively raised at the issue of a private individual. That being so, the question occurred to us whether it would not be our duty, on the part of the Crown, to raise that question competently in a Court of Justice, should the case arise. Now, Sir, our impression is that it would be our duty so to raise the question, and it might then become the office of the Court to declare whether Mr. Bradlaugh had taken the Oath or not. On that account, I think it is the much better way that I should avoid giving any opinion whatever on that subject. There is another view of the case with which we have to deal. The right hon. Gentleman has made a Motion, with regard to which now I say, as I have admitted on former occasions, that it is fair and legitimate and consequential on the previous decisions of the House. My own opinion on that decision remains exactly as it was. I believe that almost the vast majority of those who sit on this side of the House regard the decision as unconstitutional. For my own part, as an individual, and speaking with due submission and deference, I do not see in what way it is to be divested of the character of being contrary to law. But, Sir, that is not the question. It is not the function, or the duty, or the usage of an Executive Government, dif-
  452
  fering from the House of Commons on a particular point again and again to dispute the decision a which the House has arrived. Our view is known—there is no doubt or question about it. I recognize that the right hon. Gentleman, having induced the House to come to a decision, is bound in consistency to take certain consequential proceedings which are, or may be, necessary to prevent the order of the House from being disturbed by acts that are in themselves irregular and contrary to our established usage. On that account, although I may not be friendly to any part of these proceedings, I shall certainly not be the person to take the initiative in any opposition to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman. Last year we had a Division upon the subject, which I deprecated, but in which I felt compelled to take part, agreeing with the proposition for which I voted, and feeling that for Members of the Executive Government, who represent the Crown in this House, to avoid the difficulty of a Division by retiring from the House, is not a mode of proceeding that can be considered satisfactory. But unless there is reason to suppose that some great change has taken place in the judgment of the House, I certainly would venture to express a hope that the right hon. Gentleman may be permitted to work out his way without a Division. ["No, no!"] It may be so; but I am only respectfully expressing the opinion which seems to me most, upon the whole, to tend to peace among us on a question of pure Order, which ought not to be mixed up with any other consideration. I think the Division that took place last year was somewhat injurious, because it did not afford a real expression of the opinion of the House on the original question. A much smaller number of persons opposed the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman last year than had opposed it when the question of principle was fairly raised. On that account, I see no advantage to the case in repeating a Division of that kind; and I venture respectfully to express the hope—though it is not a very sanguine hope—that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) may be inclined to spare the House a Division. That is the only consideration that I think it my duty to lay before the House; and I think the House will feel that the right hon. Gen-

  453
  tleman is right in working out the consequential principle that he has, unfortunately, induced the House to adopt, and that we are in our right in respecting the decision of the House, in so far as to avoid being parties to the expenditure of valuable public time.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to a point of Order. I understood you, Sir, to state to the House that a serious breach of the Rules of the House had been committed. Mr. Bradlaugh, without any authority from you, Sir, or any pretence that he was acting in conformity with the Rules of the House, has performed an Oath in his own fashion; and, under the circumstances, I want to know if it is competent to raise any fresh matter, or antiquarian matter, while that question of the breach of the Orders of the House remains unsettled, and which, I must say, I can only regard as a piece of blasphemous buffoonery?
  MR. SPEAKER: With respect to the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), I am of opinion that that Motion bears upon the matter before the House, and is in Order.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I am sorry to say I have not quite so much confidence in the Leader of the Opposition as the Prime Minister has. As I understand his Motion, it covers the whole Session, and that is a fair reason why I should object to it; because, even supposing there may be a decision by a Court of Law in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, yet, if this Motion were carried, Mr. Bradlaugh would not be allowed to appear and take his seat in the House. That is the reason why I oppose it, and ask the House to vote against it. If that is not the case, and if the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his Motion shall only hold good until a decision is taken, we can take a Division immediately. ["No, no!"] I understand that the right hon. Gentleman does not assent to that, and that I am right in my views of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman. On Saturday last Mr. Justice Stephen expressed the following views from the Judicial Bench:—
  "The right of the burgesses of Northampton, I think, to be represented in Parliament, and the right of their duly-elected Representative to sit and vote in Parliament, and to enjoy the rights incidental to his position, in the terms provided by law, are, in the most emphatic sense, legal rights—legal rights of the highest
  454
  importance, and in the strictest sense of the word."
  Then, after dividing those rights into rights of which the Court might take cognizance, and rights which must be left to the judgment of the House, he says, with regard to the latter, that hon. Members
  "Are bound, by the most solemn obligations that can bind men to any course of conduct whatever, to guide their conduct by the law as they understand it. If they misunderstand it, or—I apologize for the supposition—if they wilfully disregard it, they resemble mistaken or unjust Judges."
  Now, as it appears to mo that hon. Members on the opposite side of the House have never taken the trouble to find out what the law is, with their permission I will tell them. I can tell them in a very few words what the law is if they do not know. There is no question about it; it is written law—Statute law. This is the law. The Statute says—
  "The Oath hereby appointed shall in every Parliament be solemnly and publicly made and subscribed by every Member of the …. House of Commons at the Table, in the middle of the said House, and whilst a full House is there duly sitting, with the Speaker in the Chair, according to such Regulations as each House by its Standing Orders shall order."
  Hon. Gentlemen seem to think that the Standing Orders cover the course they have taken. This is the only Standing Order on the subject—
  "That Members may take and subscribe the Oath required by law, at any time during the sitting of the House, before the Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion have been entered on, or after they have been disposed of; but no debate or business shall be interrupted for that purpose."—(Rules and Orders, No. 23.)
  Now, where do hon. Gentlemen find that the Oath has to be administered, or that the Member has to be called on by the Speaker? We assert, rightly or wrongly, that a Member derives his right to go to the Table by his election, and that neither Mr. Speaker nor the House has the slightest right to prevent him. I will quote the language of Mr. Justice Stephen. ["Oh, oh!"] Do hon. Gentlemen object? [An hon. MEMBER: Yes.] He said—
  "If a man is to give evidence before a Court of Justice, he cannot take an oath unless it is administered to him, unless he is called on to come forward as a witness, and unless the officer of the Court, by some appropriate action—for instance, repeating the words of the oath, and handing him the book, or by whatever other

  455
  method—does call on him to take an oath, and administer it. This Act"—the Act I have read—"says nothing about administering it, but simply that the Member of the House may take and subscribe it, which he may do himself, as far as I can see."
  I have read from the Act of Parliament, from the Standing Orders, and from the opinion of Mr. Justice Stephen; and will any Gentleman with any species of legal knowledge venture to get up in this House and assert that the Act and the Standing Orders are not as I have stated them, or that Mr. Justice Stephen is wrong in his interpretation of the Act? I challenge anyone to do it, and I am perfectly convinced that no one with any knowledge of the law would think of doing so for a moment. I might with perfect right go through the whole case of Mr. Bradlaugh's contention with this House; but I can perfectly understand the desire of my own Friends even that I should not do so. and I will not do so. I will only point out to the House that the real point of contention between Mr. Bradlaugh and the House was this—Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that the declaration of allegiance, coupled with the Oath, was binding upon him, but that the words of the Oath which follow the declaration were to him an unmeaning form. That, I think, was perfectly well admitted, and I need not prove it. Well, I confess that, for my part, I do regard those words of the Oath as an utterly unmeaning form—utterly and absolutely an unmeaning form. To me they are just the same superstitious incantation as the trash of any Mumbo-Jumbo among African savages. ["Oh, oh!"] Why do hon. Gentlemen say "Oh, oh?" Are they aware that there are many in this House who regard those words as a blasphemous form? I say I regard them as an unmeaning form. Will anyone who says "Oh, oh!" get up and say what they do mean? I say distinctly and clearly that I do not myself know what they mean. I deny that there can be in any sort of way two measures of truth. When you ask a man to assert a thing, and then ask him to swear to it, practically you say that you do not believe his assertion unless he is willing to swear to it afterwards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright) makes an Affirmation. When you say that this Oath strengthens the Affirmation, you say that you are not to believe my
  456
  right hon. Friend—["No, no!"]—yes; and that is what I complain of; you say that you cannot believe my right hon. Friend in the same sense as you would believe anyone who had coupled the affirmation with an oath. There is no other sense in the thing. I shall he glad if anyone will tell mo what the words mean; I do not know. I do not understand the meaning of the Oath, and I object entirely to it. I say that when Mr. Bradlaugh asserted that the Oath was an unmeaning form, he spoke in strict accordance with the fact. The last time a discussion took place on the subject the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock favoured us with the opinions of several Fathers of the Church.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I bog the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I did not quote a single Father of the Church.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well some people connected with the Church. For my part, I confess that it is a matter of perfect indifference to me what any Father of the Church thinks on this subject; but for the benefit of hon. Members opposite I will cite what the father of English philosophical jurisprudence (Jeremy Bentham) thinks upon the whole subject. [The hon. Member read a quotation to the effect that to attempt to exclude Atheists by Oaths would only exclude those who objected to take an Oath, while those who would swallow the Oath could not be excluded by such means, and thus the Oath afforded no guarantee for the exclusion of immorality or irreligion. It could not be pretended that clergymen would stick at perjury, for they took it in with their mother's milk, and it was their meat and drink.]
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether it is in accordance with the Rules of the House that the succession of coarse and gratuitous insults which the hon. Gentleman has offered down to the present moment, in the course of his speech, to the religion of almost every Member of the House—whether the tissue of coarse and gratuitous insults which the hon. Member has just offered, in a perfectly deliberate manner, to the religion of every Member of the House, is to be permitted as being in accordance with the Orders of the House? Is there no Rule to impose decency upon the hon. Member?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) is making these observations upon his own responsibility, and I have not thought it any part of my duty to interfere with the hon. Member.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Of course, the hon. Gentleman is himself a great judge of what is right and proper in this matter; but, Sir, I do think that the public are really beginning to thoroughly understand this question, When Mr. Bradlaugh first came forward in this House, it did not occur to the Conservatives as a body to oppose him. It was the bright idea of the Fourth Party in this House, and from a Party view they ought to be congratulated. The Fourth Party—I presume they held some sort of consultation together—determined to oppose Mr. Bradlaugh. ["Question!"] It is the Question. It was only when the Fourth Party had taken that decision that they were followed by the Conservative Party. Otherwise the Conservative Party would have sat quietly by and let Mr. Bradlaugh take his seat. Why did they do that? Everybody in the country knows why they did it. They did it simply because they wanted to waste time. [Opposition cries of "Oh" and "Order!"] They did it because they wanted to throw impediments in the way of Liberal legislation. They did it—[Interruptions]—I am quite willing to stand here all night—[interruptions]—I am not going to have Mr. Bradlaugh put down by the cries and yells of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Mr. Bradlaugh has a perfect right to state his case; and I do not think anybody in this House can say that, considering the manner the House has treated Mr. Bradlaugh, the House has a right to complain of the courteous and decent manner in which, I think, hon. Gentlemen opposite will admit Mr. Bradlaugh has treated this House. He has stood by his rights—what he believes to be his rights. I do not think he has done any more. I believe the country understands the matter, and that hon. Gentlemen opposite do wish to waste the time of the House.
  MR. T. COLLINS: I rise to Order. I wish to know if the hon. Gentleman is in Order when he says that hon. Members on this side of the House wish to waste the time of the House?
  MR. SPEAKERmade no reply.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Perhaps I had better put it in this way—["Order!"]
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise to Order. You have ruled, Sir, that it is the highest offence known to Parliament for hon. Members to take up any particular subject, not for the purpose of having it debated, but to obstruct the proceedings and waste the time of the House. I wish to know if it is in Order for the hon. Member for Northampton to bring a charge of that nature either against an individual or against a Party as a whole?
  MR. SPEAKER: The observation which I think fell from the hon. Member for Northampton was that he charged Members opposite to him with wasting time. I cannot say that such an observation is altogether out of Order. It is an observation which has been frequently made in this House, and it has not been confined to one side of the House or the other. I really do not think that I am called upon to interfere.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I heard an hon. Member shout out on the other side—I think the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett)—that I did more than charge hon. Members with wasting the time of the House—namely, that I charged them with wasting it deliberately. Well, I believe that if they did waste it they would waste it deliberately. But I will put it in this way-["Order!"]
  MR. SPEAKER: I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question before the House.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then the question is whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take his seat, and what objections there are to it. I would point out to hon. Members opposite that the objections which they have frequently urged I am perfectly convinced they will urge no longer. Those objections, as I understand, are that they consider that, in the interests of Deism, they ought to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking any oath, because he has stated that the declaration "So help me, God," had no meaning to him. Let us see what occurred last Session, and we shall see whether that was clearly the view taken by hon. Members opposite. Last Session the Prime Minister brought in an Affirmation Bill. What was the object of that Bill? It was to meet any objections that might be entertained, and I per-

  459
  fectly understood these objections, to Mr. Bradlaugh, or any other Atheist, being obliged to go up to that Table and take the name of God when he says be does not believe in the existence of a Deity. What did hon. Gentlemen opposite do? I do not know what they call wasting the time of the House; I know the debate went on several days, and when it came to the vote hon. Members opposite deliberately voted that that Bill should not become law. Now, we may assume that Mr. Bradlaugh very possibly will be elected at the next General Election. If Mr. Bradlaugh is elected, there is nothing that can prevent him coming up to the Table among the first 40 Members and taking the Oath. If, then, he is able to do that, because you have refused to alter the law and pass an Affirmation Act, surely you cannot say that you are actuated by any desire or feeling in the cause of religion to prevent irreverence; because by your act you have obliged Mr. Bradlaugh, and every other person who entertains his views with regard to religion, to take the Oath before sitting in this House; whereas the Prime Minister and Members of the Government were anxious that he should be allowed to fulfil his Constitutional duties by making an Affirmation. That is the reason why I say that what I may really call the sanctimonious sophistry of this hypocrisy has been clearly understood by the country. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Bradlaugh will find himself in a minority on this occasion; but you may depend upon it that in the end he will beat the House of Commons, because the House of Commons is in the wrong. The House of Commons is merely the creature, and behind Mr. Bradlaugh stands the people of England. We shall see who wins in the end. You will find the people of England, I do not say this from any feeling of affection or regard for Mr. Bradlaugh as an individual, will support him. Assume, if you like, that Mr. Bradlaugh is the vilest of men—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—as was stated by Mr. Wilkes—
  "In attacking the rights of the vilest of men you have attacked the rights of the most noble of mankind."
  It, is not a question of Mr. Bradlaugh individually. I am not raising the question of Mr. Bradlaugh's personality for a moment; but I say the constitu-
  460
  encies are fully determined, when they elect anyone who is a duly qualified person, to see that he shall not be prevented from taking his seat in this House and from fulfilling his duties.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of replying to the remarks of the hon. Member for Northampton; for, whether as argument or fact, they appear to me to be utterly unworthy of the notice of any rational human being; but I rise upon a point of Order. Mr. Bradlaugh, as far as I could see, went through certain proceedings at the Table, and he laid certain documents on the Table. Now, it is perfectly clear, from what has fallen from the Prime Minister, that these proceedings are, with the cognizance of the Government, to become the subject of proceedings in a Court of Law, and a great deal will, of course, turn upon evidence as to what actually took place. I, therefore, wish to ask you, Sir, to direct the Clerk at the Table, who has carried off those papers, to replace them there, so that they may be inspected by any Member of the House; because I am under the impression—and should be prepared to give evidence on the point in any Court of Law—that, no Oath was taken and no Testament kissed. ["Oh!"] I am only stating my own opinion upon the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the inquiry of the noble Lord, I have to say that the papers he desires should be preserved are now in the custody of the Clerk of the House, and that they are accessible to any Member of the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have never taken part in the debates on this question, and I should not have spoken at all now if it had not been for the speech of the hon. Member for Northampton. I shall vote for his Motion in spite of his speech. But I could not do so without saying that I very much regret the tone of that speech. Of course, the hon. Member is perfectly at liberty to hold what views he thinks fit about an Oath; but I think he ought to consider, before he says that the Oath is an unmeaning form, that to a large portion of those whom he was addressing it was words of very great and sacred meaning. I could not hear that speech without separating myself from the tone of the hon. Member's remarks. I will just simply say that I cannot take the line

  461
  suggested by my right hon. Friend, because I think this is a case which, when it comes to a Division, we ought to vote upon, upon this simple ground—that I think the electors of Northampton have a right to elect Mr. Bradlaugh, and that the House of Commons has no right to refuse to admit him. I was never more convinced of anything than that hon. Members—without so intending it, but certainly with that result—who have opposed the wishes of Mr. Bradlaugh to take his seat are striking one of the greatest blows against the cause of religion which have been struck for many years. They put upon the side of a man who, I regret to say, is opposed to religion, to Christianity, and even to Deism—they put upon his side the rights of the free electors of this country.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, the hon. Member for Northampton had referred to the dictum of Mr. Justice Stephen; but he would ask the hon. Gentleman whether it was not the fact that that learned Judge, while repudiating, on the part of the Court, all right of intervention on all matters of internal regulation in this House, did not state that the House had authority to regulate its own matters, similar to that possessed by the Court and by the Judges? The House would have observed that, on the advance of Mr. Bradlaugh, the Speaker rose from his seat, and remained standing during the whole time Mr. Bradlaugh was at the Table; that was a standing remonstrance against the violation of the Orders of the House, which had the force of law, and were superior to all law. He trusted hon. Members would manifest their respect for the House, without reference to any other consideration, by insisting upon the exercise of the authority of the House with reference to Mr. Bradlaugh, and that if he violated the Orders of the House, they would vote for his exclusion, until he recognized that this was not a casual assembly, but a Body conducting the Business of the country according to Rules laid down by itself, the violation of which must be followed by penalties.
  MR. HEALY: I rise to a point of Order, and I wish to put a Question, Sir, to you. You have ordered Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw, and as far as I can perceive Mr. Bradlaugh has not withdrawn. I have been in this House
  462
  when other hon. Members have been ordered to withdraw, and they were not confined to a select region below the Bar, but were required to retire beyond the portals of the House altogether. I wish to know, Sir, whether Mr. Bradlaugh enjoys your leave and licence to violate your order, or if he is not subject to the orders of Mr. Speaker in the same way as any other hon. Member? Secondly, Sir, I wish to call your attention to a fact which will probably be in your recollection—namely, that a former highly respected Member of this House, Mr. John Dillon, was suspended by you for remaining on his feet at the same time as yourself. I should like to know whether Mr. Bradlaugh is beyond the pale of suspension for having committed the like offence; and whether, for a first offence, he could be suspended for a week, for a month for a second offence, and for the whole of the Session for a third offence? If that were so, I think we might soon be able to get rid of the hon. Member for Northampton altogether. It was by such machinery, Sir, that you put your authority in motion in the case of the Irish Members; and I should like to know what particular privilege Mr. Bradlaugh enjoys as an English Member which puts him beyond the pale of the authority of Mr. Speaker? I have myself been suspended three times, and it may be my lot to be suspended three times more—not, I trust, during your tenure of Office in this House. I should like, however, to have an opinion from you, Sir, for the guidance of your Successor, so that I and my Friends, if we happen to find ourselves suspended again, may know that we may retire to that quiet and enjoyable nook in which Mr. Bradlaugh is, now sitting. What I want to know is whether an order to a Member to withdraw simply extends to the Bar of the House?
  [Mr. SPEAKER did not rise for a few moments, and there were loud and continuous cries of "Chair" from the Irish Members.]
  MR. SPEAKER: The question raised by the hon. Member is really not a point of Order for me to decide. The hon. Member's speech has been made under a total misconception. He supposes that certain hon. Members were suspended by me; whereas, as a matter of fact,

  463
  Members are suspended by a vote of the House.
  MR. HEALY: May I ask, Sir, if you could not "name" Mr. Bradlaugh, and then a Motion might be made?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member for Northampton has taken his seat in the House, and therefore can be "named."
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: As there has been some variation in the form of our proceedings at this time, as compared with former times, it is probable there may be some misconception. I understand the hon. Member for Northampton intends to divide the House against the proposal I have made. Formerly, the Motion was met by the Previous Question; and some hon. Gentlemen, as the Previous Question has not now been moved, seem to have imagined that there would be no Division. As I understand, the hon. Member divides against my proposition. I do not wish to take up time, certainly not in following the hon. Member for Northampton; but I wish to point out what is the meaning of the Motion I have made, and what are the grounds upon which it is made. The meaning of that Motion is the same as that which was the opinion of the Committee which sat in 1880. That Committee, after stating the case, came to the conclusion that, under the circumstances, that compliance by Mr. Bradlaugh with the form used when the Oath was taken
  "Would not be a taking of the Oath within the true meaning of the Statute; and, in consequence, the House can, and, in the opinion of your Committee, ought, to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh going through the form."
  That was the foundation of all the proceedings which had taken place since the Committee reported in 1880, and upon which the repeated challenges of the opinion of the House had been taken. It is a wholly different question which is raised as to what would be the view taken by a Court of Law of Mr. Bradlaugh administering the Oath to himself. That is not the point before us. We object to Mr. Bradlaugh going through the Forms of this House, whether the Oath be administered by the Clerk or by himself, because we believe it to be a profanation. This objection we raise equally, whatever may be the form he takes. The Resolution, if the House adopts it, equally precludes the
  464
  administration of the Oath by the Clerk or the taking of the Oath by Mr. Bradlaugh. On that point we challenge the opinion of the House; and I really hope it may not be thought necessary to go into a very lengthened debate, because there is no reason to suppose that anything new can be raised.
  MR. MOLLOY: Before we go to a Division, Sir, I wish to put a question to you. I wish to ask you whether, among the papers which have been impounded, is to be found any book which Mr. Bradlaugh pretended to kiss?
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: He did not kiss any book.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Yes; he did.
  MR. SPEAKERwas again about to put the Question by reading the Resolution, when——
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. Mr. Bradlaugh still persists in disobeying your ruling, Sir. He has not withdrawn, and I am informed that he intends to carry still further his disregard of your ruling, and to take advantage of his disobedience of your directions in order to go through the form of giving a vote in the Division Lobby of this House. I, therefore, ask you, Sir, if Mr. Bradlaugh is to be required to withdraw from the House, as you have already ordered him?
  MR. SPEAKER: Mr. Bradlaugh is now below the Bar.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Then, Mr. Speaker, on the point of Order, you rule that an order to a Member to withdraw is satisfied by going below the Bar. If so, I would ask why it was that you ordered me out of the House?
  MR. HARRINGTON: I wish, Sir, to have your ruling, whether it is competent for Mr. Bradlaugh to take part in a Division?—because, if it is, I propose to move an Amendment that he be excluded from the House.
  MR. ILLINGWORTH: After the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), it seems we are really asked to go through a Division on precisely the same points the House has had before it in the three previous Sessions; and I ask whether, in that case, it would not place the Prime Minister in a different position to what he has taken, if he should hesitate as to the course he is to take on the present occasion?
  MR. GLADSTONE: My hon. Friend could not have heard distinctly what I have already said. I stated that I should be glad if no Division were taken; but if the House is called upon to divide, I shall, in that case, divide against the Resolution of the right hon. Member for North Devon.
  MR. O'DONNELL: Mr. Speaker, upon the point of Order—I beg to remind you of a precedent. My conduct was proposed to be taken into consideration in this House, and you ordered me to withdraw. No act of suspension or expulsion had been passed by the House against me; but you simply ordered me to withdraw; and you interpreted your own order to withdraw to mean that I was to withdraw absolutely from the House, and not simply to retire below the Bar. Therefore, I ask you to order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw from the House in exactly the same sense that you ordered me to withdraw from the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member for Dungarvan was ordered to withdraw he had taken the Oath at the Table, and was fully a Member of this House. With respect to the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), as I have already stated, I am not prepared to admit that he has taken the Oath, and I have no authority to take the same course with him which I took with regard to the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. HEALY: You have now ruled, Sir, that the hon. Member for Northampton does not come within the ruling applied to the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because the hon. Member for Dungarvan had taken the Oath. Does he, then, come within your ruling when you order Strangers to withdraw? I wish to know if Mr. Bradlaugh comes within either of those designations?
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Upon the point of Order I should like to ask you, Sir, whether your ruling does not amount to this—that half a Member, or an incomplete Member, has superior rights to a whole Member?
  MR. SPEAKERagain rose to put the Question, when——
  MR. O'DONNELLinterposed amid cries of "Order." He said: I ask you to rule, Sir, whether Mr. Bradlaugh, who has not taken the Oath, and who, to a certain extent, is a stranger, is to
  466
  be authorized to remain in the House and to vote after you have ordered him to withdraw? When you order him to withdraw, does that leave him at liberty to go into the Division Lobby of the House after the House has been cleared for a Division?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already answered that point of Order.
  MR. SEXTON: I rise to move an Amendment to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon, which has just been read from the Chair. It appears that the question of the rights of Members in reference to withdrawing is left in an extremely uncertain position. I think that it ought to be settled; and I will therefore move—
  "That before the House proceeds to a Division on the Motion of the right hon. Member for North Devon, and during the time the House is occupied in that Division, Mr. Bradlaugh be ordered to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House."
  EARL PERCY: I should like to know whether Mr. Speaker has not already put the Question?
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member for Sligo move that as an Amendment?
  MR. SEXTON: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then will the hon. Member put it in writing?
  MR. SEXTONdid so, and carried it up to the Chair.
  MR. SPEAKER: The original Question was—
  "That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 1880, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, and of the 4th May 1883, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic, c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vie. c. 72."
  Since which an Amendment has been proposed—
  At the end of the Question, to add the words "and that Mr. Speaker do order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House during the Division on this Question."
  Does the hon. Member propose his Amendment as an addition to the original Resolution?
  MR. SEXTON: Yes.
  MR. SPEAKER: Then the Question I have to propose is, "That those words be there added."
  MR. O'DONNELL: I rise to Order. Upon the point of Order I wish to ask, Sir, whether you have directed the officials of the House to record any vote which Mr. Bradlaugh may give; or whether any official of this House will take upon himself to record the vote of a man with regard to whose status in this House there is, at least, uncertainty? I wish, Sir, to put that question to you.
  MR. SPEAKER: I am astonished that the hon. Member should put a question of that kind. I have given no special directions whatever.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), I wish to point out that the object the hon. Member has in view is a very rational one, as far as I can make it out. It is perfectly clear, from the proceedings which have already taken place, that the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Brad-laugh) intends to vote in the Division about to take place. Hon. Members opposite will quite understand that hon. Members on this side of the House, and perhaps a majority of the House, would object to a stranger, who is certainly not a Member, taking part in a Division of this House, and having his vote recorded by the officials of the House. Therefore, the point which hon. Members behind me have raised, with some persistence, does, I think, require some more luminous decision from the Chair—["Order!"]—than that which we have yet been able to gather on this matter. The point is, Sir, whether, before the Division is taken, you will not, as Speaker of the House of Commons, order Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw from the House? In that event, the House would be able to proceed to a Division without any Amendment such as that which has been proposed by the hon. Member for Sligo. But until that point has been settled, the House will be in a state of complete confusion. I venture to submit that the Amendment which has been moved cannot be put, because it would turn the whole Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon into absolute nonsense.
  MR. GLADSTONE: You will correct me, Sir, if I am wrong; but I understand you to say from the Chair that your power, as Speaker, with respect to a Member who has not taken the Oath
  468
  is exhausted when you have given him an order to withdraw below the Bar.
  MR. SEXTON: The order was not to "withdraw below the Bar;" but to "withdraw."
  MR. GLADSTONE: I think the Speaker will correct mo if I am wrong. I understood you to say, Sir, that your power, as Speaker, was exhausted when you directed Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw below the Bar. If that be so, and the power of the Speaker is exhausted the moment the order is given to withdraw below the Bar, I submit that this Amendment is purposeless; because it is quite evident that if it be the object of Mr. Bradlaugh—in respect of which I know nothing whatever—to raise the question of his right to vote in a Court of Law, he will be just as well able to raise that question by voting upon the Amendment as upon the original Motion. On that ground, I confess that I do not see the purpose of the Amendment. But I am bound to say that it appears to me to be open to objection upon general principles. It appears to reach beyond the case of Mr. Bradlaugh, and it constitutes a precedent under which new methods of procedure might be adopted with regard to those Members of the House who have not taken the Oath. They have always had in their hands, as I understand, the power of sitting and voting in the House at their own risk, the law having provided a specific penalty if a Member sits and votes without having fulfilled the forms of the Statute previous to taking his seat. I am most reluctant, and I must positively decline, to adopt the Amendment which has been proposed, which, besides being, as it appears to me, wholly without purpose in the view of those who proposed it, would tend to the constitution of a new law affecting a class of Members to whom the possession of that power or privilege of sitting and voting at their own risk might be of inestimable importance.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I will not follow the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister into the false issue he has endeavoured to raise; but I wish to submit a question to you, Sir, on a point of Order. I wish to know if it would be in Order for an hon. Member to propose, as an Amendment to the Question you have already put from the Chair, a Resolution to the effect that you should direct

  469
  the officials of the House not to record any vote given by Mr. Bradlaugh until his status as a Member of this House has been recognized?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already intimated that in my opinion I should be exceeding my authority if I were to give such an order.
  MR. SEXTON: The object of my Amendment was to prevent Mr. Brad-laugh from voting on the merits of the Question. But unless you, Sir, exercise your prerogative, and oblige him to withdraw beyond the precincts of the House, I should gain nothing by the Amendment. I will not, therefore, put the House to the trouble of dividing upon it, but will withdraw it.
  MR. SPEAKERhaving put the Question, "Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn? "
  MR. HEALY: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I wish to put a question to Mr. Speaker. The House of Commons appears to be reduced to this position—that Mr. Speaker, having given a direction to an hon. Member who has not taken the Oath to withdraw, is quite powerless to enforce it. You, Sir, have given a direction, and it appears that you have stultified yourself—[Loud cries of "Order! "]—by giving an order which you have no power whatever to enforce. Indeed, you have given to Mr. Bradlaugh this hint—that if he were now, in the course of our present proceedings, to march up to the Chair, flanked or not by his Colleague and another Member, and if you were to order him to withdraw, no matter what he might do on the floor of this House, or what antics he might proceed with, you, Sir, have no power whatever over that hon. Gentleman. If that be the case in the concluding days of your holding the Office of Speaker of this House—if, with all your great and wide experience, you find yourself powerless to enforce your own orders, you will have reduced the position of Speaker to this—that after your 10 or 15 years' experience in that Chair, you have given an order to an hon. Gentleman, and you have declared yourself that you have no power whatever to enforce it. [Cries of "Order!" and "Divide!"]
  MR. M'COAN: I would venture to ask you, Mr. Speaker, this question—whether, if it is brought to your knowledge, Sir, that a person incompetent to vote—a
  470
  person who has not taken the Oath which would alone qualify him to vote—nevertheless intends to vote—you would feel yourself called upon to take such measures as would prevent him from voting? I ask if you would consider it incumbent on you to take that course?
  MR. SPEAKER: I have already stated that I should exceed my authority by doing so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put.
  MR. HEALY (remaining seated and covered): Sir, I observe a Stranger in this House, and I have heard you order Strangers to withdraw. I wish to know whether that order applies to Mr. Bradlaugh?
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I wish to ask whether the Speaker has ordered Strangers to withdraw?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) knows that when an hon. Member has been elected to this House, although he has not been duly sworn, he has been allowed to take his seat below the Bar, and he does not withdraw when Strangers are ordered to withdraw. I consider that that is the position which Mr. Bradlaugh occupies at the present moment.
  MR. O'DONNELL: May I ask you, Sir, if a person who has been elected to this House, but who has not taken his seat, is allowed to enter the Division Lobby while a Division is in progress?
  MR. SPEAKER: That does not appear to me to have any bearing upon the case.
  The House proceeded to a Division.
  When the Tellers had come to the Table,
  MR. HEALY: Sir, I rise to a point of Order. Before the numbers are announced, I wish to know whether, if the Tellers report that an hon. Gentleman, who has not taken the Oath, has nevertheless voted in one of the Lobbies, it will be open to any hon. Member to move that the name of that Gentleman be expunged from the Votes?
  MR. SPEAKER: Yes; at the proper time. The hon. Member will be in Order in making that Motion, and the vote will be disallowed if the House should so decide.
  VISCOUNT CRICHTON (one of the Tellers for the Ayes in the No Lobby): Mr. Speaker, I have to inform the House that Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for Northampton, has voted in the "No" Lobby.
  MR. HEALY: I wish to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Motion for expunging the vote should be made now, on the report of the Tellers, or after the numbers have been announced?
  MR. SPEAKER: The report of the Tellers has been taken down by the Clerk at the Table, and the hon. Member will be in Order in making the Motion he refers to now, and if the vote should be disallowed the numbers will be corrected accordingly.
  MR. HEALY: I beg to move now, Mr. Speaker, that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, be expunged from the list of Members voting in the "No" Lobby; and I do so on this ground—to put the matter in plain language—that this performance on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh is evidently a "plant" on the part of the Government. As I understand the action of the Government, what they propose to do is this—to bring a mock action against Mr. Bradlaugh through their Attorney General; and unless the name of Mr. Bradlaugh is expunged from the list of Members voting, this House will give them an opportunity, on its Records, of showing that Mr. Bradlaugh did vote. I propose that we should give the Courts of Law no data to work upon. In other words, that we should give the Government, Bradlaugh, and Company no base of operation. I will, therefore, bring up a Motion that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh be expunged from the list of Members voting in the "No" Lobby.
  An hon. MEMBER: Make the Motion now.
  MR. HEALY: I do so.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the vote of Mr. Bradlaugh, Member for Northampton, be disallowed."—(Mr. Healy.)
  MR. STOREY: Upon that Question, Sir, I beg to suggest that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) should, at his own request, be heard at the Bar.
  MR. BRADLAUGH (standing at the Bar): I claim the right to do so.
  MR. SPEAKER, without acknowledging the interruption, was proceeding to put the Question, when——
  MR. LABOUCHERE, who had been standing at the Table as one of the Tellers, returned to his seat, and said: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTON: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who is acting as a Teller in a Division which has not yet been announced, can return to his place, and attempt to address the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to say that the hon. Member is irregular in the course he is proposing to take.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I have not the slightest wish to give the House the trouble of dividing upon this question; but I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General if it can in any way alter the legal position of Mr. Bradlaugh in this matter, whether his name be expunged or not?
  MR. SPEAKER: The time for that has not arrived. The immediate Question before the House is, whether the vote of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) shall be disallowed; and the hon. Member must confine his observations to that Question.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Then, Sir, I shall take a Division on the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) has put a question to me, and therefore I should wish to give my opinion for what it is worth, upon the legal question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether the opinion of the Attorney General, given in answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), has anything whatever to do with the matter now before the House? I must also ask you, Sir, to protect the majority of the House from the conspiracy which is being waged against them.
  MR. SPEAKER: I stopped the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) from putting a question which appeared to mo not to bear strictly on the Question before the House, and under these circumstances I do not think it would be right that the Attorney General should answer it.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): As a point of Order, I would ask, Sir, if I am not entitled to speak on the Question that the name of Mr. Bradlaugh be expunged from the list of Members who voted in the Division?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hen. and learned Gentleman would be in Order in speaking upon the Motion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) cannot suppose for a moment that I would be guilty of discourtesy towards him; but, although I am sure the House will not wish me to notice the statement of the noble Lord that Her Majesty's Government have entered into a conspiracy with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), I think it is only respectful to the House, as the House is about to give a vote upon the Motion of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), that I should not remain altogether silent as to the legal effect of the matter. The Motion is to expunge the vote of Mr. Bradlaugh, and I understood the hon. Member to say that his object in making it was to prevent any legal question being raised.
  MR. HEALY: What I said was, that I wished to prevent a mock action, or a collusive action, being brought by Mr. Bradlaugh.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): Again I ask leave of the House to pass by that observation. I believe that this question is without precedent; because, although hon. Members have voted in this House without having taken the Oath, as Baron Rothschild did, the question of the disallowance of their votes has never been raised. Therefore, in my opinion, the fact that this vote is disallowed will make no difference in the legal question.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise to Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, Sir, is directly disobeying your ruling. You, Sir, ruled, in the hearing of the House, that the question put to the Attorney General by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) was one which had no bearing upon the Question before the House; and, that being so, the hon. and learned Attorney General had no right to reply to the question. The hon. and learned Gentleman is now en-
  474
  deavouring to reply to it, and in so doing he is disregarding the authority of the Chair.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): You, Sir, ruled on the point of Order that I had a right to speak upon the Motion before the House, and my remarks are directed to that Motion. I am speaking directly to the Motion. I desire respectfully to point out to the House that if it proceeds with the Motion before it, and that Motion is carried, the legal position of Mr. Bradlaugh will not be altered.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I rise again to Order. That, Sir, is directly in opposition to your ruling.
  MR. SPEAKER (interposing): The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General is in possession of the House; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of the observations he may make, should say anything which appears to me irregular and not in Order, it will be my duty to call him to Order.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I think the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) has misunderstood the position I desire to take up.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Not at all.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): I am endeavouring to point out that if this Motion is agreed to it will not, in any way, relieve Mr. Bradlaugh from liability to an action. I am speaking in the presence of the hon. Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) and others, who are, perhaps, better able to speak upon that question than I am. But if Mr. Bradlaugh—assuming for a moment that he has not taken the Oath—has voted in a Division, he has incurred a penalty of £500 for so doing, and he cannot be relieved of that penalty by any vote the House may pass now. The penalty is incurred by the fact of voting. If you disallow the vote, you must admit the fact that Mr. Bradlaugh has voted, or you cannot disallow it. This being a penalty imposed by Statute for voting without having first taken the Oath, a Resolution of the House cannot get rid of it, or relieve a Member who, has violated the Statute from that penalty. This Motion, therefore, would have no effect upon any action that

  475
  might be brought. Mr. Bradlaugh cannot be relieved from the penalty if the Resolution is passed. That is the view which I wished respectfully to point out to the House.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I do not think there is much necessity for the House to contemplate the possibility of an action being brought. In fact, in regard to Mr. Bradlaugh's claims, the highest tribunal in the land has already decided that it will not hear a collusive action brought by a pretended enemy who is a real friend. It has already been decided that such an action is not deserving of the consideration of a Court of Law. Therefore, there can be no doubt of the result of a pretended hostile action being brought by Her Majesty's Government against Mr. Bradlaugh. Everyone would know that it would be an utterly collusive action for the purpose of foisting an Atheistical political supporter upon the conscience and honour of this House. Therefore, I think it would be best for this House to look at this matter according to its merits, as those merits appear to the House, and not to trust to the merits as they may be presented before a tribunal of the land by the confederates of Mr. Bradlaugh.
  MR. LYULPH STANLEY, who spoke amid great interruption, said, he regarded this question of the right to sit and vote in the House as the natural result of the Opposition allowing itself to be led by hon. Members below the Gangway. They had permitted themselves to be led by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and now they were in danger of being led by the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy). He urged that to expunge the name of Mr. Bradlaugh from the Division List would have no effect in ignoring the important fact that Mr. Bradlaugh had voted.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—
  When the Tellers had come to the Table,
  MR. LABOUCHERE (one of the Tellers for the Noes)said: Mr. Speaker, I have to report that——
  MR. SPEAKER: Before that matter is mentioned, it will be more convenient for the numbers to be announced.
  The numbers were then announced: Ayes 258; Noes 161: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 3.)
  MR. SPEAKERthen called on the Tellers to report the numbers of the Division on the Main Question.
  DR. CAMERON: I have a question of Order to raise.
  MR. SPEAKER: I have called upon the Tellers to report the numbers of the Division on the Main Question.
  DR. CAMERON: The point of Order I desire to raise has reference to the opening of the doors of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the point of Order proposed to be raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Dr. Cameron) boar upon the Division? If so, he is entitled to be heard, and I will hear him.
  DR. CAMERON (speaking seated and covered): Yes, Sir; it does. It is the custom to keep the doors of the House locked until the numbers in a Division have been announced. I believe the object of that is that in the event of a discrepancy as to the numbers, the true number might be chocked by taking another Division. On the present occasion the Rule has been departed from, and the doors were unlocked and remained open during the two Divisions. We are unable, therefore, to say that Members may not have gone away, and other Members have entered the House. I wish to know whether the departure, on the present occasion, from the invariable practice of keeping the doors locked until the result of the Division is announced by Mr. Speaker, will have any effect in vitiating the Division?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think the point alluded to by the hon. Member affects the question at all. I now call on the Tellers to report the numbers of the Division on the Main Question, making the correction which has been ordered by the House.
  The numbers of the Division upon the Main Question were then announced: Ayes 280; Noes 167: Majority 113.

  AYES.

  Alexander, Major-Gen.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Allsopp, C.

  Balfour, A. J.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Baring, T. C.

  Archdale, W. H.

  Barne, F. St. J. N.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Barry, J.

  477

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Elcho, Lord

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Ennis, Sir J.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Bellingham, A. H.

  Ewart, W.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.

  Biddell, W.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Finch, G. H

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. C. W.

  Blake, J. A.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.

  Blennerhassett, Sir R.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  Boord, T. W.

  Floyer, J.

  Bourke, right hon. R.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. E.

  Foster, W. H.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Brooke, Lord

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Brooks, W. C.

  Gabbett, D. F.

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Galway, Viscount

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Bruce, hon. T. C.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Gibson, right hon. E.

  Burghley, Lord

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Buxton, Sir R. J.

  Giles, A.

  Cameron, D.

  Glyn, hon. S. C.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Gooch, Sir D.

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Gore-Langton, W. S.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. G. B.

  Grantham, W.

  Chaine, J.

  Gray, E. D.

  Chaplin, H.

  Greene, E.

  Christie, W. L.

  Greer, T.

  Churchill, Lord R.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Clarke, E.

  Guest, M. J.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Coddington, W.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Cole, Viscount

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Collins, E.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Collins, T.

  Colthurst, Colonel

  Harrington, T.

  Compton, F.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  Coope, O. E.

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

  Corbet, W. J.

  Corry, J. P.

  Healy, T. M.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Herbert, hon. S.

  Courtauld, G.

  Hicks, E.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  Curzon, Major hon. M.

  Hill, A. S.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Hinchingbrook, Visc.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Dawson, C.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Hubbard, right hon. J. G.

  Dickson, Major A. G

  Dickson, T. A.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Digby, Colonel hon. E.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Dixon Hartland, F. D.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Kennard, C. J.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H

  Kenny, M. J.

  Eaton, H. W.

  King-Harman, Colonel E. R.

  Ebrington, Viscount

  Eckersley, N.

  Knigscote, Colonel

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Knight, F. W.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  478

  Leahy, J.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Leamy, E.

  Percy, right hon. Earl

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Legh, W. J.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Leigh, R.

  Phipps, P.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D.R.

  Leighton, S.

  Power, R.

  Lever, J. O.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Levett, T. J.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Rankin, J.

  Loder, R.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Long, W. H.

  Repton, G. W.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Ross, A. H.

  Lynch, N.

  Ross, C. C.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Round, J.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Salt, T.

  Mac Iver, D.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn.G.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Scott, M. D.

  M. Carthy, J.

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  M'Coan, J. C.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Severne, J. E.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Sexton, T.

  M'Mahon. E.

  Shaw, W.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Sheil, E.

  Manners, rt. hon. Lord J. J. R.

  Small, J. F.

  Smith, A.

  March, Earl of

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Marum, E. M.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  Master, T. W. C.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

  Mayne, T.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Miles, C. W.

  Storer, G.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Strutt, hon. C. H.

  Mills, Sir C. H

  Stuart, H. V.

  Milner, Sir F.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Sykes, C.

  Monckton, F.

  Synan, E. H.

  Moore, A.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Thomson, H.

  Moss, R.

  Thornhill, T.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J. R.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Tollemache, hn. W. F.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Newport, Viscount

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Nicholson, W.

  Torrens, W. T. M.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Northcote, H S.

  Walter, J.

  Norwood, C. M.

  Warburton, P. E.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Warton, C. N.

  O'Brien, W.

  Watney, J.

  O'Connor, A.

  Whitley, E.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Whitworth, B.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Wilmot, Sir. H.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Onslow, D. R.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  O'Shea, W. H.

  Wroughton, P.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Paget, R. H.

  Parker, C. S.

  Parnell, C. S.

  TELLERS.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Winn, R.

  Peek, Sir H. W.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Pell, A.

  479

  NOES.

  Agnew, W.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Grosvenor, right hon. Lord R.

  Anderson, G.

  Armitage, B.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Armitstead, G.

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

  Arnold, A.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Henderson, F.

  Barran, J.

  Heneage, E.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Hill, T. R.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Holden, I.

  Brand, H. R.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Brett, R. B.

  Holms, J.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Howard, G. J.

  Bright, J.

  Illingworth, A.

  Brinton, J.

  Ince, H. B.

  Broadhurst, H.

  James, Sir H.

  Brogden, A.

  James, C.

  Brown, A. H.

  James, W. H.

  Bryce, J.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Johnson, E.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Kensington, rt hn. Lord

  Caine, W. S.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Cameron, C.

  Leake, R.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Lee, H.

  Campbell - Bannerman, H.

  Lefevre, rt. hn. G. J. S

  Lymington, Viscount

  Causton, R. K.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

  M'Arthur, Sir W.

  Clarke, J. C.

  M'Laren, C. B. B.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Cohen, A.

  Martin, R. B.

  Collings, J.

  Maskelyne, M. N. H Story-

  Coleman, J. J.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Monk, C. J.

  Cowen, J.

  Moreton, Lord

  Cross, J. K.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O

  Crum, A.

  Morley, A.

  Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

  Morley, J.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J

  Duff, R. W.

  Paget, T. T.

  Earp, T.

  Palmer, G.

  Edwards, P.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Pennington, F.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Phillips, R. N.

  Ferguson, R.

  Playfair, rt. hn. Sir L

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Pulley, J.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Ralli, P.

  Forster, Sir G.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Forster, rt. hn. W. E.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Fort, R.

  Reid, R. T.

  Fowler, H. H.

  Richard, H.

  Fowler, W.

  Richardson, T.

  Fry, L.

  Roberts, J.

  Fry, T.

  Roe, T.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Gladstone, H J.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Gourley, E. T.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Rylands, P.

  Grant, A.

  Samuelson, B.

  Grant, D.

  Samuelson, H.

  480

  Seely, C.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Shaw, T.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P

  Shield, H.

  Webster, J.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Slagg, J.

  Williamson, S.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Willis, W.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Wills, W. H.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Stevenson, J. C.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Storey, S.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Summers, W.

  Woodall, W.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Taylor, P. A.

  TELLERS.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Burt, T.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Labouchere, H.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow.

  After the declaration of the numbers Mr. LABOUCHERE, one of the Tellers for the Noes, stated, at the Table, that Mr. Bradlaugh had voted with the Noes in the second Division.
  Resolved, That, having regard to the Resolutions of this House of the 22nd June 18S0, of the 26th April 1881, and of the 7th February and 6th March 1882, of the 4th May 1S83, and to the Reports and Proceedings of two Select Committees therein referred to, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It is obvious, Sir, that the time of the House ought not to be any further taken up with this matter; and I hope the House will agree with me that the proper course for us now to take is to move and adopt a Resolution similar to that which we have adopted on former occasions. I propose it for the sake of preventing' future interruptions during the Session with the Business of the House. I beg to move—
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of this House until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought there was no necessity for this Motion, and that there must be some misunderstanding. He did not understand that Mr. Bradlaugh would interfere improperly with the proceedings of the House. Whether he might vote or not was, as had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General, a question of law; and if he voted

  481
  and the law said that he had no right to vote, he simply added penalty on penalty, for the Court might decide that he must pay £500 for each vote. He (Mr. Labouchere) would suggest that, instead of going on with this Motion, they should pass quietly to the debate on the Address without any further trouble. Mr. Bradlaugh had voted already—for a specific purpose, as hon. Members knew; and he (Mr. Labouchere) would engage—["Oh, oh!"]—that if the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) would withdraw his Motion, the proceedings would be no more disturbed by Mr. Bradlaugh—that was to say, until a decision had been taken, as he understood the hon. and learned Attorney General intended to prosecute Mr. Bradlaugh. He would engage that, until that decision, Mr. Bradlaugh would not vote again, or in any way interfere with the proceedings of the House, but would remain quiet as he had always remained, fairly and honestly, when he had said he would do so.
  MR. NEWDEGATE(who spoke amidst cries of "Divide!") expressed his opinion that it was necessary for the dignity of the House that the Resolution should be carried.
  MR. JOHN BEIGHT: I rise for the purpose of asking the right Hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) what he intends or means by his Resolution—that is, how far the exclusion will go. I understand, of course, that Mr. Bradlaugh will not again come into the House, notwithstanding that he has voted; but is it intended that he should not attend in the Library, or have the opportunity of writing a letter, or receive Parliamentary Reports, or attend in the Lobby, or go anywhere he has been accustomed to go? Although he has not been accustomed to come into the House as an ordinary Member of Parliament, he has, as we know, been allowed to sit under the Gallery. I do not suppose the right hon. Gentleman can consider it necessary to carry his Resolution so far as that. He has now the express declaration of Mr. Bradlaugh's Colleague, who, in past times, has made the same declaration, which has been strictly adhered to, and which the House has accepted; and therefore, seeing that, I think there is no occasion to carry proceedings further now. As the question may possibly
  482
  be carried to another tribunal, and as there is some degree of uncertainty about it, I think the right hon. Gentleman might consult and follow his general habit of looking at matters of this kind, oven Party matters, with a good deal of fairness, and that he will not press his Motion to a Division. I agree with him, of course, in saying that Mr. Bradlaugh will be expected not to disturb the House, or to give us, I shall not say the amusement, but the excitement of this evening on any future occasion. We have the express declaration of his Colleague, who speaks for him, and whose word may be entirely relied on. Therefore, I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will persist in his Motion? I think it would be an indignity to every Member of the House of Commons if, in the case of a Member in the position of Mr. Bradlaugh. having been three times elected by a free constituency, having been prevented from taking his seat by the opinion held by the majority of the House, that majority proceeds further than what is absolutely necessary in the case. To deal in any other way with Mr. Bradlaugh is, in a certain degree, an indignity, and it might be, some day or other, put in force against other Members. I appeal, therefore, to the right hon. Gentleman not to allow the matter to proceed further, knowing that a majority of the House would support him, and that the House would do what is necessary at any time.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I feel bound, in the interests of justice, to support what has been stated by my right hon. Friend (Mr. John Bright). The principle upon which we have endeavoured to act has been, throughout these matters, to hold ourselves distinct from the responsibility of the original decision, which we conceive to be the greatest possible error; but, at the same time, to support and uphold the executive authority of the House, in regard to any orders which that authority might give in pursuance of that decision. And now the question is, has Mr. Bradlaugh, by his recent action in passing through the Lobby and voting, disobeyed the order of the Speaker and the House or not? [An hon. MEMBER: Passing through the House.] Now that appears to me to raise a very nice question, one of the greatest nicety, and I, for one, am not well able to give an

  483
  opinion upon it on my own authority. If I saw my way clearly that this was an act of contumacy against the authority of the Speaker, I would not hesitate for one moment to vote against it; but it appears to me to be doubtful and difficult so far as I at present understand the question. Then I come to say—"Am I bound to enter upon this doubtful and difficult question?" I think not. Were there not taunts or signs of ridicule when the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), who had spoken of his representing the sentiments of his Colleague, spoke; but surely it is the most obvious and absolute duty of that very other Member for Northampton to express himself, and make himself, as far as he can, the channel of communication of anything that he thinks is material to the House, and anything Mr. Bradlaugh has to say. There is no other mode of communication open to Mr. Bradlaugh. Mr. Brad-laugh cannot speak for himself, and the constituency of Northampton has a right to expect it from the sitting Member for Northampton, and he is only in his right and in his duty in doing what he has done. He has offered, being evidently intrusted with power to make the offer, that there shall be no further trouble given to the House, or that Mr. Bradlaugh will not disturb its proceedings, provided this Motion is not passed. Now, is there any object, in these circumstances, in persevering with this Motion; and I must further ask, is the Motion according to precedent? I believe I am correct in saying, though I have not had the opportunity of reference to original sources, that Mr. Alderman Salomons was directed to withdraw from the House, and, after being so directed, did vote—that is to say, did exactly what Mr. Bradlaugh has done. Now, Sir, if that is so, I do contend that it is unjust and unwise in the highest degree to lay down for Mr. Bradlaugh a law of proceeding different from that which was made to apply to Mr. Alderman Salomons, when the act done by both has been apparently the same act. We have no right, in my opinion, to import into the treatment of a particular action of Mr. Bradlaugh the consideration of what has taken place here before. We must give to him, in respect to what he has done, the same justice and the same equity as we
  484
  would apply to anyone else. Therefore, Sir, on the ground that I see no practical object to be gained by this Motion, and upon the ground that it seems to establish a different measure of justice for Mr. Bradlaugh from that which was meted out to another Gentleman who had performed precisely the same acts—["No, no!"]—precisely the same acts. ["No, no!"] If so, show me that I am wrong. I maintain that the matter I am speaking of is a matter of fact, which cannot, of course, be settled by mere assertion. If I am wrong, then let me be shown that I am wrong; but I believe I am correct in asserting that Mr. Alderman Salomons was directed to withdraw, that he did subsequently vote, and his doing so was not treated as an offence by the House. I maintain that Mr. Bradlaugh ought to have exactly the same justice.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir. I must remind the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister that Mr. Bradlaugh has been in a state of mutiny, as I may say, or of opposition to the orders of the House from the beginning of this transaction. Now, the House will not have forgotten the way in which the proceedings this evening commenced. The proceedings commenced by Mr. Bradlaugh walking up to the Table, in opposition to the directions of the Chair, while the Speaker was on his feet, calling upon him to stop; and then the act of Mr. Bradlaugh, going through the form which he did, was done in defiance of the authority of the Chair. In these circumstances, I conceive that the House could hardly be expected to be satisfied with a simple declaration on the part of Mr. Bradlaugh that he will not take his seat. I think some notice ought to be taken of the proceedings, which undoubtedly are of an irregular character, and which may be perfectly well repeated at a future time. Now, the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) says he is ready to engage, if I withdraw this Motion, that Mr. Bradlaugh will not disturb the proceedings of the House. All I have to say in reply is, with the greatest possible respect for the hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Northampton, that if the House agrees to the form of my Motion, it will be only necessary for Mr. Bradlaugh himself to do the very thing which his

  485
  Colleague proposes to do for him. The form of my Motion is simply this—that the Serjeant-at-Arms be directed to exclude him from the precincts of the House until he shall engage not to disturb its proceedings. We have a right to protect our proceedings; and, after all that has passed, I think it is but reasonable and proper that we should put upon record our decision; otherwise, by withdrawing my Motion, I seem to imply that there is no case against Mr. Bradlaugh. I wish to point out that Mr. Bradlaugh may, and probably does, perfectly, honestly, and legitimately, on his part, believe that he has taken all the necessary steps for qualifying himself for the House; and, believing that, it is impossible to say when he may think it right to exercise his privilege as a Member; and if he does, then opposition will arise, there will be further scenes, and I may say that the House does not desire to get into a similar position again. I, therefore, think that what I am proposing is the simplest, and mildest, and most effective form of protecting the House against the repetition of such scenes as we have witnessed this evening. I may say, in answer to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), that I am obliged to make the Motion in this way, because if our theory be true—which I myself believe—that Mr. Bradlaugh is not a Member of the House, and that he is committing an offence against the Statute by voting just now, not only has he subjected himself to a penalty of £500, but his seat has become vacant by that act. [MR. LABOUCHERE: Move it then.] If that theory is reasonable, the House is bound to take the measure I propose for its own protection. At that point I am prepared to stop, and further than that I am not prepared to go; and I am perfectly satisfied that the House will be acting wisely in taking that as a solution of the matter.
  MR. BURT: I have been requested by Mr. Bradlaugh to say that he is quite prepared to come to the Bar of the House and enter into an engagement not to disturb its proceedings. ["No, no!"] I do not know, Sir, whether the right hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House would wish him to bind himself by oath to such engagement.
  EARL PERCY: I rise, Sir, for the purpose of expressing the hope that the submission which is contemplated in the Resolution now proposed to the House will be understood to go further than that proposed by Mr. Bradlaugh, which simply states that he will refrain from disturbing the proceedings of the House until his case has been considered by a Court of Law.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 228; Noes 120: Majority 108.—(Div. List, No. 5.)
  Ordered, That the Serjeant-at-Arms do exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House, until he shall engage not further to disturb the proceedings of the House.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,

  EGYPT (EVENTS IN THE SOUDAN).

    ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE.
    Mr. CHAPLIN, Member for Mid-Lincolnshire, rose in his place, and asked leave to move the Adjournment of the House, for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, whether Her Majesty's Government have taken, or intend to take or not, the most effectual measures in their power for the relief of the garrisons and population of Sinkat and Tokar, now in imminent danger of massacre and destruction; but the pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported that Motion to rise in their places, and not less than Forty Members having accordingly risen in their places,
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, the Motion arose quite unexpectedly, so far as he was concerned, out of an answer, or rather a series of answers, which were given by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in reply to a Question put at an earlier part of the evening by his (Mr. Chaplin's) hon. Friend the Member for Eye (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett). The Motion proposed to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, and he could conceive that there was no question of more definite and urgent importance than one which, like that, involved the lives not only of gallant soldiers, but populations, he was told, of thousands of women and children

    487
    besides. The right hon. Gentleman declined to give a definite answer to the Question put to him that afternoon. What was the ground on which he refused to give an answer? The right hon. Gentleman explained to them that it was impossible for him to give an answer, such as he thought would be satisfactory to the House of Commons, unless that answer was given in debate. Well, he (Mr. Chaplin) proposed, with as little delay as possible——
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg your pardon; that was not my answer. I said I was not prepared to make, in answer to a Question, a statement such as would be accepted as satisfactory to the House; and I also stated that my materials for making an answer would be fuller tomorrow.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he did not gather the last part of the statement—[Mr. GLADSTONE: Most distinctly.]—but, of course, he would admit the accuracy of what the right hon. Gentleman had stated. The purport, however, of the right hon. Gentleman's reply was this—that he could not give an answer satisfactory to himself, and he desired to make his answer in the course of debate. He (Mr. Chaplin) proposed tonight to relieve the right hon. Gentleman of that disability, at all events; and he hoped, in the course of the debate which would arise, the right hon. Gentleman would be able to give a distinct answer. He (Mr. Chaplin) had taken this course, because it was impossible to over-estimate the anxiety which was felt in the country with regard to those 400 men who, they were told, were at Sinkat at the present, and with regard to the gallant Commander Tewfik Bey, and with regard to the unhappy women and children whose fate, he believed, was merely a question of hours Many of them might well have asked the question why effectual steps for then-relief had not been taken before now. That part of the discussion might, however, he postponed until the occasion when the whole policy of the Government in regard to Egypt was arraigned, as it would be very shortly. Sinkat, he was told, was about 30 miles from the coast of the Red Sea. Tokar was somewhat further, and he knew nothing of the forces that might be available on the Red Sea, or at the disposal of the Government at the present moment; but
    488
    surely it must be within the resources and the power of England to take steps to relieve the people of these places. He did not ask for details as to what steps the Government intended to take; but what he thought was that, without an hour's unnecessary delay, they ought to have a distinct answer from the Government as to whether they did or did not intend to take the most effectual measures in their power for the relief of the garrisons and populations of these places. That was a question upon which the public mind was excited, and there was intense anxiety at the present moment in regard to it, and he could not help being astonished that the right hon. Gentleman bad come down to the House that evening unprepared to give a definite answer. This morning, in one of those admirable letters which The Times correspondent at Cairo had written, he said—
    "Jeered at as we are by foreigners, believed by the Natives to be deliberately working for their annihilation, can we be surprised that even an English official of the highest rank should state—' I am ashamed to own myself an Englishman;' and that another official in the English service should say—' Thank God, I am not an Englishman.' "
    Having witnessed the policy of and the proceedings of the Government in connection with Egypt, to this extent he was bound to say that there was a feeling of humiliation at the present time. If an evil fate should befall these unhappy people, owing, in any degree, to the inaction, the vacillation, and the dilatory conduct of the Government, it would be regarded by thousands and millions as nothing less than a national humiliation, a national shame, and a national disgrace. It would be opposed to the best and the highest traditions of this country, and it would be abhorrent to the sentiments and feelings of the English speaking men and women throughout the entire world.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I was rather surprised when I heard the intention of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Chaplin), because I certainly conceived that there were indications made in various parts of the House, when I replied to the Questions put to me earlier in the

    489
    evening, that, in the position which I hold, speaking on the part of Her Majesty's Government, it would be needful to acquiesce, at all events—I do not say to approve, though I thought I saw considerable signs of approval—to acquiesce in the declarations which I made. It appears to me, however, that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten an essential part of the declaration I made, although I reminded him of it in the course of his speech, and to it he attaches no importance whatever. I stated that it was impossible for me to make a full and adequate exposition upon this question at the present time in answer to a Question.
    MR. CHAPLIN: What I asked for was a plain "Yes" or "No."
    MR. GLADSTONE: No doubt the hon. Gentleman thinks the question can be settled by a plain "Yes" or "No."
    MR. CHAPLIN: So it can in this case.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Gentleman comes down with his infallibility and his omniscience, and says he only wished me to reply to this with a plain "Yes" or "No." I tell the hon. Gentleman fairly that I do not think, as far as I can gather rightly from his speech, that he is aware of the extent of the question of which he has been speaking. He is speaking of the garrisons of Tokar and Sinkat as if they were the only garrisons whose fates were involved and whom we had to consider. That is not the case.
    MR. CHAPLIN: There may be others.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will tell you more about that when I come to an exposition of the ease; but, so far as I can see, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to have the remotest idea of the extent and the relations of the questions he has raised. I said to the House, and I now state it again, that no part of this subject had escaped our attention; I state now, as the expression has been used that this is a question of hours, that we have some means, through the knowledge which the Admiral possesses of the position of Her Majesty's ships, of judging whether it is a question of hours or not. If Admiral Hewett were in Suakim with a force adequate for a given purpose, and ready to set out with that force, it might be a question of hours; but the hon. Gentleman, as I apprehend, has no information that that
    490
    is the case; and I venture to state to him that it is not only not a question of hours, but that nothing would be gained, but much might be lost, by forcing the Government, if he would force the Government, to a premature statement on a subject not ripe for it. ["Oh, oh!"] Why not yet ripe for it? [Laughter]. The hon. Member for Eye is accustomed to that form of interruption. He is one of the youngest Members of this House; but he has learned it with a perfection which I do not think could be exceeded if he had been a Member for two generations. Why is it not yet ripe for it? Because, as I have said, fuller materials are yet to be in our hands. It is necessary for us to hold communications with reference to this subject, and it is impossible for us to arrive at final or safe decisions without the result of these communications. I cannot now state the nature of them. It would be entirely premature; it would do nothing but mischief. As I said, it is necessary for us to hold these communications, and to take them into consideration, and I may perhaps remind the hon. Gentleman that it was only on Tuesday last that we heard of the disaster to General Baker, that at the time we heard of that disaster I believe we had lost the means of communicating by telegraph with General Gordon. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman says it is not necessary we should communicate by telegraph with General Gordon, but that is a matter I can only explain in connection with a full exposition of the functions and office of General Gordon in regard to the Soudan. I decline to go into it now. I have said all I can say. I have said the materials are not ripe. I have said that I do not believe that in any respect this case will be damaged by a postponement necessary for us to arrive at safe conclusions and to make a full statement to the House. Beyond that I cannot go. I assure the hon. Gentleman I am as anxious on the subject as he is; but the public interests are committed to our charge. We must not, we cannot, to satisfy the hon. Gentleman, or gratify a natural curiosity founded upon inconclusive evidence—although I do not question the genuineness of the feeling—go beyond our province. I need not repeat, perhaps, what I said at an earlier period of the evening; but I beg to remind hon. Gentlemen that there is

    491
    no question, in our view, and we ought to have the means of judging, of any advantage being derived from a premature statement. There is no military question dependent upon anything that may happen, so far as we know, between to-night and to-morrow night. If the hon. Gentleman looks at Sinkat and Tokar, we are bound to look at the whole of the Egyptian garrisons in the Soudan. We are bound to treat the question as a whole, and that will be the manner in which it will be my duty to treat it. I may say that I am physically and absolutely incapable of treating it to-night, for since 9 o'clock this morning, the longest interval I have had from Public Business is the time, Sir, you have been out of the Chair. That would be a very good argument for the moment, but not for the Motion the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) is to make to-morrow. For me it is a strong argument; but I should be sorry to urge it, were it not that it would do absolute mischief if I were to enter upon a partial statement. I ask the House to allow me to state the judgment of the Government at the first moment that we can hope to be in possession of the full materials.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Sir, while I admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister is occupying one of the most painful and one of the most embarrassing situations which it is possible for any human being at this moment to occupy, with the whole responsibility of Egypt resting upon his shoulders, in addition to those devolving on him through the Office he holds, still, I cannot but think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) has done nothing but his duty in calling the attention of the House to that which is a matter of urgent and pressing public importance. I have heard with regret the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the fate of Sinkat and Tokar, so far as any intervention on the part of Her Majesty's Government is concerned, was bound up with all the other garrisons throughout the Soudan.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have not said that.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: The hon. Gentleman limited his Question to Sinkat and Tokar, and the Prime Minister told him he took a narrow view—that there
    492
    were far larger interests—and he alluded to General Gordon's mission to Khartoum, and he led the House to understand that my hon. Friend had not looked at the safety of all the garrisons throughout the Soudan. That being the case, the House has heard to-night, and the country to-morrow will read, with the deepest regret and humiliation, that Her Majesty's Government have got no plan, and that they have never given any consideration to this matter.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have never said that Her Majesty's Government have given no instructions.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: Well, I will put it in this way—that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to tell the House of Commons that they have taken any effective steps to save the lives of those brave men in those two fortresses. My hon. Friend who made the Motion, as well as the hon. Gentleman who put the Question (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett), most scrupulously confined the Motion and the Question to the fate of those two garrisons. It is no answer for the Government to say that great and grave complications have to be considered, that they have to review all the circumstances of the case, that the telegraph has broken down, and that they cannot communicate with General Gordon. The country can only draw one conclusion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have never said we could not communicate with General Gordon.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: No; what the right hon. Gentleman said was that some days ago they were in great difficulties, and then he went on to say that they were unable also at present to communicate with General Gordon.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Knowing that the communication with General Gordon was interrupted by his leaving the line of the telegraph, but it had been restored.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: That confirms what I have said. I must say that the House of Commons and the country will deeply regret that the Government have not availed themselves of the repeated opportunities given them for satisfying the just apprehensions and alarms and expectations of the nation on this most painful question.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to say a word or

    493
    two on this question, because Admiral Hewett, who was a friend of his, was, at that moment, acting under instructions of which they had no information. It was a fact which must be known to the House, that no orders could be given to an Admiral Commanding in Chief unless issued by two Members of the Board of Admiralty, and countersigned by the Secretary to the Admiralty. Neither the Treasury, nor the Foreign Office, could send orders to conduct any act of war or business on his station; therefore, his hon. Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Carapbell-Bannerman) was cognizant of the instructions which were sent to Sir William Hewett. He (Sir John Hay) was aware that the Secretary to the Admiralty was not able to give the information to the House if the First Lord of the Treasury or the Members of the Cabinet did not give him sanction; but he would say that the Cabinet and the First Lord of the Treasury were much to blame if the Secretary to the Admiralty was not allowed to give the information which was asked as to the means at present at Sir William Howett's disposal, and his orders as to the disposing of those men. They knew that Admiral Hewett had 140 Marines, and they knew that the Orontes was stopped with men coming from India and China, some of whom only had arms, and that a certain number of unarmed men were with Admiral Hewett. They knew that Suakim was an island, and that, therefore, it could be defended. But they had no information whether Admiral Hewett had any force going to the relief of the garrison of Sinkat, within 30 miles, or any arrangement for the relief of Tokar. He spoke with a degree of deep regret, seeing that a gallant friend of his, Commander Moncrieff, was sent to his death there by Her Majesty's Government, who encouraged and allowed him to go out in the same manner in which poor General Hicks was sent to the shambles, and as General Baker had been allowed to march to defeat.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he is going far beyond the Motion of an urgent character which the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Chaplin) proposed to bring forward.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that General Baker's men were a portion of the garrison of Suakim, and were now under
    494
    Admiral Hewett's directions. They were not to be relied upon; and he should like to hear whether it was intended to arm with arms the disbanded men sent in the Orontes, and how long the Carysfort would take to come from Alexandria? According to his calculations, she could not arrive for the next five days. The House had a right to know, if the Government proposed to relieve the garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar, what means were at the disposal of Admiral Hewett, and what orders were sent to him by the Secretary to the Admiralty, which the right hon. Gentleman refused to communicate.
    MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMANsaid, that as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir John Hay) commenced by telling them that Admiral Hewett was a friend of his, he might have conveyed to some hon. Members the idea that he was speaking on behalf of Admiral Hewett, though not by special authority. But Sir William Hewett had raised none of the objections which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had raised as to his appointment. He had made no complaint of insufficient instructions. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government promised that, if possible, they would lay on the Table to-night the instructions given to Admiral Hewett, so that they should be circulated to-morrow morning. That he (Mr. Campbell-Bannerman) would take care should be done. With regard to the other questions which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to, he hoped the House would not take as accurate all that he had stated as to the course of events. So far as they had been under the control of the Government, all he need say was that fortunately they had been able to supply Sir William Hewett at once with all the additional force, both men and arms, he had asked for. He had no reason to suppose there had been any delay beyond what Sir William Hewett would necessarily expect.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he thought the discussion showed clearly that the House and the country had suffered from allowing the debate to collapse on Tuesday last. This question of the relief of the garrisons of Sinkat and Tokar must have been fully discussed on that occasion, and then the country would have been in possession of the views of the

    495
    Government with respect to those two garrisons. He must say that it did seem extraordinary that though six days had elapsed since then, they were still unable to answer the question. The position seemed to be this. It appeared almost impossible for the other garrisons in the Soudan to be relieved, and for that reason Her Majesty's Government would not hold out their hands to relieve Sinkat and Tokar. It was perfectly true that Her Majesty's Government had given tremendous pledges to fortune in sending out General Gordon. Those pledges were the very reason why Her Majesty's Government hesitated with regard to Sinkat. They had put themselves into such a position that they were afraid to tell the House when they were going to take hostile measures with regard to Sinkat, lest General Gordon might be imperilled as well as the garrisons he was trying to relieve. If the House was told by the Government the desperate position of those garrisons, with an assurance that they were afraid to make any declarations because the other garrisons would be in danger, he thought it very likely his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin) would say—Well, if that was the position in which the Government had placed themselves, he would not take any responsibility. The Government had placed themselves in such a position that they could not relieve Sinkat and Tokar until they heard from General Gordon. He did not think they had much chance of hearing from him for some time.
    SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, there was; they had heard from him that day.
    MR. BOURKEsaid, he was glad to hear it. But if General Gordon got to Khartoum, would they then be in telegraphic communication with him? As Gordon advanced the chances were that the telegraph would be cut, and then they might find General Gordon absolutely shut up in Khartoum, so that they would require to send a large army to relieve Khartoum and release General Gordon. However, if the statement were not delayed beyond to-morrow, he thought the House would be satisfied with the declaration of the Government.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, the Government had made the fact that they had not heard from Major
    496
    General Gordon the excuse for their failing to take measures for the relief of Tokar and Sinkat. He (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) did not envy their feelings when that became known to Major General Gordon. As to those places their condition was truly pitiable; indeed, the garrisons in them had been described by the correspondent of one of the morning papers as "chewing the leaves of the trees to alleviate their hunger." Why were not reinforcements sent to Admiral Hewett; and why, if it was decided to send reinforcements, had not the fact been declared to the House and the country? Because the Government had not made up its mind to take that step. The Government might say the sending out of reinforcements would have a bad influence on the results of the mission of General Gordon; but that was an excuse which would not be accepted by the country at large as satisfactory. The correspondent of The Times had telegraphed that morning that it was difficult adequately to describe the humiliation of the English in Egypt, adding these words—
    "Within four days of a British Army 7,000 strong, within a few hours of a post where a British Admiral is tardily allowed to take the supreme command, are a small, starving garrison, who are allowed to treat with barbarians for their lives, and who will probably be all massacred."
    Why, he asked, were not 1,500 men from the garrison at Cairo sent five days ago to the relief of Sinkat and Tokar? The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister told the House that at one time he had hopes that the force which had been given to Baker Pasha might achieve satisfactory results. But the Government had been told and warned betimes that the miserable, undisciplined, badly-armed set of cravens whom Baker commanded must inevitably meet with the fate which was ultimately theirs. Baker's mission was a desperate one, undertaken by a gallant man who carried his life in his hands, in order to strive to atone for the shortcomings of Her Majesty's Government, upon whom the whole of Europe was crying shame. From St. Petersburg to Rome, from Paris to the remotest limits of the civilized world, let hon. Members opposite read what the Press was saying about them. So long ago as Septem-

    497
    ber 18, Tewfik Bey, the gallant Governor of Suakim, whose fate now rested in the hands of Her Majesty's Government, said that, though he had crushed for a time the rebel movement in the neighbourhood of Sinkat, he must have a reinforcement of 2,000 men, if he was to maintain his position. Why was not something done to meet his views? Not one single step had been taken by the Government for the purpose of relieving the beleaguered garrisons, though the terrible state in which they were had been known for months. Suleiman Pasha months ago warned the Government that the Egyptian troops were absolutely unreliable, and applying, with a slight alteration, the words of Admiral Hewett as applied to the Egyptian Governor, he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) would say that "the fall of this place into the hands of the enemy would be a lasting disgrace "to the Ministers of the Crown. Yet, notwithstanding all warnings, they for months during the latter part of last year kept on repeating the cuckoo cry of "We are not responsible." This childish repudiation of responsibility had perforce been reversed, and in their despatch of January 4 the Government avowed their full responsibility. Under the régime of Her Majesty's Ministers men had been dragged in chains to fight against the troops of the False Prophet, despite their piteous cries not to be sent to the front. The Government had not been able like men, much less like statesmen, to grasp the situation, but had connived at brave English officers and poor, ill-clad, and ill-fed Egyptians being sent to their doom.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ashmead-Bartlett) that he is going far beyond the Question of urgent importance, to ask which the adjournment has been moved.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he was, of course, bound by the ruling of the right hon. Gentleman; but he was not aware that he had by a single sentence exceeded the limits of the Motion, which he took to be the fate of Tewfik Bey. At the same time, as be bad said, he bowed to the ruling of the Chair, though it might appear to him as being somewhat incomprehensible. The Government were responsible, according to their own showing, for what was going on, because they had imposed the present policy of withdrawal upon
    498
    the Egyptian Government against their will; and yet, with 500 blue-jackets at Suakim and 7,000 British soldiers at or near Cairo, they were allowing the brave Egyptian garrisons at Sinkat and other places to perish. What reason was there for this delay, in honour, in justice, or in humanity, excepting the pitiable vacillation and weakness of the Government. Why should not Parliament, the country, and the civilized world be told that these brave men were to be relieved, and that they were not to be allowed to be massacred almost in sight of British troops?
    Question put, and negatived.

  ORDERS OF THE DA Y.
    ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

      PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
      Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [5th February].—[See Page 52.]
      And which Amendment was,
      In line 62, after the word "us, "to insert the words" but humbly to assure Her Majesty that the recent policy and conduct of the Executive in Ireland have not tended to the interests of tranquillity or contentment among the Irish people, and particularly to deplore the wanton prohibition of legal and constitutional public meetings throughout Ireland, whereby the exercise of the right of free speech has been practically extinguished in that Country; also, to condemn the Irish Executive for having permitted bodies of magistrates to make with impunity public declarations applauding the conduct of Lord Rossmore (an ex-magistrate superseded for disturbing order, and for provoking ill-will and strife between different classes of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland), which public declarations have directly incited Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland to illegal acts, disorder, and violence."—(Mr. Parnell.)
      Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
      Debate resumed.
      MR. SEXTONsaid, the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was much more comprehensive than seemed to have been apparent to the minds of some hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the debate. The Amendment raised two specific indictments against the Irish

      499
      Executive, but beyond these two it contained a general charge against the policy and conduct of the Executive in Ireland. He thought that general charge had not received, in the course of the debate, as much attention as it deserved. It was expressed in these terms—
      "That the recent conduct and policy of the Executive in Ireland have not tended to the interests of tranquillity or contentment among the Irish people."
      It would have been strange indeed if this occasion had been allowed to pass without a general attack on the policy and conduct of the Government in Ireland, because, he made bold to say, there was no point in the public life of Ireland at which the hand of the Executive touched the interests of the people where the touch did not leave behind it feelings of irritation, resentment, and discontent. Need he refer to the condition of the magistracy of Ireland? Need he remind the House how often Irish Members complained of the partizan condition of that magistracy, and had exposed how the great function of the guardianship of the peace was confined, roughly speaking, to men of one creed, one condition, one class, one interest—to men who were at deadly issue with the people of Ireland, and at deadly issue with the people of Ireland upon the great social questions of the day? Despite all the complaints of hon. Members, the condition of the magistracy of Ireland remained as evil and unpopular as over it had been, and if confirmation were needed of the charge it could be found in the notorious circumstance that hundreds of magistrates, deputy lieutenants, and other dignitaries, charged with the guardianship of the peace in Ireland, had not been ashamed to appear in the position of revolters against the action of the Government and the constituted authorities in Ireland. Although the Chief Secretary had testified in his speech that serious crime in Ireland had fallen to a level which would not be discreditable to any country in the world, yet the detestable system of jury-packing was still daily being had recourse to by the Executive in Ireland; and to such a wantonness of licence had the pursuit of this invidious system of the corruption of the conscience of the juror driven the officials of the Crown that they had seen a Crown prosecutor
      500
      in Green Street insult the counsel defending a prisoner in open Court by calling him a coward, with an adjective prefixed, which he should be sorry to repeat before the Members of that House. They had seen the same prosecutor in the Court House of Cork insult the learned Judge (Mr. Justice Johnson), who was in the memory of the House, addressing him with an adjective and a noun, neither of which he (Mr. Sexton) could permit himself to quote. Another element of misgovernment in Ireland at the present moment was to be found in the continued imposing of the blood tax. If crime had fallen to so low a level as that described by the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if rents were paid more readily and more cheerfully than in parts of England, if the state of the community of Ireland was generally as tranquil as in Yorkshire or Kent, what reason could there be for oppressing the country with the rude, mediæval, barbarous expedient of a blood tax, which placed a cruel burden and an intolerable impost on the shoulders of the poorest and most industrious class in the country, to pay for crimes of which they were as ignorant and innocent as any Member of the House? Why, again, was the system of extra policemen continued? If grave crime had almost totally disappeared, and society had returned to its tranquil and normal position, why were those iron huts, or those extra forces, maintained in the peaceful districts of Ireland; and why were starving cottiers and hard - working farmers compelled to maintain a group of well-fed constables, who strolled about the district keeping perpetual holiday? Again, it had never been asserted by the Executive that the National League was not a Constitutional Association; and he wished to know why, then, the meetings of the National League were intruded upon by members of the police force—why a policy, useless to the Executive and irritating to the people, was thus obstinately pursued? Moreover, he would inquire why the Government so obstinately adhered to their policy of stimulated emigration? Why did they, by the use of the public funds, bribe Poor Law officials in Ireland, who ought to find the people relief at home—why did they bribe them to induce the people to expatriate themselves, and to subject

      501
      themselves to that poverty, that misery, and that horrible suffering which, according to the latest and most authentic reports from Canada and other places on the other side of the Atlantic, were now being endured by the victims of the emigration policy? Again, he would call attention to the policy of the Government in screening officials in every grade in Ireland. He had the satisfaction that afternoon of hearing from the Chief Secretary that one official in Ireland, who had distinguished himself as a partizan, bad been obliged to resign his post in the Public Service. He wished that that courageous course were more often pursued by the Government, and he could assure the House that no course would more directly tend to the purification of Irish public life, and the raising up of confidence in the good intentions of the Government, than a disposition on their part, manifested by such acts, to compel public officials, who were supported from the Public Revenues, to maintain an even and impartial position. He supposed, however, that the sin of Mr. Eyre Preston was that he had the audacity to question an act of the Government itself. Passing from that, there was nothing more clear than that the Government, in spite of their plausible professions, were really encouraging the gang of incendiary landlords who had provoked disturbances in Ulster. If the Government chose to reduce those gentlemen to obedience, there was nothing more easily in their power. But when he saw the Government one day offering a faint rebuke, and the next day holding out the most practical encouragement, he could only conclude that they were glad of impediments in the path of public progress in Ireland, which enabled them, by the old policy of division, to make misrule the more easy. In speaking of the disturbances in Ulster, he wished to distinguish between the incendiary landlords, who provoked the disturbances, and the great mass of his Protestant fellow-countrymen. He knew there were Protestants in Ireland as devoted to the National cause as any Catholics. He knew there were Protestants by the help of whose votes his hon. Friend (Mr. Healy) was returned for Monaghan. The true origin of the late disturbances in Ireland was the Monaghan Election. If there was any doubt that that was the origin of these
      502
      factitious and artificially-created disturbances, he could find it in one of the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) at Belfast, where he told his audience "to remember Monaghan and Mr. Healy. Let these words be your talisman and your watchword." He was not surprised the Monaghan Election filled the landlords of Ulster with alarm. It was the event which first brought clearly home to their minds the political decay of their Party, and the fact that the Parliamentary force of Ireland was passing from the hands of the Tories and the Whigs into those of the Independent Party which, in that House, represented the Irish cause. The Monaghan Election also proved that the time was past when Irishmen devoted to the cause of country could be sundered by the barrier of creed. Encouraged and cheered by the campaign in Monaghan, the Nationalists determined to increase their Parliamentary power in Ulster, in pursuance of the policy of the National League, by influencing public opinion, and, through public opinion, the action of that House. It had been said that the National League was the successor of the Land League, and should, therefore, be suppressed. The effect of that argument was that because there was once a Land League which was suppressed, Ireland should never again have a National organization; but the Land League itself had never been proved to be an illegal Association. Whatever opinion might be held about the Land League, it was certain of the National League that its constitution lay open before the judgment of the world; that its proceedings took place in the searching light of day; that its resolutions and actions were all before the criticism of the country; and yet, strange to say, in the whole course of this debate in which the National League had been assailed in a tissue of abuse, there had not been quoted one article of its constitution, one speech made by any of its principal men, or one resolution adopted at any of its meetings, which could be shown to be contrary either to the spirit or the letter of the law. It might not be known to the other hon. Members of the House, as well as it was to the Irish Members, that the Tory Party in Ireland had for many years maintained

      503
      their Parliamentary position by a system of chicanery and fraud in connection with the Parliamentary revision. The condition of the Law of Revision in Ireland was such that any agent could make an objection to any person either upon the register, or any person having a claim to the right to be there. And he was aware that the course adopted by the Tory Party in many constituencies in Ireland had been this. These agents served their notices of objection whole-Bale upon every voter placed upon the register, or who claimed to be placed upon it; and such was the injustice and oppression of the law in Ireland, that if from pressure by work, or from any circumstances, a voter was not able to attend the Court, the objector to him was not called upon to prove his objection. The mere fact that notice of the objection had been served on him was enough to disfranchise him, and deprive him of his right to a vote. The Tory Party had taken advantage of this, and. they had sympathizers among the Revising Officers in Ireland. He might instance the case of a farmer from the Howth district, who was obliged to attend two or three days at Kilmainham to endeavour to prove his right to a vote, and who lost that right through a necessary absence of five minutes from the Court. It was through this system that the National Land League resolved to concern itself with the work of registration. They saw that in order to save the people from the tricks of these unscrupulous and, sometimes, perjured agents—to save to thorn their Parliamentary franchise—it needed the best help they could give them, and the utmost diligence they could employ. They were told by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) that the National League was not a registration society. They proved their good faith by the exertions which they made last summer and last autumn in connection with the revision of the City and County of Dublin, when the offices and staff of the National League were given up for weeks and months together to enable the people to have their names put upon the Parliamentary register; and it was in pursuit of the honest design of giving as many Irishmen as possible a voice in the election of Members of that House that the National League directed its attention to Ulster. They had no doubt
      504
      that if the franchise were fully exercised—if the tricks and the frauds of the Tory agents were defeated—if the people who were entitled to vote were put fully on the register, other counties in Ulster would be glad to follow the example of Cavan and Monaghan. The landlords of whom he had spoken proceeded to warn the people of Ulster against plunder, robbery, outrage—against burning, and murder, and slaughter. A "rash" of inflammatory placards broke out all over the Province. The Representatives of the people, elected Members of that House, who were announced to address the Ulster meetings, were described in these threatening and murderous placards as hirelings, as rapparees, as miscreants, as slums, as sons of the devil, as assassins, and murderers, and butchers. The resources of etymology were exhausted. What were the agencies relied upon by the landlords of Ulster to resist the encroachments of the National League—a body that desired to proceed by National methods towards Constitutional ends? They wished to improve the condition of the farmers, they wished to better the condition of the labourers, they wished, in regard to these two classes of men, to proceed in the direction indicated and sanctioned by the Legislature in that House. They wished to take away from country gentlemen the power of spending money which they did not pay, and which they were not elected to control. They wished to break down class privileges; they wished, before all and above all—what was the ultimate object of every Irishman—to secure for the Irish people the control of their own affairs. They were not aware, and he was not now aware, that there was in any of these objects anything deserving to be called seditious and disorderly; and in regard in particular to the claim of the Irish people to manage their own affairs, he was at a loss to understand how such a claim as that on the part of Ireland, a part of the Empire so near to its very heart, could be very seditious or treasonable when it had been already freely conceded to the people of Canada, of the Cape, of Australia, and of New Zealand—to every community of the subjects of the Crown in the most distant extremities of the Empire. Such were their objects and motives; and now let him ask how were

      505
      they encountered? Was it by an attempt to prove that the balance of public opinion was against them? Was it by any attempt to refute their arguments? Was it by an attempt to establish a case for the landlords within the bounds defined by the Constitution? No; the agencies relied upon were the bludgeon, the rifle, the revolver, and the river. The noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) stood alone among the leaders in his preference for the bludgeon, as he said to his followers—"Keep a firm grip on your sticks." The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) and the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) appeared to have a preference for the rifle. Major Saunderson and Mr. Murray Ker, in the choice of weapons, thought the revolver suitable, and Captain Barton and Mr. Fitzmaurice Bloomfield, J.P., thought it more wise and proper that the visitors should be ducked in the river. These were the Constitutional methods by which the loyal and patriotic landlords of Ulster endeavoured to encounter the reasonable, peaceable, and Constitutional movement of the National League. The fact that they raised the cry of sedition against them was a proof of their audacity, because in all the speeches delivered in Ulster on the side of the National League there could not be found a word of disrespect to the Sovereign nor of defiance to the Constitution, while upon their side the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton) declared that he and his friends would take the law into their own hands. Lord Rossmore—that hero beside whom Lord Napier was only an obscure raider—desired to eat up the Queen's soldiers, while Captain Barton—a hero hitherto unknown to fame—frankly declared that the Orangemen could be the Government if they liked. The Orange landlords had been mouthing loudly about loyalty. In a country despotically governed loyalty might be attacked and the person or the personal will of the Sovereign; but in a country Constitutionally ruled, where the will of the Sovereign practically meant the ratification of the will of the people, loyalty was not at all in the same degree an attachment to the person of the Sovereign as it was a respect for the constituted authorities
      506
      and a readiness to obey the law. But he was extremely astonished that the landlords of Ulster, who had broken through the law and violated the public rights, should not be ashamed to endeavour to cover up their delinquencies by the cry of "God save the Queen." It was a superfluous act of devotion on their part. Her Majesty's salvation was not likely to be advanced by any invocation of that character, and he was obliged to add that he wondered that the heads of the Orange Society were not ashamed to mention the name of the Sovereign, because it was notoriously a matter of history in the knowledge of the last generation that if the heads of the Orange Society had had their way the Princess Victoria would never have reached the Throne. The records of the Orange Society of Ireland would show that it had nothing to boast of on the score of loyalty. Between 1822 and 1829 Orange Lodges in the Army were officially reprobated. In 1835 a Select Committee of the House inquired into their nature and tendencies, and on the Motion of Mr. Hume the House adopted 11 condemnatory Resolutions. It was determined to take proceedings against the King's brother, the Duke of Cumberland, as a grand officer; the proceedings were averted by the absconding of one witness and the death of another from excitement; otherwise the Grand Lodge of Ireland would probably have been implicated in the attempt to corrupt the Military and Naval Forces of the Crown with a view to defeat the claims of the Princess Victoria. This was the Society that prated to intelligent subjects of the Queen about loyalty. The prosecution having in this manner fallen through, in the following February Mr. Hume in that House moved a Resolution, every word of which was applicable to the circumstances and nature of the Orange Society at the present day. The Resolution declared that the existence of the Orange Society was "highly detrimental to the peace of the country by exciting discord amongst Her Majesty's subjects;" that it was contrary to the due administration of justice that any Judge, sheriff, magistrate, juryman, or any other person employed in maintaining the peace of the country should be bound by any secret obligation to, or be in any combination with, any society unknown to the laws and united

      507
      upon principles of religious exclusion; that even if justice were impartially administered under such circumstances, which was in itself impossible, yet communication with such societies would create suspicion and jealousy detrimental to the peace and good government of the country, and that the Orange Societies and all other societies which had secret forms of initiation and secret signs were particularly deserving of the severest condemnation of the House, and the Resolution furthermore called for the removal from the Public Service of every Judge, Privy Councillor, Lord Lieutenant, Magistrate, &c, and in Ireland of every functionary and Justice of the Peace who would not, being an Orangeman, leave the Society after one month's notice. That Resolution was not carried, but on the Motion of the Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, a Resolution similar in effect was adopted. It was resolved to address the King, praying His Majesty to take measures for the effectual discouragement of Orange Lodges. Two days afterwards the King sent a Message willingly assenting in these terms—"It is my firm intention to discourage all such societies in my dominions." In the following month a Treasury Minute was issued calling upon all persons in the Government Service to withdraw from the Society on pain of dismissal. Nothing further was done by the authorities for 20 years. In 1857, troubles having broken out in the North of Ireland with tumults and loss of life, Lord Chancellor Brady addressed instructions to Lord Londonderry, Lord Lieutenant of the County Down, which stated—
      "The Orange Society is mainly instrumental in keeping up this excitement in the North. It is manifest that the existence of this Society, and the conduct of those who belong to it, tend to keep up through large districts of the North a spirit of hitter and factious hostility among all classes of Her Majesty's subjects, and to provoke violent animosity and aggression. It is impossible to regard any such association as one which should receive countenance from any person in authority in the State. It does appear that the interests of the public peace require that no such encouragement should be given to this Society by the appointment of any gentleman to the commission of the peace who is, or intends to be, a member of it."
      So little had matters mended since 1857 in Ireland, that at the present moment every prominent man in the Orange Society who was connected with the disturbances in Ulster, except Lord
      508
      Rossmore, was a guardian of the peace appointed in the name of Her Majesty in Ireland. In 1855, Lord Palmerston, being then Prime Minister, received a deputation, which protested against the instructions of Lord Chancellor Brady. It was curious to note that the number of magistrates who signed the Memorial to Lord Palmerston was about the same as the number which signed the insubordinate declaration against the Government in regard to Lord Rossmore. But the decay of the Parliamentary force of the Orange faction was very noticeable, for whereas 36 Members signed the Petition to Lord Palmerston, he found, after carefully searching the declarations from 12 counties, that amongst the 600 magistrates who signed the protest against the supersession of Lord Rossmore, only five were Members of Parliament. He invited every rational Englishman to pay close attention to the words of Lord Palmerston. The deputation desired him to withdraw the instructions of the Lord Chancellor, and to allow the Orange faction to have free way in Ireland. Lord Palmerston replied—
      "What, let mo ask, is the object, and what are the prospective advantages, of the Orange Association? Is it an organization which belongs to the age in which we live? Is not it rather one that is suited to the Middle Ages? Not being an Orangeman myself "——
      [Colonel KING-HARMAN: Hear, hear!] Those were the words of Lord Palmerston, and not of himself.
      "Not being an Orangeman myself, I confess I am at a loss to understand the use of the Association in the present day."
      The Earl of Enniskillen, who was the fugleman of the deputation, being Imperial Grand Master of the Irish Orangemen, broke in with this explanation of its use—"Self-defence, my Lord." Lord Palmerston's common sense was not to be deceived, and he inquired—"Self-defence against what?" Exactly; that was the question they asked again to-day. Was it self-defence against an unarmed people? Was it self-defence against a people disarmed by law? Was it self-defence against people who were, in a peaceful and orderly manner, pursuing legal ends? Lord Palmerston added—
      "I must really say that I think it is offensive, as regards the Government and institutions of this country, to say that the general Govern-

      509
      ment of this country is not adequate to protect individuals from violence."
      No; it must be left to the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) and his friends with the cartridges in their rifles, and to the noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) and his friends with the firm grip of their sticks, and not to the general Government of the nation, to protect themselves. Lord Palmerston added—
      "I must be allowed to say that the very foundation on which the Orange Society rests casts a reflection upon the Government of the Empire. Nothing could be more desirable for the interests of Ireland than a complete abandonment of the organization."
      Notwithstanding that declaration, so timid and vacillating were the English Executive of every Party in dealing with the territorial and privileged class in Ireland, that they found the Society which Lord Palmerston condemned still flourishing. That confirmed his suspicions that this Government, like every other, was glad at anything that happened in Ireland to impede the progress of the people, and to prevent them from discussing their grievances and increasing their Parliamentary force. Ever since 1810 the Orange Society had been strictly and absolutely illegal. He invited the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, who would probably make his maiden speech during this discussion, to say whether there was not an Act passed in 1810 which was still in force, and which enacted that—
      "Any person who shall administer, or cause to be administered, or even shall be present at the administering of any oath or engagement importing to bind a person to be of any Association or Society whatsoever formed or to be formed for (firstly) seditious purposes, (secondly) to disturb the public peace, (thirdly) to compel any person to do or omit or refuse to do any act whatsoever, and (fourthly) to obey the orders of any committee or district master or commander, shall be adjudged guilty of felony, and be transported for seven years."
      Notwithstanding the denial of the noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh, he believed Orangemen still entered their Lodges under religious sanction, taking the Bible in their hands. Was it not notorious that by the speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), Lord Rossmore, Captain Barton, and others, the Orange Society had proved itself seditious, and
      510
      had acted otherwise in violation of that Statute? In 1823 a further Act was passed, and he held that so long as these two Acts remained on the Statute Book it was cowardly, and disgraceful, and partial of this Government of the "even keel" to allow this faction to remain in Ireland flourishing, to the disturbance of the rights of the inhabitants of that country. Coming to the second part of his hon. Friend's Amendment, which called attention to the impunity allowed to magistrates who had supported Lord Rossmore's course of conduct, he might observe that the only defence made for Lord Rossmore in that House which was worthy of a moment's notice was merely a plea for mercy. They were told he was young; but, as was said in Ireland, he was "old enough to have sense." The details of his action at the meeting had little to do with the case. He believed that Lord Rossmore violated his duty as a magistrate the moment he placed himself at the head of a body of armed men with the intention of proceeding to the vicinity of a peaceful meeting to overawe and disturb it, and he had received only what he merited if he was prosecuted before a Crimes Prevention Court, and sent for six months to prison. The Lords Commissioners, in dismissing him, said it could not be allowed that magistrates could give the slightest sanction to such a course of conduct as that which he pursued. Now, he should have thought, firstly, that such a warning, coming from such a source, would have been sufficient to deter bodies of magistrates in Ireland from such an act of insubordination and political indecency as that involved in approval and applause of the course of conduct adopted by Lord Rossmore. And he would have thought, in the second place, that after the declarations of the Lords Commissioners and of the Lord Chancellor, and after the declarations of the magistrates, the Government would have shown a sense of fair play by applying the words of the Lord Chancellor, in their natural and ordinary meaning, to the conduct of the magistrates. He supposed there would be meetings again in Ireland, that public life in that country did not end at Dromore on New Year's Day, and he would like to know with what confidence the Government could face the future, leaving in the Commission of the Peace

      511
      the 600 magistrates who signed those declarations, some of them declaring that under similar circumstances they would imitate Lord Rossmore? Hoar what the magistrates of Westmeath declared—gentlemen whom, he was bound to say, had concealed their names.
      COLONEL KING-HARMAN: I signed mine.
      MR. SEXTON: The hon. and gallant Member no doubt signed his name; but I can state that when the resolutions were published in The Daily Express the names were omitted. What said they?
      "We, one and all, declare that, under similar circumstances, we should feel bound to act as he did."
      Asregarded the hon. Member for Armagh, he (Mr. Sexton) did not know whether the hon. Member was a magistrate.
      MR. BERESFORD: A magistrate of two counties.
      MR. SEXTON: A double reason for your suspension. A series of meetings might, however, be held in the county of Westmeath, and how would the Government act if these gentlemen carried out their threat and endeavoured to prevent the people from exercising their legal right? The magistrates for Car-low, Cork, Down, Monaghan, and other counties made declarations to the same effect, and what logical argument the Government could advance for retaining these gentlemen in the Commission of the Peace he could not conceive. He had put before the House the position of these magistrates in regard to Lord Rossmore, and if the Government had carried out their convictions, or wished to prove the honesty of their professions, they would not hesitate a moment in what to do with them. If they were, as it was said, a Government of the "even keel," and not a Government that careened very much to the one side, they would have suspended by this time every one of these 600 magistrates who represented one class and one interest, and have appointed instead, not young men like Lord Rossmore, or mere boys like others that he knew, but respectable and independent men representing various classes and interests in society, whose administration of the law would bring strength to the Government and induce amongst the people a respect for the administration of the law. The noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Vis-
      512
      count Crichton) said that, considering the way in which the office was degraded, the Commission of the Peace was not an enviable position now in Ireland—[Viscount CRICHTON: Hear, hear!]—and, therefore, the Chief Secretary need not be apprehensive of the tenderness with which he would have to inflict the blow, for the noble Lord and the hon. and gallant Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) would be only too delighted to be relieved from the office, while the people of Ireland would be only very glad to have for them more impartial substitutes. But if the Chief Secretary did not suspend the magistrates, what would he do with the High Sheriffs? The High Sheriffs of Tyrone, King's County, Waterford, Wicklow, and Eos-common bad signed these declarations. These functionaries had important public duties to perform with regard to the empanelling of juries; and he would like to know what course the Chief Secretary proposed to take with regard to them after the distinctly partizan stand they had taken in this matter? He would like to know, also, what the right hon. Gentleman meant when he said that in order to hold a magistrate responsible for sanctioning a certain course of conduct the magistrate must take part in that course of conduct? Now, he thought sanction was an act of the mind, and did not require any corresponding act of the body—that it meant confirmation and approval. Indeed, he thought it would be admitted that the Chief Secretary was warping the meaning of the word to suit the exigencies of the case; and if this now and irrational meaning was to be given to the word, the right hon. Gentleman had better set about preparing a dictionary of political terms for the use of the Members of the House. He had observed that the speeches made by the Tory Party in defence of Lord Rossmore, and the strange proceedings in the North, became more feeble as the speakers became more important. For instance, the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), who had brought to the service of the Orangemen the military skill of the two war-worn Services, Her Majesty's Militia and the Grenadier Guards, and who never succeeded in obtaining his re-election for any constituency in Great Britain or Ireland—the

      513
      only point worthy of notice made by him was that if he were in Derry he would be very glad to head the mob who seized the town hall and made a murderous attack on the people beneath. He was glad the noble Lord made that statement, for it showed what manner of men these Orange leaders were. The hon. Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) contributed an amusing feature to the debate. He said that the firing of shots was a sort of habit in Ireland on all joyous occasions. He asked was it blank cartridge which the Orangemen were supposed to have in their rifles at the meeting called by the hon. Gentleman who claimed clanship with Robert Bruce? He should like to know if the hon. Member for Coleraine, when he told his Orangemen "to keep the cartridge in the rifle," intended that it should be blank cartridge; or Captain Barton, when he told them "to bring their sweethearts and plenty of stuff?" Could anyone suppose that the warlike Lord Rossmore, or Grand Master M'Clintock, who told his hearers each to bring a copy of Sankey's hymns, would have had anything of that sort? He had heard the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) defend the Orangemen; but he (Mr. Sexton) felt bound to admit that he did not seem to have his heart in the thing at all; and he would venture to assert that if when he first went to the Bar he had so bad a case, he (Mr. Sexton) feared that he (Mr. Gibson) would never have reached his present eminence. As, however, he really expected to meet him one day or other in the Irish House of Commons, he did not wish in advance to prejudice the cordiality of the situation. He (Mr. Gibson) had opened his speech by declaring that the Irish population had diminished; but was he aware of the fact that the population of Ulster had decreased 25,000 more than Munster, 35,000 more than Leinster, and three times as much as Connaught within the last decade? If the Irish people were going away, there were more of them going from amongst those in the North than in Munster or other parts of Ireland. His right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) had said that the people wanted "repose and security to be allowed to settle down." Well, he (Mr. Sexton) quite agreed with him. Ireland wanted repose
      514
      from the disturbances of Irish landlord factions; Ireland wanted security of the public rights of citizens, and not to settle down in apathy and despair, but in the hope of obtaining a progressive course of social and political reconstruction. He did not like to quarrel with the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin for having a high opinion of the Irish Conservatives, but would merely observe that the same opinion was not held by their recognized organs of opinion in Ireland. The Dublin livening Mail had, some time since, declared that the "loyal Irish Conservatives" had played but a poor part in Ulster, as they were the laziest, the most unprofitable, and the least reliable of the Members; and, with the exception of one or two, that there was not a single Conservative Member of the North of Ireland who deserved to be re-elected. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin would be one of the two Conservative Members who would be returned in the next Parliament. The whole campaign in Ulster had been a game of brag and unmeaning bluster on the part of the Orangemen, and of utter cowardice on the part of the Executive. What could be imagined more cowardly than for the Government not to have stopped at the beginning that course of violence, by means of the Crimes Prevention Act. Why, when one of these murderous placards was posted, was not a summons issued against every man who put his name to it? Why were such persons not brought before the Resident Magistrate, and kept for a couple of months on the plank bed in gaol? He could assure the Government that such a course, moderate though it might be, would cool the ardour of the most redoubtable of them. The Government could easily have said—"This Nationalist popular meeting is legal, peaceful, and orderly, and we have no fault to find with the objects of it," and then accord the Orangemen permission to hold a meeting anywhere else in Ireland that they desired, or even upon the same spot upon any other day of the year. He contended that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his speech on behalf of the Government, had entirely proved the case for the Nationalists. In one sentence of his speech he made it plain to him (Mr.

      515
      Sexton) that the principle upon which the Government proceeded in prohibiting meetings in Ulster was unsound. He said that, when the risk was so great that it required 800 or 1,000 soldiers to keep the peace, the Government stopped the meeting in order to save the country from expense. That was a strange reason for the stoppage of a legal and Constitutional meeting, held in pursuance of a public right, just because a body of disorderly men chose to threaten them with armed violence. The Government had 12,000 police and between 20,000 and 30,000 soldiers, who had little to do; and the matter of mere expense should not enter into the question of the protection of persons discussing questions of public importance. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that at Dromore sackfuls of revolvers were picked up which had been thrown away by Orangemen, who had seen a shrewd, energetic officer search one of their number. [Mr. MACARTNEY: The Nationalists.] The right hon. Gentleman would not have fallen into so absurd a mistake as to have said that of the Nationalists. Considering that these Orangemen threw away their arms for fear of being searched by a single police officer, would any reasonable man believe that they were a class of men to require 800 or 1,200 soldiers to disperse their meeting? He assured the Government that if 50 police, duly armed, and half a troop of Lancers—the same force as induced Lord Ross-more, after all his mock heroic harangue, to keep quiet—were sent to any peaceful meeting, there would be no danger; for the only time that any casualty had occurred amongst range-men was when they were running away. This was in the case of the poor dupe who was brought from his loom in the mill at Portadown to engage in a cause the merits of which he knew nothing of. During the greatest meetings of the Land League movement the right hon. Gentleman and his Predecessors were satisfied to send 50 police; and he asked him to send the same guard to any meeting in the North of Ireland, and he was ready to stake his reputation that the Orangemen of Ireland would soon prove that their game was a game of bluster and brag. The parties of men who took part in
      516
      these demonstrations were purely ornamental, and they were called together merely in the hope of forcing the Executive through fear to prohibit the meetings. The Chief Secretary in his own speech proved their delusive character, and this was borne out by the circular issued by the Tyrone Orange Lodge appealing for funds to pay for the transport and expenses of loyal men, which simply meant the cost of their railway tickets and their maintenance and remuneration. These gentlemen of the County Grand Lodge Circular of Tyrone had appealed publicly for funds for what was styled "the transport and expenses of loyal men," which was probably a euphemism for "payment." The Nationalists who attended the meeting were the people of the district. They walked unarmed to the meeting, while the Orangemen carried revolvers, and were carted from all parts of the country. The Chief Secretary had said that in one case as many as 3,500 Orangemen were met together. Men might as well be brought from Switzerland to attack a peaceful meeting as from Portadown.
      MR. MACARTNEY: I saw Nationalists come to the meeting in trains.
      MR. SEXTON: Yes; that might be so, but the difference was that the Nationalists who went by train paid their own fares, which none of the Orangemen did. In conclusion, he left the Government to consider this great question cautiously, gravely, and impartially. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) said the other night that the Irish Question had been a problem before they were born, and would remain so after they had passed away. It certainly would continue to be a problem if men refused to see the right way to solve it. But he hoped that the Government would see that the people of Ireland were prepared to maintain the welfare and the honour of their own country, irrespective of any society or faction whatsoever. If they disarmed the people of Ireland, but left arms in the hands of a violent faction, the people of Ireland would contrive to arm themselves. They would insist upon fair play. If the Government disarmed one party, let them disarm all. Unless the Orangemen were disarmed the people would arm themselves. [Mr. MACARTNEY: They are

      517
      armed.] The Crimes Act imposed six months' imprisonment for carrying a revolver, but it was much better to run the chance of imprisonment for six months for carrying a revolver than to incur certain death for the want of one. Let the Government then determine what course they would take; of this he could assure them, that the people of Ireland encouraged by the possession of a free vote, encouraged by having broken down the ascendancy of a class, encouraged by having an independent Party to speak their minds, and to watch their interests in Parliament, would not be deterred from the path upon which they had entered by any faction, no matter how gross its purposes or how vile its threats. Public life in Ireland must have free way. Violent factions must not interfere with the rights of citizens. An open arena must be preserved where every man could speak his mind without fear or favour, and the Irish people would then prove, without incurring an unjust reputation for arousing sedition or disorder, that they could put an end to what was called the Irish problem by protecting their own interests, asserting their own rights, and regenerating their own country.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, that in a speech of nearly two hours, to which the House had just listened with so much attention, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), although he had made many allusions to the Government, had not even in a remote way touched upon the Amendment upon which he was supposed to speak. The latter part of the hon. Member's speech was confined to denunciations of the Orange body and all loyal men in general, and of individuals in particular, but in no way did it deal with the subject of the Amendment. The same might be said of the speech which had been delivered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). In fact, the two speeches suggested the same idea, that the Amendment, while ostensibly aimed at the Government, was really directed at a body of men—the Orangemen—whom the National League hated because it feared them, and because they had proved to be a match for the League. The only point the hon. Gentleman who last addressed the House had made was that the Government had disarmed a disloyal portion of the population,
      518
      while they had left arms in the hands of the Orange Party. But what was the fact? No sooner had the so-called Nationalists attempted their invasion of Ulster than the Government issued a proclamation disarming the whole of the peaceable and loyal county of Fermanagh, in which no outrage had taken place. No sooner had Mr. Parnell's lieutenants proclaimed their intention of holding meetings in Tyrone, than the whole of the law-abiding inhabitants of that county were deprived of their arms by a Government order. It was too late an hour to go into the speech of the hon. Gentleman; but there were points in it which he (Colonel King-Harman) believed it was necessary to touch upon. The hon. Member had referred lightly to the action of the Government towards the close of his speech—namely, when he made some slight allusion to the consequences of their action; and he had asked why this odious blood-tax was imposed on the country, if the country was loyal and peaceable? It was imposed because as long as it was not imposed the country was suffering from the scourge of murder, and it would be a crying shame and a wanton sin to remove it so long as there was a possibility of crime and outrage being renewed. The hon. Member stated that the National League was a loyal body, and that it had nothing to do with the Land League. He (Colonel King-Harman) thought that out of the hon. Gentleman's own mouth he could prove that his words were not exactly accurate. Speaking in Glasgow, on the 6th of November, 1883, the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) used these words—
      "Yes; Mr. Forster's Police Act has certainly passed away, but the Irish people remain; the spirit of the Land League survives, and the ex-suspects are the leaders of the people."
      [Irish MEMBERS: Hear, hear!] Hon. Gentlemen were quite welcome to say "Hear, hear!" He (Colonel King-Harman) quoted these words as the hon. Member's own testimony that the National League was the same body, headed by the same leaders, and animated by the same spirit as the Land League, which was suppressed by the Government. It passed his comprehension to understand how the Members of Her Majesty's Government could sit still and hear the National League de-

      519
      fended and spoken of as a loyal body, seeing they were the same Members of the Government who—especially the Home Secretary—in scathing terms, had denounced the Land League as an institution fraught with misery, and whose footsteps had been dogged with blood, murder, and rapine. The hon. Member for Sligo had launched forth upon the representation of the Irish people. He had told them that, at present, a voter had to travel a long distance in order to register his vote, and that not unfrequently he was unable to get his vote registered at all. If the hon. Member's remarks were true, then all he (Colonel King-Harman) could say was that the hon. Member and his Colleagues worked remarkably well in the county of Dublin last year, because they succeeded in sowing frivolous objections broadcast to the annoyance of many honest men in the county of Dublin, and to a greater extent than ever had been even hinted at before. That was the course taken by the National League last year. [Mr. HARRINGTON: We have not done with you yet.] An hon. Member said they had not done with him yet. No; they had not done with him yet, and he could assure them that it would be a long time before they had done with him. In Parliament or out, in England or in Ireland, in the North or in the South, he could assure them that they had not done with him yet, much as they might desire that consummation. The hon. Genleman said that when the National League went to Ulster, he defied any man to show that there were any meetings or speeches in connection with it that could be considered disloyal. He (Colonel King-Harman) agreed with the hon. Member. He had read all the speeches delivered in Ulster, and there was nothing disloyal to be found in them. They took very good care not to say anything disloyal. But he had read speeches delivered by the same persons in other parts of Ireland, and he had not read one that was not teeming, from beginning to end. with disloyalty. The hon. Member for Sligo talked of respect for constituted authority. Had the hon. Member ever read a speech delivered by a member of the National League, in which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was compared to a hangman? Had he ever read a speech in which Lord Spencer was compared
      520
      to a drunken horsebreaker, and in which the antecedents of that noble Lord and of other members of his family were spoken of in a most foul and disgraceful manner? The loyalty of the leaders had been talked about, and he thought he might dismiss that matter without much further comment. On the other hand, the loyalty of the Orangemen had stood the test of centuries. Loyal they were formed; loyal they had remained; and loyal they were still. It was very easy to rake up the old story of 1835, when a charge was brought against them which from its very enormity was difficult to disprove, but which fell to the ground upon investigation. He would allow that in 1857, when charges were made against the Orange body, religious feeling ran painfully and distressingly high at the time, and there was imported into the Orange body a religious and sectarian animosity which was deplorable at the time, and which all of them could not but deplore now. He maintained, however, that at the present moment there was but little of that religious bigotry existing among the Orange body; and he further maintained that they were at the present moment a staunch bulwark of loyalty in Ireland. But he said deliberately that the Orangemen were not the only-loyal men in the country. There were hundreds of thousands of loyal men in Ireland who were Protestants and not Orangemen, and other Irishmen who were not Protestants or Orangemen, but who were glad of the ægis of Orangemen behind which they were able to rally themselves. Orangemen would not now be attacked with the malignity with which they were being attacked by the National League, unless the National League knew well that it was the first bulwark they had attacked which they had been unable to surmount. The present debate was opened by a speech of a most extraordinary description, delivered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). When the hon. Member rose to move the Amendment which stood in his name, everybody expected a tremendous denunciation of the Government, and the most scathing observations directed against the Orangemen; but, on the contrary, they had a speech of extraordinary mildness—a speech very different indeed from other speeches de-

      521
      livered by the hon. Member himself and his followers over in Dublin. The hon. Member for Cork showed that he could roar as gently as any sucking-dove. It was a most extraordinary thing for an Irishman to come over from Dublin to that House and to find how little Englishmen had read of the speeches delivered by the Irish Members of that House elsewhere. If those Irish speeches had been studied by hon. Members on the other side of the House, they would give a little less credence to the speeches delivered in Parliament, which generally contained the same thing they had had that night—namely, absolute bosh—such as what they heard that night about the extension of the franchise. According to their own story, these innocent and harmless emissaries of the National League never dreamt of blood until they went to Ulster and saw the Orangemen there. Their object had been simply to instruct the peaceful citizens of the North how to exercise the franchise. That was the reason why they went to Garrison, Blaeklion, Rosslea, and other places where there were very few voters. The hon. Member for the City of Cork attacked the Government for allowing the meetings in the North which the Orangemen wished to hold, while they suppressed the Nationalist meetings in the South and West of Ireland. Now, his (Colonel King-Harman's) charge against the Government was that they did not suppress the meetings in the South and West of Ireland, but that they had allowed them to be held all over the South and West, notwithstanding the fact that no word was spoken at them about the franchise, but that every second word held up the Government to execration, or some particular individual to public odium. They always found the old cries of "No rent!" and "Down with the landlords! "with the view eventually of bringing about the separation of the two countries. With questionable taste the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said that the landlords of Ulster had called these meetings in order to protect their own pockets. He (Colonel King-Harman) would tell the House one thing they did not call them for. They did not call those meetings in order to fill their own pockets. Nor—though, by the tenantry having followed evil counsels, and by the action of the Government in first passing an
      522
      Act which contained much injustice, and afterwards carrying out that Act in a most unjust manner, some of them might be reduced to the condition which the hon. Member for the City of Cork described as threadbare—did they go to Parliament to ask for assistance to clear off their mortgages; nor did they go to a starving and down-trodden peasantry to extract from them a tribute of £38,000. It was the old, old Nationalist story; the old begging plea; the inexhaustible bottle of the conjuror. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen did not appear to relish his remarks. Then, forsooth, the Orangemen and the Leader of the Opposition were accused of stirring up sectarian strife and disunion in Ulster. It was said that they had employed a body of hirelings. Now, the persons he had seen in Dungannon, and who were described as hirelings, were honest farmers who had left their farms on the day after the great storm, when their crops were scattered through the fields, and their work was sorely needed at home, in order to make a protest against the views of people they detested. They were no hirelings, but true men and as good men as any in Her Majesty's Dominions. As he had said, the Orangemen and loyal men of Ireland were accused, together with the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition, of having gone into Ulster and stirred up sectarian disunion. That came with a very bad grace from such men as the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who said, in a speech at Bermondsey, that he would not count any man as an Irishman who was not a Roman Catholic. The hon. Member then went off into rabid abuse of other people, and spoke of a man named Matthews who was lying in gaol at the time untried. In such a case the hon. Member might just as well have held his tongue; but he said that Matthews was about to be tried on a charge which could only be described as a practical joke. He (Colonel King-Harman) had heard of practical jokes before, especially in reference to the use of dynamite; and perhaps the hon. Member knew more of these practical jokes than Mr. Matthews. It was quite evident to Englishmen why the loyal men of Ulster objected to these meetings being held by the so-called National Party, and they blamed the Government for permitting them to be held. In the first place, they considered

      523
      themselves loyal and true men; they protested against the idea of separation; and they were loyal and true to their Queen and country. Besides that, they knew the effect of these meetings. They knew the result of having their friends and themselves held up to public execration and the life and property of every man made insecure wherever these abominable meetings were held. They knew what had been the painful result of similar meetings in the South and West—how they had been attended by fatal consequences; and yet these mild lambs of the National League professed to complain of the dreadful violence used at the Orange demonstrations, in connection with which one unfortunate boy was done to death by Her Majesty's police, but not a single Nationalist's head was broken. There was one occurrence of which the hon. Member for the City of Cork drew a sad picture, and it was an occurrence which he (Colonel King-Harman) deplored with all his heart. He referred to the unhappy death of a revered lady in Belfast. But how had it been turned to account by the Nationalists? No doubt, as on most similar occasions, there followed the torch-light procession at Belfast a certain number of wild harum-scarum boys who, on passing the convent, threw a few stones and broke some panes of glass. Such a thing was scandalous; but a body of Orangemen in the procession when they heard that stones were being thrown turned back and chased away those who threw them. He appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, whether he had not received a report to that effect from the police? With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, as far as the main body of it went, he might say that he should have been prepared to support it to the extent of the first five lines. He would have been prepared—
      "Humbly to assure hon. Members that the recent policy and conduct of the Executive in Ireland had not tended to the interests of tranquillity or contentment among the Irish people, and that he particularly deplored the wanton prohibition of legal and constitutional public meetings throughout Ireland."
      But the question was, what were legal and Constitutional meetings in Ireland? What he contended was, that Her Ma-
      524
      jesty's Government had protected illegal and unconstitutional meetings in Ireland, and had prohibited the legal and loyal meetings. Disloyal meetings had been allowed to take place, while loyal meetings had been stopped where there was some chance of showing that there was a strong body of men in Ireland who were loyal, and of enabling Englishmen and Scotchmen to see that there were men in Ireland who were totally opposed to separation and who were in favour of the maintenance of law and order. At Rosslea, Lord Rossmore, for what could be described at the most as an error of judgment, was suspended without trial. At Loughrea, a meeting was proclaimed, magistrates went down, and proclamations were posted everywhere; but in spite of the Government and the police the meeting was held. Had Her Majesty's Government punished or prosecuted a single one of the men who thus deliberately broke the law? Had they prosecuted any of the men who deliberately held a meeting at Castlewellan after it had been prohibited? It appeared that a Nationalist, as he was called, or, as he (Colonel King-Harman) preferred to call him, a Land Leaguer, might defy the law with impunity; but let an Orangeman make a mistake, and he was punished with the utmost rigour. It was the old story, that one man might steal a horse, and another might not look over a hedge. [Cries of "Derry!"] They were told by the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson) that the Town Hall of Derry was taken possession of by what he described as a miserable body of 300 men. Nevertheless, those miserable 300 men appeared to have terrified the great Lord Mayor of Dublin, and put him to flight. In reply to what the House had heard about Derry, and the long statement which had been made as to the conduct of the magistrates, there and elsewhere, and especially in reference to the charge that the Conservative Party were the supporters and friends of James Carey in Dublin, he desired to say a few words. He hoped that he would be excused for going back to that point, because he wished to show how much credit was to be attached to the speeches which came from hon. Members below the Gangway. He proposed to quote an article which ap-

      525
      peared in The United Ireland—a newspaper, edited by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien)—on the 2nd of December, and written immediately after the election of James Carey to represent Trinity Ward in the Town Council of Dublin. That article said—
      "We will not disguise our exultation over the results of the Dublin Municipal contests. Those with which we are mainly concerned are the defeat of Mr. George O'Neil in the North City Ward, and the extraordinary triumph of Mr. James Carey in the Trinity Ward. These were the two objects on which we had set our hearts Mr. Carey had no strength but in the deep heart of the people; no advocates who were not working men; no newspaper except our own to even notice his candidature—unless, indeed, The Mail which remembered that he was a Kilmainham suspect, and a formidable one. Mr. Carey's phenomenal majority over all comers, in one of the genteelest sections of Duhlin, under a jealously-restricted franchise, is the highest water-mark of democracy yet touched in Ireland."
      And yet the hon. Member dared to say that James Carey was nominated by the Conservatives, and his Colleagues applauded and endorsed his statement.
      MR. HARRINGTONrose to make a statement, but was received by loud cries of "Order!" and resumed his seat.
      COLONEL KING-HARMANsaid, the conduct of the Government was most reprehensible for having checked the loyal meetings in Ireland, and allowing the disloyal ones. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, if he had acted up to the belief he had expressed in one of his speeches to his constituents in Scotland as to the conduct of the Loyalists in Ireland, would not have treated them as he had done. The Chief Secretary knew perfectly well that the people of Ireland wanted rest. He knew that the people were heartily sick and tired of this agitation; he knew that the agitators were men who got their living out of these meetings; and, in spite of that, Her Majesty's Government, in order to gain a Party vote, allowed these meetings to be held, and Ireland was kept in a state of turmoil, and her soil drenched in blood, because the right hon. Gentleman did not choose to put his foot down firmly and repress them. The story was no new one; and he feared that as long as the Government opposite remained in power the same state of circumstances
      526
      would prevail. Her Majesty's Government had deliberately trampled upon the loyal men of Ireland, and thrown cold water upon those who wished to support the Administration and to stand by the Union. They had discouraged the loyal Irishmen who wished to put down bloodshed and murder. They had issued proclamations which could only terrorize the loyal Roman Catholics and loyal Protestants, and they had pandered to the votes of a discredited section of the Irish people. In regard to the action of the magistrates, which had been touched upon by the last speaker, he thought it right that he should say a few words. They had been accused of not having respected the authority of the Lord Chancellor, who was their head. He would remind the House that the Lord Chancellor was an official that went out of Office with every change of Government. When he (Colonel King-Harman) took an oath on becoming a magistrate, he took an oath to serve Her Majesty, and to do his duty wherever he was placed, and his duty as a magistrate and as the lieutenant of a county was, instead of allowing Land League meetings to be held, to put them down by every means in his power as illegal and seditious. Her Majesty's Government had thrown their protecting ægis over these disloyal meetings; and in Ulster they had drawn a cordon of bayonets around seditious agitators, thus preventing the loyal citizens of Ulster from doing more than show what their opinion was. He said that the magistrates of Ireland, as a body, had done their duty, and that they deserved well of their country. In an anxious and trying time they had done their duty without fear, favour, impartiality, or affection. [Cries of "Oh!"] They had gone through difficulties and dangers which many hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway who cried "Oh!" would have shrunk from. He regretted that such a body of men should have been abandoned by Her Majesty's Government, and held up to obloquy wherever Her Majesty's Government had the opportunity of sacrificing a Loyalist, so that they might secure applause from the disaffected. He would abstain from voting on the Division, because he could not vote with the hon. Member for Cork City. In conclusion, he would content

      527
      himself with saying that he could not approve of the conduct of the Government in Ireland during the past year, and by protesting against the way in which they had treated loyal men, and against the way in which they had encouraged disloyalty and sedition.
      MR. BERESFORDsaid, that after the speech they had just heard from his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman), he would not detain the House at any length at that late hour of the night; but he wished to say a few words, because he was one of those who had done his best to keep the North of Ireland free from these so-called National meetings. He would, therefore, venture to give his opinion as briefly as possible as to the motives by which he had been actuated. From almost the very first the leaders of the Land League had endeavoured to prove to the people of this country that the people in the North of Ireland had been gained over to their views. They had done their best to get hold of the Loyalists of the North in order to show to the House that the feeling of the North was with them, and to secure this object they had resorted to every kind of proceeding, and had held out every sort of inducement. But the people of the North of Ireland had watched the progress of the Land League, and had observed that wherever it came, its footsteps were marked with blood. Crime and bloodshed followed it wherever it took its stand; and the men of Ulster, therefore, had done their best to keep it out of their peaceful Province. It had been said by several members of the Nationalist Party that the Orange Society was composed of the people of the towns—the ship carpenters and others of Belfast. He begged to give a most emphatic denial to that statement. He knew the Orange Society well, and he knew that it was composed of the sons of farmers, of the most influential middle-class portion of Ulster, and men of position throughout the whole country, who detested the doctrines preached by the Land League. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had referred to this matter in the speech he delivered the other day; but he thought the hon. Member could not be aware that three of the strongest Orange lodges in the County of Armagh were
      528
      situated on the property of his own brother, Mr. John Parnell. He (Mr. Beresford) had known what Orangemen were for many a long day; he had attended many meetings in the North of Ireland, and he had never in his life seen ship-carpenters at them; but he had seen thousands and tens of thousands of the leading men of the Province. They all knew what had occurred since 1879, and that the soil of the Island in three of its Provinces had been bedewed with blood. The first terrible murder that took place was that of Lord Mountmorres. The night before that noble Lord was murdered, he (Mr. Beresford) had been talking to him, and he was horrified to hear on the following day of the dreadful manner in which he had met his death. From the time of that murder down to the last dreadful crime which was committed in the Phoenix Park, in Dublin, the best part of the country seemed to have been given up to anarchy and confusion. Was it, therefore, surprising that the Loyalists in the North of Ireland should try to keep out these National meetings and the gentlemen who were the leaders of the National Association, or, in other words, the Land League? He was quite sure that any gentlemen placed in their position would have done the same. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) said, the other day, that he was at the Dromore meeting. Now, he (Mr. Beresford) happened to be at Dromore also. The hon. Member described the Orangemen there as "the most truculent set of ruffians he had ever seen," and accused them of having tried to murder him and his party. The Orangemen certainly were excited; but, on the other hand, it must be borne in mind that the only men injured were three of the Orangemen, who were all of them stabbed by the police. In the next place, it must be remembered that these young men were not stabbed for resisting the police, because two of them were injured in the back of the thigh and the third in the small of the back. It was, therefore, evident that at the time they received their injuries they were endeavouring to get away, and that they were not in any way engaged in an assault or attack on the police. Lord Rossmore had been taken to task and superseded for what his

      529
      hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Dublin (Colonel King-Harman) called "an error of judgment." He thought his hon. Friend perfectly right in that statement, and the unfortunate proceedings at Dromore were brought on by the very same thing—namely, an error of judgment committed by the officer in command of the troops. Two roads diverging out of a field converged upon a particular point. The Orangemen were allowed to get too near the other party, and the unfortunate result was that, becoming excited, there was a collision. But the men who were stabbed were in a road altogether out of the route by which the Nationalists were proceeding. The unfortunate young man Griffin was stabbed in the field through which the noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) led his part of the procession. He (Mr. Beresford) was sure there was no English Member, if he resided in the North of Ireland, who would not have done exactly the same thing as the Orangemen of Ulster did on that occasion. The only wish of the Protestants of the North of Ireland was to be allowed to remain in peace and quietness with their neighbours, and not to be assailed by gentlemen who invaded their peaceful Province, and who professed such sentiments as those which had been quoted the other day by the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan). What the people of Ulster wanted was to be left in peace and quietness, to cultivate their farms, and to live in amity with their brethren, no matter whether they were Roman Catholics or otherwise, and to avoid everything calculated to lead to quarrelling and strife. What business had the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) to go into a country he was never in in his life before and preach such doctrines as the Land League were promulgating all through Ireland, not alone with regard to the land, but with regard also to the separation and disintegration of the Empire? That was what he (Mr. Beresford) objected to, and so did all of his friends. It was not so much the doctrines which the Land League professed, so far as the abatement of rent was concerned; but what they felt was, that the time of the peaceful population would be short, if, what the Land League wished to bring about—namely,
      530
      the disunion of the Empire, were accomplished. He had said before, and he said it again, in that House that the people of the North of Ireland were determined, no matter what the sacrifice might be, to preserve the union and the integrity of the Empire.
      MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he understood it was quite impossible to conclude the debate that evening, and, therefore, he would move that it be now adjourned.
      Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned,"—(Mr. O' Connor Power,)—put, and agreed to.
      Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

    ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.
    (Sir Charles W. Dilke, Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Chamberlain.)
    ELECTIONS (HOURS OF POLL) BILL.

      [BILL 2.] SECOND READING.
      Order for Second Reading read.
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he merely wished the House at that time, by reading the Bill a second time, to affirm the desirability of extending in large boroughs the hours of polling which had been found to work so advantageously in London. By assenting to the second reading, it would not be understood that the House was committed to the particular form in which the Bill was drawn. The question of the particular constituencies to which the extension should apply would have to be carefully considered in Committee, and he would undertake, if the second reading were agreed to, to introduce the names of the particular constituencies in the Bill when it reached the Committee stage, instead of leaving it optional to the localities. That being so, the House would only be committed by the second reading to the principle that in certain large towns the hours of polling should be extended. He believed that an extension was recommended without distinction of Party by many Members of the House. He would, therefore, ask the House to assent to the second reading, subject to the consideration in Committee of what the extent should be.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles W. Dilke.)
      MR. BRODRICKwished to protest against the second reading of the Bill being taken at that late hour. For his own part, he did not think there existed that consensus of opinion which the right hon. Baronet had mentioned. On the contrary, he thought there was a very great difference of opinion, and he believed that there would have been Notice of opposition to the Bill if there had been any notion that it would have been taken at that late hour. As to the statement of the right hon. Baronet, that the extension of the hours of polling in London had proved to be eminently satisfactory, probably what the right hon. Baronet meant was that in many of the London boroughs voters of doubtful persuasion had been brought up in large numbers under cover of darkness, and that a considerable majority of Liberal Members had thus been returned. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would himself see that it was objectionable to press the second reading at that hour. Under the circumstances, he objected to go on with the discussion, and he would move the adjournment of the debate.
      MR. WARTONsaid, he begged to second the Motion for Adjournment. It was quite clear that the right hon. Baronet was exceedingly anxious to pass something through the House. He had pointed out that the Bill was a very small one, and that in reading it a second time they would admit nothing except the principle. But the right hon. Baronet went on to say that he had not yet considered where they were to draw the line. It would be easy for the right hon. Gentleman to write out a list of the boroughs to which the Bill would apply, because it was very easy to discover which were those that exceeded 5,000 registered electors. Therefore, notwithstanding the very bland way in which the right hon. Gentleman asked them to admit the principle of the Bill, on the assurance that they would affirm nothing by doing so, they would be really laying down that the Government were right in bringing in a Bill to extend the hours of polling in every constituency which numbered more than 5,000. They would also be declaring, almost in so many words, what the boroughs actually were; and no doubt when the Bill got into Committee they would be told that they had already
      532
      passed the principle which included all the details. He regretted that it should be the practice of the Government to hurry every Bill through every stage upon some false pretence. In this case they were proposing to consider a vast and important subject in a hurried and unusual manner, and he thought the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick) was quite right in moving the adjournment of the debate at that hour. There was another reason why it was not desirable to go on with the Bill now. He thought it was of the utmost importance that they should not go away from the subject before them—namely, the Queen's Speech—until the Address had been agreed to. He protested against the restless desire manifested by the right hon. Baronet to do something under any pretence whatever. On these grounds he would second the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Brodrick.)
      MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he could not but express surprise that this important measure should have been opposed and the Motion for the adjournment of the debate made by a county Member (Mr. Brodrick) and seconded by a Member for a small borough (Mr. Warton) which was, unfortunately, outside the provisions of the Bill. Without going at greater length into the question, he would only say, on behalf of one of the largest boroughs in the country, that there, and in the great manufacturing districts of Lancashire and Yorkshire, the measure was very warmly supported by both political Parties.
      SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he could not allow the debate on the second reading of this Bill to proceed without a protest on his part. He had been rather taken by surprise at hearing, about a quarter of an hour ago or even less, that Her Majesty's Government were going to assent to an early adjournment of the debate on the Address. After hearing so much of the importance of the Speech from the Throne and the Address to Her Majesty, he was quite unprepared for the course now taken by the Government. It certainly had not been customary to press on any important mea-

      533
      sure during the discussions on the Address, and he was not certain that the Government could point to any precedent for the present proceeding. As far as he was aware, although matters of importance might have been brought forward, there was no precedent whatever for a measure of importance being pressed on before the conclusion of the debates on the Address. He was astonished at the course proposed to be taken on this occasion, especially as the Government must have known that if there had been the slighest idea amongst Members interested in the question that the Order for the Second Reading of the Bill would be taken at that Sitting, the Benches on both sides of the House would have been much more fully occupied than they were at that moment. He hoped, therefore, his hon. Friend would divide the House on his Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and then, if the numbers were against him, and the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board were agreed to, he should regard the second reading of the Bill as having been taken by surprise. He repeated that hon. Members had not the slightest information as to the Bill coming forward at that hour. After the excitement of that evening's debate, and in view of the opinions expressed by the President of the Local Government Board last year as to the bearing of the measure, so far as his political Party was concerned, he did not think it worthy of Her Majesty's Government or the right hon. Baronet to force on the Bill as they now proposed. Few things were more astonishing than a comparison of the action of the right hon. Baronet hitherto with regard to the Bill and the speech which he had just delivered; but he would allude to that subject for no other reason than that it afforded a strong argument in favour of the adjournment of the debate. The right hon. Baronet had that evening endeavoured to make the House believe that the passing of the Bill was a matter of very small importance; that it would practically not affect anything very much; that the present occasion was a fitting one on which to take the second reading, and that all consideration of the merits of the case ought to be postponed to another day. Such were the invitation and the inducements
      534
      which the right hon. Baronet now held out to the House. But what was the position he had hitherto taken up? Having read the speeches delivered by the right hon. Baronet during the Recess, he was able to state that he had, in every one of them, laid the greatest possible stress upon this Bill as being one of the highest political importance; a Bill which he put forward in all parts of the country as the one measure he intended to pass, which, on account of its vast importance, ought to receive the attention of the House and the people, and the passing of which into law would redound to the credit of the present Government. Upon the right hon. Baronet's own showing, therefore, he said that the Bill was of such importance that the House ought not to allow the second reading to be taken at that hour (12.25). The right hon. Baronet had just said that the Bill was introduced for the purpose of extending the hours of polling at Parliamentary elections in boroughs, but that the House would have to consider in what cases it should be applied. He (Sir R. Assheton Cross) begged to say that they had to deal with the Bill as they found it. Its object was unmistakably plain; in every borough with 5,000 electors the Act was to come into operation. What then was the use of stating to the House that on some future occasion they should consider to what boroughs the Act was to apply? He repeated that the Bill must be considered by them as it stood, and that, on account of its large importance, they ought not to be called upon to do so then. The right hon. Baronet seemed very anxious to reply to his remarks, but he regrotted being obliged to detain him in his seat for a few moments longer. Perhaps the right hon. Baronet would give him his attention; otherwise he should certainly press the adjournment of the debate more strongly than he had done. His contention was that they ought not to be discussing a Bill of this nature by surprise. It was a retrograde measure. Throughout the whole progress of Reform the direction of legislation had been towards the shortening of the hours of election—in other words, shortening the time during which electors were under temptation from bribery and other causes. But this Bill went in the opposite direction, and proposed to extend the period of temptation to which

      535
      voters were exposed. The right hon. Baronet must remember that in the large boroughs it was much more difficult to find out what was taking place during the dark nights of winter than it was in the hours of daylight. The later, therefore, was the hour of polling in the evening, the more temptation was to be feared.
      MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that he is departing from the Question before the House, which is, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
      SIR E. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, with submission to the ruling of Mr. Speaker, he only wished to point out that this was a step in the direction opposite to that of the legislation of past years, and that they had to consider the important question as to whether, by allowing the Bill to proceed, they would not be increasing, instead of reducing, the opportunities for bribery at elections. There were several very important points raised by the Bill; and it might, perhaps, have been belter, instead of extending the hour of polling to 5 o'clock at night, to allow the polling to commence at 5 o'clock in the morning, because the temptations to bribery would not then be of the same kind. Finally, in entering his protest against the second reading being taken under the circumstances he had described, he could assure the right hon. Baronet that nothing would be gained by the course proposed, because the whole subject would have to be as minutely considered on the Motion for going into Committee as if the Bill had not been read a second time. For these reasons he should feel it his duty to support the Motion of his hon. Friend if he went to a Division.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Motion before the House being for the adjournment of the debate, he could not but feel that the right hon. Gentleman had rather strayed from the Question. The right hon. Gentleman said the debate ought to be adjourned because the House was engaged in discussing the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, and because, on former occasions, during the time of discussion on the Address it had been the rule not to put forward for the consideration of the House any measures of importance. That might, doubtless, have been the rule in former
      536
      years; but hon. Members would bear in mind that then the debates on the Address were concluded in two or three Sittings, and did not, as was now the case, extend over a period of 13 or 14 days. A new condition of things had arisen to which they must adapt themselves, and hence the reason for putting forward the Bill at the present time. Before they agreed to the adjournment of the debate the Government had to ask why that adjournment should take place. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South - West Lancashire (Sir E. Assheton Cross) said he objected to the measure as being of a retrograde character, and that the House ought not to undertake legislation under such circumstances. But it was not a retrograde measure when the hours of polling were last extended. [Sir E. ASSHETON GROSS: Yes.] Then they had a precedent for retrogression. But the right hon. Gentleman was in a great degree answerable for the present measure; he had borne a very conspicuous part in the discussions which took place last year, and Her Majesty's Government were very grateful to him for the position he then took up with regard to this question. The Bill was a necessary consequence of the Act of last year, and the right hon. Gentleman must regard it as a little child of his own. He agreed that there should be no delay in passing the measure, and that no election ought to take place under the new order of things without it. The right hon. Gentleman had a conspicuous responsibility in this matter; and it was, therefore, to be hoped that the discussion on the measure, which, against his (the Attorney General's) former views, had become necessary, would be proceeded with, and that there would be no adjournment of the debate. The object in introducing the Bill was to establish a rule at elections in accordance with the views of Members on both sides of the House. It had become necessary to do something on behalf of those who required an extension of time for recording their votes. He, therefore, trusted that the House would agree to the passing of the measure, and that those Gentlemen who had spoken on the present Motion would not be amongst its opponents. In asking that the discussion on the Motion of his right hon. Friend might now be allowed to proceed, he

      537
      begged to assure the House that Her Majesty's Government would, in Committee, consider any suggestions which hon. Members might have to offer, provided they were not opposed to the principle of the Bill.
      MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he regarded the speech of the Attorney General as the strongest argument he had heard in favour of the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for West (Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). He passed over the most extraordinary and irrelevant argument of the hon. Member for Sal-ford (Mr. Arthur Arnold), who thought there was something very amusing in the fact of the adjournment being moved by a county Member, and seconded by the Member for a borough of smaller size than those to be dealt with by the Bill—as if that had anything to do with the question. But as for the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, every argument that he or the right hon. Baronet the President of the Local Government Board had urged for going on with the debate was an infringement of the argument in favour of the great importance of this measure. And then the Attorney General asked what reason there was for not going on that night? Why, the question answered itself. The House had just adjourned a debate of exceeding importance and interest; they had had a very exciting event in the early hours of the day, and they would have a more exciting event to-morrow. He would not say that issues of more importance, but issues of another sort than those which had occupied them until the dinner hour to-day, would be before them; so to ask the House at midnight to deal with a measure which must have, and might be having, a very important influence on the future destinies of our electoral system, and to call on them to do that on the fifth night of the Session, when, upon hypothesis, they had more than half-a-year before them in which to carry out this legislation, was too much. He repeated that the question of the Attorney General answered itself. The debate on the Address was not concluded; in Her Majesty's Speech this measure was not mentioned; and yet, before the Address had been agreed to, it was to be rushed through the House, because, forsooth, some bye-election might shortly occur. He trusted hon. Gentlemen would not
      538
      be so wanting in respect for Parliament and its Forms as to press the Motion for the second reading of the Bill on the present occasion. It was a clever and adroit movement to bring it forward, but it was a failure, and he thought the Government had better back out of it.
      MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was one of those who opposed the Bill of last year, and he certainly intended at the present time to "stick to his guns." He had had no idea whatever that the Bill would be brought on at that Sitting; but, at the same time, he must tell the right hon. Baronet that the Bill which he now proposed was very different indeed from the measure introduced by him last year and in the year before. The view which he had taken of the Bill was, therefore, somewhat modified. He had always held the ground that as long as there were small boroughs—and he hoped there would be comparatively small boroughs for many years to come—this Bill would be most obnoxious for them. The right hon. Baronet now proposed that the extension of the hours of polling should apply to boroughs with an electorate of 5,000; and, although he repeated that his views with regard to the measure had become somewhat modified, he could not but think that his hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey had been perfectly right in the course he had taken of moving the adjournment of the debate. He believed there were very few Members on either side of the House who had any idea that the Bill would come forward that night. He was aware, of course, that the House was a House of surprises, and no one who had been present that evening could have been more surprised than himself at the course taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. He was bound to say, considering the interest that many right hon. Gentlemen had in this question, both now and in previous Sessions, that the Government were demanding too much in asking the House to assent at once to the Motion for the second reading of the Bill. The Attorney General had informed them that the measure was very urgent, on the ground that it was a necessary consequence of the Act of last year. He would not go into the merits of the Bill, for he should be out of Order in so doing; but he strongly demurred to the argument of the Attorney General, that the House should pass the Bill because another

      539
      Bill had been passed. Whether the measure was a right or a wrong one, it was his opinion that a Committee of that House should be appointed, in order that the House might ascertain the opinions of Mayors, Aldermen, and members of Corporations in the various boroughs as to whether the measure was necessary or not. The Attorney General would say, no doubt, that there had been many Committees already which had considered the subject, and that they did not need another. But he repeated that another Committee ought to inquire into the matter before a Bill of this great importance was passed into law. He believed that the measure had not been properly considered by some hon. Members—that was to say, not thoroughly considered by those who represented boroughs having less than 5,000 electors; and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would gather from the speeches which had been made that there existed in the House a very strong feeling that a measure of this great importance should not be pressed on at an hour when neither the right hon. Gentleman himself, nor hon. Members generally, had any idea that it would come forward. For his own part, he should be happy, at a fitting time, to give the Bill his most serious consideration; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he would do this altogether irrespective of Party politics, because he did not regard it as a Party measure at all. Nevertheless, although he thought the Bill ought to be considered on its merits, he held that the proper time for its consideration had not yet come; and he therefore trusted Her Majesty's Government would give way on that occasion, and not press the Motion for the second reading.
      MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the electors he had the honour to represent could hardly be described as Conservatives; but they were quite satisfied with things as they were, and very much objected to this Bill. If the Bill passed in its present form, and made it obligatory in all cases to fix the time at 8 o'clock, he should vote against the Bill; but he did not think that would be the consequence; and it seemed to him that, this being a non-Party measure, it would be well for the House to pass the second reading now, and
      540
      then deal with these questions in Committee.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 29; Noes 105: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 6.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he protested against this endeavour to force a Bill of this immense importance through the House during the discussion of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech; and he should move that the House be now adjourned. He thoroughly endorsed what had been said by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) as to this being no Party question; but it was a question which involved very great matters connected with the electorate of this country. It had been said that the Bill was a corollary to the Bill of last Session; but he must dispute that. They did not know what fruit the Bill of last Session would yet bear in a General Election; and, from his own knowledge, he must say that a Bill of this kind might do serious injury to a certain class of constituencies in this country. He could not now discuss the Bill on its merits; but he alluded to boroughs whore there were corrupt voters who hung back until they were paid for their votes. He appealed to the Government not to force this matter now, considering the importance of the subject, and that such matters as this connected with elections had never been treated as Party questions.
      SIR HENRY FLETCHERsaid, he wished to second the Motion. It was a great surprise to hon. Members that, at that hour of the night, after they had been in the House so many hours, they should be asked to pass the second reading of this Bill, when they had not had an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with it. It would not be in Order to discuss the Bill on this occasion; but he trusted the House would agree to an adjournment, in order that a deliberate judgment might be taken upon the question whether the Bill would be for the benefit of the country.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir William Bart Dyke.)
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he hoped, after the overwhelming expres-

      541
      sion of opinion just given, that the House would not consent to the adjournment. The right hon. Member opposite (Sir William Hart Dyke) had rather complained of this Bill being described as a corollary to the Corrupt Practices Bill, but who laid that principle down? The hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) who, last Session, attacked the Government for not having carried a Bill for the extension of polling hours in connection with the Corrupt Practices Bill. The hon. Member laid down that doctrine towards the end of the Session; and he (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was astonished to see how the hon. Member had voted, for he had expected that the hon. Member would vote with the Government. He was also astonished at the vote of the right hon Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith;. The right hon. Gentleman knew how perfectly the Corrupt Practices Act had been working, and he was astonished to see the right hon. Gentleman vote against this Bill. He hoped the House would insist on passing the second reading that night. The Government had had an overwhelming majority, such as was seldom seen; and it was a remarkable fact that, up to the present time, in this debate, no one had opposed the second reading to whose constituency the Bill would apply, the opposition having come from hon. Gentlemen to whose constituencies the Bill would not apply.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to put it to Mr. Speaker, whether it was not the "evident sense" of the House that the Question should now be put? The majority in this case had been over 100, and the minority was under 40. He did not think the country would relish anything better than that the Conservative Party should be defeated under the circumstances, when the Conservative Party was endeavouring to put the clôture on working men after 5 o'clock.
      MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) was to be congratulated on the facility with which he had slipped into the House, at a convenient opportunity to-night, having accomplished the unique feat of slipping out of the House the other night on the Amendment to the Address moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member
      542
      for King's Lynn (Mr. Bourke). A charge of Obstruction was brought against the Conservative Party, because they opposed the taking of this important Bill at 20 minutes past 12, without any proper Notice having been given; but he (Mr. Ashmead-Bartletf) would venture to say there were not 10 hon. Members yesterday or to-day who expected that this Bill would come on that night. There was a large number of hon. Members who would like to speak on the second reading of the Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman ought to remember that the reason for the large majority was that the Bill had been brought on without Notice in this unexpected and unfair way. It was an unexpected accident that the debate on the Address had closed before half-past 12; and bethought it was due to the dignity of the House, and to hon. Members who were absent, that they should have a fair opportunity, in accordance with Parliamentary warfare, of considering this Bill on the second reading. It was most intolerably unjust that, when a Bill was brought on in this unexpected way at 20 minutes past 12, a charge of Obstruction should be brought against the Conservative Party, because they resisted the taking of this Bill in the middle of the debate on the Queen's Speech, and at this time of the night. He should like the Government to show any precedent for the introduction of a Bill of this kind at this hour of the night, when the debate on the Address, in reply to the Queen's Speech, was in full progress; and he repudiated the trumped-up charge of Obstruction made against the Conservative Party.
      MR. WHITLEYsaid, that what he had urged last year was that the only way to meet the wishes and needs of working men in regard to voting was by an extension of the hours.
      MR. HEALYasked whether it was not the fact that, under the New Rules, a speaker must confine himself to the Question before the House?
      MR. WHITLEYsaid, he did not think he was at all inconsistent in supporting the adjournment, because he was very much surprised at the Bill being now taken.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 101: Majority 74.—(Div. List, No. 7.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. TOMLINSONsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate. He did so, on account of the course pursued by the Government in regard to the Bill. As representing a constituency which would be affected by the Bill in its present shape, he objected to the manner in which it was pressed forward. They had been taken by surprise by the precipitancy with which the measure was being hurried on. He could not help noting the difference between the Bill now introduced and that which was brought forward by the right hon Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Sir Charles W. Dilke) last year. Owing to the considerable difference between the two Bills, it was very necessary the House should receive from the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the measure an explanation of the reasons which had induced the change. The hon. and learned Attorney General (Sir Henry James) had said that a change had taken place in the mode of carrying on the debate on the Address, and the hon. and learned Gentleman assigned that as a reason why the Bill had been brought in while the discussion upon the Address was proceeding. But if that was really the reason for deviating from the usual course—namely, of not proposing a Government Bill until the Address had been finally disposed of—the House ought to have been informed of the fact before this, and an opportunity ought to have been given to hon. Members who were interested in the provisions of the measure, to have the second reading properly debated. As yet he was not aware whether the Bill would be approved by the majority of his constituents; but this he did know, that its provisions had been much discussed, and that there was great difference of opinion as to the details of any alteration. The constituencies of the country ought to have a greater opportunity of considering the details of the measure than had so far been afforded them; and, therefore, he moved the adjournment of the debate,
      MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, he would second the Motion. Many hon. Members had not the slightest idea that the Bill would come on that night, and had left the House. He protested against the Bill being sprung upon
      544
      them at that hour (1.15 A.M.) of the morning.
      Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
      The House divided:—Ayes 18; Noes 105: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 8.)
      Original Question again proposed.
      MR. WHITLEYsaid, it was very unreasonable that, at that hour (1.20 A.M.), they should be compelled to continue the debate upon the principles of a Bill of such importance. He could assure the House, however, that, so far as he was concerned, he should not make many observations, but should confine himself to entering a protest, and calling attention to one or two points. It was said that this Bill was necessary in consequence of the measure of last Session; but he would point out that, while, in the latter, the expenses of elections were reduced, in the present Bill a large amount of additional labour would be thrown on the polling clerks. He believed that, in large cities and boroughs, it would be impossible to get polling clerks to work from 8 to 8, or 12 hours a-day. The work might be done by relays of clerks, but that would, of course, lead to greater expenditure. In the city he represented—Liverpool—there were a large number of polling clerks, and these gentlemen complained very much of the present number of hours. If an additional tax were to be imposed upon their time, they would refuse the work, and it would be found very difficult to get polling clerks. Then, again, he had always entertained a very strong feeling that there should be a distinction drawn between the hours of polling in summer and those in winter. In summer, the hours might be safely extended; but he was convinced that in a large city, like Liverpool, for example, where there were a large number of young Orangemen and Roman Catholics, who were likely to come into conflict if the hours were extended in the winter months, it would be almost impossible for respectable electors to record their votes at night. He had always felt that the wisest course would be—and he would venture to urge it on the Government for their adoption—to give the local authorities power to fix the hours of polling. The

      545
      fixing of a hard-and-fast line, notwithstanding that it might be found convenient and even advantageous in some places, might be found to be singularly irksome in many cities. He would press on those in charge of the Bill the desirability of very carefully considering these points, particularly his suggestion for a variation in the hours of polling in the winter and the summer. In some constituencies there might be no danger in having the hours the same in winter as in summer; but, from his experience of elections in Liverpool, he was convinced that, in that city, the system would be in the highest degree dangerous. Many people, as he had said, would be unable to vote during the hours of darkness. Altogether, on the ground of increased expense, for which no provision was made in the Bill of last year, and on the ground of the inconvenience of drawing a hard-and-fast line, which, while it might be advantageous in some districts, might be highly disadvantageous in others, he hoped that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke) would see his way to the acceptance of substantial Amendments. It could not be denied that some of the arguments he (Mr. Whitley) had advanced were strong ones, and he really hoped that, whilst the Government were introducing this change, they would take every care to make their Bill a good one, and do all they could to bring about security in polling. The right hon. Baronet, he was aware, represented a large constituency—but one not, he thought, so large as his (Mr. Whitley's) own. There were some streets in Liverpool where Party riots were continually taking place, and it could hardly be the wish of the Government, or of anyone else, to render polling in such places insecure. What they should all desire was to obtain perfect freedom of voting, and when, in his desire to secure that object, he brought forward Amendments to make the Bill more perfect, he earnestly hoped he should receive support from the House.
      MR. HEALYsaid, that if the Bill was passed in its present form, it would be of little use to the people of Ireland, and it was to be hoped the Government would take into their consideration the small number of places in that country to which it would apply. It would apply in only three or four cases; indeed, he was told only in two, so that Ireland
      546
      would be practically shut out from the advantages of a Bill which her Representatives deemed of the greatest importance. If they had had the extension of the borough franchise in Ireland in 1867, when it was given to England and Scotland, there would have been many Irish boroughs which would have reaped advantage from this measure; but they had not had that extension. They were told that they were to have an extension of the franchise this year; but, for his own part, he did not believe it—he did not believe that the Lords would be such fools as to pass the Bill. It would, therefore, be very hard on the people of Ireland to be shut out, not only from the advantages of the franchise given 16 years ago, but also from the advantages of the present Bill. The limitation in the case of Ireland should be fixed at 1,000; at all events, he trusted that they would hear that a lesser limit in the case of that country than 5,000 had been decided on.
      THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the last subject referred to, and several other of the points raised, were purely matters for Committee. He was not inclined to discuss details as to how the Bill could be made applicable to the different portions of the United Kingdom, as those things would have to be discussed and settled when the Bill reached its next stage. With regard to the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley), he was, no doubt, entitled to express his opinion upon the measure, and to have great weight attached to that opinion, representing, as he did, probably, the largest constituency in England. It was difficult, however, to know what the hon. Member's view really was with regard to the Bill. Last year he practically asked for this measure—he asked for an extension of the hours of polling—and, if he (the Attorney General) recollected rightly, the hon. Member, or certain other hon. Members opposite, objected to the principle of allowing the local authorities to fix the hours of polling, on the ground that those functionaries would be guided by their political views in the arrangements they made. Last year, in regard to one matter, they did do what the hon. Member now asked should be done in regard to Parliamentary elections—that was to say, they allowed the local authorities to fix the hours of polling; and the evils of that

      547
      principle had been pointed out so clearly, that many hon. Members thought it desirable that a Bill should be introduced on the subject. Every evil the hon. Member had pointed out, if it were likely to exist at all, would be found to exist in the Metropolis. They were moving on, it was true, and had new positions to deal with; but they were not without experience in the matter, and, from what had taken place in the Metropolis, they were led to believe that the evils feared were theoretical and not practical. For the amount of payment allowed in the Returning Officers' Expenses Bill, it was found possible to find men able to perform the duties of polling clerks and presiding officers, and willing to sit from 8 o'clock to 8. The same result had been found in connection with school board elections, no difficulty having been experienced in finding persons to perform the duties for one day. Though he should have thought, theoretically, that some difficulty would have been experienced in this matter, it had turned out not to be the case. Since 1878, at these elections, they had found no greater difficulty in getting persons to sit from 8 to 8 than they had previously experienced in getting them to sit from 8 to 4. [An hon. MEMBER: At the same price?] Yes. It must be recollected that, by Statute, the men could not be paid more than a certain sum. As to a variation in the hours in winter and summer, in the Ballot Act, when passing through the House of Lords, Lord Shaftesbury did propose that there should be such a variation; but when the measure came back to the Commons the idea was scouted by both sides of the House, and it was held that what was good for winter was equally good for summer. The proposition was entirely put aside. But, if this subject required discussion, let them discuss it in Committee. The hon. Member for Liverpool desired them to consider the interests of the working classes. The Government were anxious to do so, and if the hon. Member brought forward a suggestion, it would be carefully considered, as there could be no doubt, proceeding from such a quarter, it would be tendered in the desire to find some method by which the working men of large and small boroughs should have a fair opportunity of recording their votes at the poll. The hon. Member must not
      548
      think that he (the Attorney General) was throwing unnecessary obstacles in the way of working men recording their votes. He was anxious to facilitate their getting to the poll—to enable everyone who was duly qualified to record his vote, if it were possible for him to do so. They would endeavour to find a method of doing this, and all they now asked was that the principle should be accepted. If the principle were accepted, he was sure they would easily discover a way of fashioning the details.
      MR. WARTONasked when the Committee stage of the Bill would be taken?
      SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he did not think there would be much prospect of taking the Committee stage for some little time; but if the hon. and learned Gentleman would repeat his question to-morrow night, probably a more definite answer might be returned. He intended to put the Bill down for to-morrow night, because there had been a mistake made in the drafting which should be rectified before going into Committee. The Committee would be taken pro formâ, so that the mistake might be corrected. The hon. and learned Member would, perhaps, repeat his question to-morrow.
      Original Question put, and agreed to.

  MOTIONS.
    GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (IRELAND).

      MOTION FOR A RETURN.
      MR. O'BRIENsaid, he desired to move for a Return showing the names, place of birth, religious denomination, and salaries or emoluments of persons employed in Government Departments in Ireland under various headings. He was astonished to find that the Government made some difficulty in granting the Return. [Cries of"Agreed!"] Hon. Members said "Agreed!" His object was only to elicit——
      An hon. MEMBER: There is no objection.
      MR. O'BRIEN: Then I beg to move for the Return.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That there be laid before this House, a Return showing the names, place of birth, reli-

      549
      gious denomination, and salaries or emoluments of persons employed in Government Departments in Ireland, under the headings of the Lord Lieutenant's Household, the Chief Secretary's Office, the Privy Council, the Military Staff, the Local Government Board, the Board of Public Works, the Courts of justice, the Officers of the Royal Irish Constabulary and Dublin Metropolitan Police, the General Prisons Board, Irish Fisheries Department, Lunatic Asylums Board, Board of Inland Rovenue and Customs, Board of National Education, Board of Intermediate Education, Registry of Petty Sessions Clerks, Geological Survey of Ireland, General Valuation and Boundary Survey, General Register Office, Ordnance Survey of Ireland, Endowed Schools Commission, and Loan Fund Board."—(Mr. O'Brien.)
      MR. COURTNEYwas understood to say that, with the assent of the House, in the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. Trevelyan), he would reply to the hon. Member (Mr. O'Brien). His right hon. Friend had carefully considered the Motion, and had come to the conclusion that it would be impossible to grant the Return. It would be very difficult to prepare, and, furthermore, objection was taken to it on principle, because of its inquisitorial character. The policy of the Government was to steer, with an even keel, between the different religious denominations and the different Parties in Ireland, and he was quite sure that policy would be interfered with if they were to take the step proposed by the hon. Member for Mallow. The Government could not give their consent to the preparation of the proposed Return.
      MR. O'BRIENsaid, he had some right to complain of the manner in which the Government had shilly-shallied with this Return. His object in moving for it had been to get some information concerning the people by whom Ireland was ruled. The Return, he believed, would show that almost all places of power were in the hands of Englishmen and Scotchmen, or aliens to Ireland by birth, and opposed in creed and political sentiments to the great majority of the population. If he was wrong in that supposition, he did not see why the Government should oppose the Return, as it would be unwise of them to do so, as it would be the strongest argument in support of their impartiality. The objection to the granting of the Return taken by the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Trea-
      550
      sury (Mr. Courtney)—namely, that it would be of too inquisitorial a character, he could not regard as other than most comical, coming, as it did, from the inquisitorial Government of Ireland of the past few years. To say that it would be offensive to the officials in Ireland to institute an inquiry as to where they were born, or what their religious denomination, was very odd, seeing that hon. Members had just learnt that the Government had been ascertaining the religion of every magistrate in the country. He was hardly surprised at anything the Government did in Ireland; but he must confess that their refusal to grant this Return, and the reason they advanced for its refusal, had astonished him considerably.
      COLONEL NOLANsaid, he wished to remind the Government that, periodically—every six or twelve months—there was a paper sent round to every officer in the Army, asking where was his birth-place, and what his religious denomination. No one ever supposed or dreamt that there was the slightest objection to this inquiry, or that it caused annoyance to anyone. If a man wished to change his religion, after making the return, he was at liberty to do it; and in the same way he (Colonel Nolan) could not see what possible objection there could be to the granting of the proposed Return. The reason why the Return was moved for was obvious. The religion of every official in Ireland was known to his immediate superior, and the Representatives of the Irish people had no means of bringing the authorities to book for the appointments they made, unless it was by such a Return as this—by piling up a mass of statistics, and leaving it to the public to judge whether Protestants and aliens were likely to be always so much better than Catholics and Irishmen in the management of the affairs of an Irish Catholic people. The Return, if granted, might show that there was no undue proportion of Protestants in the Irish Public Service; but, if there was an undue proportion, it was only right that the public should be made acquainted with the fact. Doubtless, it would be shown that the Protestant officials were valuable public servants; but it would be well that there should be no undue proportion. He did not attach so much

      551
      importance to the statistics as to the place of birth; but, no doubt, they would be important, inasmuch as the Irish Members were being continually twitted with wanting to obtain places for Irishmen in England; whilst, at the same time, excluding all but Irishmen from holding offices in Ireland. The Return would at once show whether all but Irishmen were excluded from official life in Ireland. He confidently believed that they would show that the English had a very good thing indeed in Ireland. The question at present before the House was, whether the Irish Members had or had not a right to the information they asked for? His contention was that they had a right to it, and if the Government would not give it them, the only assumption was that they desired to continue an injustice to Ireland. If they wished to redress a wrong, one would think they would find no difficulty in giving, in connection with Civil Departments of the Public Service, information which they made no objection to affording in regard to the Military Service.
      MR. HEALYsaid, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was not in his place, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney), upon this Motion being made, had stepped into the breach, and was obliged to say something in reply. As the hon. Gentleman knew very little about Ireland and Irish affairs, they could not be surprised at the rambling statement that he had just made. The statement, indeed, contradicted itself. The hon. Gentleman said, in effect, that the Government could not furnish the Return asked for by his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien), because they were dealing so fairly with the Irish people that they did not want to show how fairly they were acting towards them; and he claimed that the Government did not wish to place in these offices persons of foreign blood. But, if that were so, what possible objection could there be to proving it? What better method of doing that could there be than to show it to be a fact that the majority of persons employed were of the native race, and of the native religion? But it must needs be that the hon. Gentleman feared the light, or he would not have refused to disclose facts which would show the
      552
      true state of affairs. He said that the Government had never made any Return. of the kind; but that statement showed how little he knew of the subject, because that very week a Return had been made, which gave the place of birth and the religion of the paid magistrates in Ireland. The same was being done in the case of the unpaid magistrates; and if they had succeeded in extracting these Returns from the Government, with what face could the hon. Gentleman oppose the production of the Return asked for by his hon. Friend? With regard to secret societies, secret societies ruled Ireland from the Castle; and no one had any chance of getting on there unless he was a Freemason. Even in the case of the humble policeman, on taking the oath, words suggesting that he should belong to the Order of Freemasons were put into his mouth—"I swear," ran the form of the oath, "that I do not belong to any secret society, except the Society of Freemasons; "and if the constable were a Freemason, he might rise in the Service to the rank of Sub-Inspector and Chief Inspector. The country was overrun with Freemasonry, and the only possible way open to Irish Members to show how Ireland was governed was by dragging out the facts by means of Returns such as that now asked for. What possible object could be served by withholding the Return? They had been told that the Government were "steering on an oven keel," and he would appeal to that ancient mariner, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, in the hope that he would steer on an even keel into the Lobby that evening, and vote for the Motion of his hon. Friend, because, if the Government case was so strong as it was represented to be, it would be only strengthened by their giving the information asked for; and for that reason as well he trusted they would gracefully surrender the point. There was a saying that "When the cat was away, the mice would play;" and in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the hon. Gentleman could easily make this concession to the just wishes of Irish Members. He (Mr. Healy) could inform the right hon. Gentleman that the Irish Members who were in favour of the Motion were present in force, and that it was thought better, in the absence of

      553
      the right hon. Gentleman, in the interest of peace, and in order to "steer on an even keel," to give way. If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland were anxious to oppose the Motion of his hon. Friend, why was he not on the Treasury Bench to do so? Irish Members were present to do their best to get the Return; why was not the right hon. Gentleman in his place to do his worst against them? The hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) had described the system of government in Ireland as the worst in Europe; Irish Members wanted to see what were the nationality, religious denominations, emoluments, and salaries of those who constituted the worst system of government in Europe. As far as he could see, this system was carried on entirely by men who were not of Irish blood. They had a Lord Lieutenant brought over to Ireland, who appeared only to understand the cattle disease; they had his Chief Secretary brought over there, whose only qualification for the Office was that derived from the reputation of his uncle and his literary attainments; and besides these, there was the famous Mr. Jenkinson from Cabul or some such place. The difficulty was to find out where many of the persons who held these offices were born. In conclusion, for the sake of preserving the peace and unity which had existed up to the present period of the Session, he trusted the Government would furnish the Return asked for, and not put Irish Members to the necessity of fighting the question to the end.
      MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he could only expect from the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury that he would, in his position on the Treasury Bench, refuse everything which Irish Members asked for. He remembered that, on a former occasion, the hon. Gentleman said that there was no chance of obtaining what was wanted; but, on the following day, a Member of the Government came forward and stated that a mistake had been made, and that the Return would be furnished. He could see no reasonable objection to giving the Return now asked for. Information of the kind was given almost every day in matters connected with the Military and Naval Services. Why, then, should it be withheld when it related
      554
      to a matter so important as the government of Ireland? The Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Brien) was simply an appeal to the Government to allow the people of Ireland to see by what classes of persons they were governed; and the only hope that remained to him was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would come down to-morrow and say that a mistake had been made, and that the Government would grant the Return.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 51: Majority 28.—(Div. List, No. 9.)

    PRINTING.

      MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Select Committee be appointed to assist Mr. Speaker in all matters which relate to the Printing executed by Order of this House, and for the purpose of selecting and arranging for Printing, Returns and Papers presented in pursuance of Motions made by Members of this House."—(Mr. Leonard Courtney.)
      MR. HEALYsaid, there had been several important Questions on the Paper as to the way in which the Printing Committee had worked. For his own part, he believed the Committee to be a shadow; but he would ask, when did the Committee meet; how often did it sit; how many Members had attended the meetings last Session; and, further, he would like to know whether the Librarian was not the body and soul of the Committee? Hon. Members were entitled to have some information with regard to it. Again, he would ask why some private Members were, in the matter of printed Returns, treated differently to others? He had himself moved for a Return, showing the number of persons in Ireland who ought to be entitled to exercise the franchise; but it had not been furnished in time to be to use to hon. Members. He could not understand what objection there could be to having Returns printed during the Recess. He obtained that Return, and it was laid on the Table last August, and then the House went away for the holidays. The printing of the Return was not ordered, and although the Return was presented in August it was not yet printed. What had this absurd Com-

      555
      mittee been doing? If the Committee was of any use all these Papers would be printed. He had obtained three other Returns, but they had not been printed. Private Members should be put on an equal footing in these matters with the Members of the Government. He remembered asking a question of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), happily now no longer on the Treasury Bench, and trying whether he could not prevent a Return of the number of outrages being given in a particular form, on the ground that it gave information calculated to help the right hon. Gentleman's case unduly, and, at the same time, to blacken the Irish Members' case unduly. The right Gentleman succeeded in giving the Return in his way, and the Irish Members could not alter it. Why should the Printing Committee allow such privileges to officials unquestioningly? If this Printing Committee was to be something more than a sham, and if the printing was to be solely in their hands, he did not see why they should not deal out an "even keel" between Members of the Government and those who were not Members of the Government. He could not understand why the Committee was so supine where the rights of private Members were concerned, and so extraordinarily active where the rights of the Government were concerned. This was a very important matter, and it was a subject upon which he hoped to have raised an important debate. Then, what were the names of the Committee? Mr. Leonard Courtney, Sir Joseph Pease, Mr. W. H. Smith, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Raikes, Mr. Whitbread, Mr. Rowland Winn, Mr. Ramsay, Mr. Parnell, and Mr. Tottenham. In other words, the Irish Party had only one Member on this Committee. If there was anything in the world that they were interested in, it was putting into the minds of English Members some facts about Ireland, and the only way of doing that was through such Reports as they were favoured with. He questioned very much whether English Members read these Returns; but, at all events, they had to listen to them in the House. It rarely happened that some hon. Gentlemen, in the course of six months, did not hear something about Ireland; and it was, therefore, the
      556
      interest of Irish Members to have Returns furnished of a proper character promptly laid on the Table; and, therefore, there should be on this Committee Members who would secure the speedy printing of these Returns. He objected to this Motion being made pro form¢, when, so far as he was aware, the Librarian was the head and front of this Committee, and no one else had to do with the matter. Could they have a Return of how many clays the Committee met, how long they eat, and how many Members attended? Where were the Minutes? The Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee furnished Minutes; but where were the Minutes of this Committee? In order to give hon. Members who were interested in this question an opportunity of considering it, he should move the adjournment of the debate.
      MR. SHEILsaid, he wished to second the Motion for the Adjournment, and, in doing so, he would remind the House that this Notice had appeared that night for the first time; and, therefore, hon. Members had not had an opportunity of giving Notice of opposition. He submitted that the rules of courtesy, if not the Rules of the House, should prevail. He understood that the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir William Hart Dyke), who had charge of another Select Committee, proposed to make his Motion, and to that, so far as he (Mr. Sheil) knew, there was no opposition; but as to two other Committees there was strong opposition; and he ventured to say that in those cases the rules of courtesy would prevail, and hon. Members would not persist in their Motions to-night.
      MR. COURTNEYsaid, that if the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) insisted on the adjournment, he (Mr. Courtney) should agree to it; for he did not at all press the appointment of this Committee now; it would do as well at the end of the week or next week. But the hon. Member was very much mistaken as to the scope of this Committee, and in supposing that there was any distinction between Members of the Government and other hon. Members. There was no such distinction; it was simply a question of discretion. Some Returns were printed; but they were of such a character as to make it desirable that they should be at once produced; but there were many Returns with re-

      557
      spect to which, when they had been placed on the Table, unless a desire was expressed to have them printed, they were not printed, but merely laid on the Table for the information of Members. So it was as to the hon. Member's Return. If he had expressed a desire to have it printed, that would have been done. No Return was printed as a matter of course, neither was the printing of any Return refused as a matter of course. It depended on the nature of the Return and the desire of the Member moving for it to have it printed. Having said this much, he should at once accede to the adjournment.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Debate adjourned till Thursday.

    KITCHEN AND REFRESHMENT ROOMS (HOUSE OF COMMONS).

      MOTION FOR A STANDING COMMITTEE.
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      "That a Standing Committee be appointed to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
      MR. SHELLsaid, he hoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would follow the good example set by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Courtney), as he intended to oppose the appointment of this particular Committee. No one knew the working of the Dining Department sufficiently well, and he should move the adjournment of the debate.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Sheil.)
      MR. MOLLOYsaid, it was his intention to divide on every one of the names to be proposed.
      SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, printing was an important matter connected with the proceedings of the House; but he ventured to say that, whatever else might take place, hon. Members must dine at least once a-day, and therefore he thought that, with regard to this Department, urgency might be demanded. Of course, if hon. Members said they were going to divide on every single name, he must place the matter in the hands of the House as to whether he should press the question further on that occasion.
      MR. RICHARD POWERhoped the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would press this matter. This was a question of urgency, and yet the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Molloy) stated that he intended to divide on every name, and the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) had given no reason for opposing the appointment of this Committee. He (Mr. Richard Power) took it for granted that the hon. Member was not satisfied with the dinner he had had that night; but, if that was so, how was he going to remedy that state of affairs? Surely not by refusing to have this Committee appointed. If the state of the kitchen, or the manner in which dinners were served in that House—and on the present occasion he would not express any opinion upon that—was unsatisfactory, surely that could only be remedied by the appointment of the Committee which had the sole control of the Refreshment Department, The result of the Motion of his hon. Friend would be that there could be no remedy for the defects of which this bilious Gentleman complained, and if the Committee was not appointed that night, hon. Members would probably have no dinner at all to-morrow. Upon those grounds he would really appeal to his hon. Friend, unless he could give some better argument than he had yet advanced, not to press his Motion. After all, a man might get a bad dinner wherever he went, and it was just as much the fault of the man who ordered the dinner as the man who served it. There were a great many men who did not know how to order, and then they said it was the fault of the cook, whereas they did not know what was good and what was bad. The only way in which Gentlemen who suffered as his hon. Friend did from bilious arrangements was by appointing a Committee to look after the kitchen, and he did not think there could be a better Committee to look after the prosperity of his hon. Friend than the present Committee. He believed they did all they could to satisfy the peculiar tastes of his two hon. Friends, and he hoped they would allow the Committee to be appointed.
      MR. SHEILsaid, he understood the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) to say he would not press the Motion. He did not approve of this particular Committee; and all hon.

      559
      Members had not all his knowledge of the dining in that House.
      SIR WILLIAM HABT DYKEsaid, he had left the matter in the hands of the House. If the House had shown any disposition to adjourn he should have acceded to that.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 15; Noes 53: Majority 38.—(1) iv. List, No. 10.)
      Main Question again proposed.
      MR. SHEILsaid, he rose to a point of Order.
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has already spoken; he cannot speak again.
      MR. SHEILsaid, he wished to speak to a point of Order. He desired to ask whether, inasmuch as the Notice of this Motion had only been put on the Paper that day, it was not within the right of any hon. Member to object to it, in order that he might have an opportunity of placing a Notice of Amendment on the Paper?
      MR. SPEAKER: The Rule does not apply in this case.
      MR. MOLLOYasked if hon. Members had not the right to object to certain Gentlemen being appointed Members of the Committee?
      MR. SPEAKER: The first Question put will be the appointment of the Committee. The names will be put afterwards.
      Main Question put, and agreed to.
      Standing Committee appointed, "to control the arrangements of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms, in the department of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House."
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Maurice Brooks be a Member of the said Committee."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
      MR. HEALYsaid, that, as a means of enforcing the views which he and his hon. Friends held, it would be well to object to the first name proposed. Unfortunately, the name was that of the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Maurice Brooks). The first essential of a good dinner was that it should be hot, but that essential was wanting to-night here. The Irish Members were obliged to dine constantly at the House. The majority of them did not belong to any club, and, as a general rule, it was not safe for
      560
      them to leave the House, especially when any Irish Votes were likely to be proposed, or any other Irish Business likely to be introduced. Hence they were obliged to dine in the Refreshment Room of the House. He considered the Members of the Committee ought to be men who dined at the House constantly. That was a claim he might very fairly make. If hon. Members glanced over the names of the Gentlemen who were to be proposed as Members of the Committee, they would find they were not Gentlemen who, as a rule, dined at the House. He trusted the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would seriously consider this point. At all events, he was of opinion that hon. Gentlemen, like the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Maurice Brooks) and the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Muntz), who dined so seldom at the House, ought not to be chosen as Members of the Committee, and he suggested to the right hon. Baronet the advisability of postponing the selection of the Gentlemen who were to form the Committee, or of appointing some Gentlemen who were anxious to serve, and who constantly dined here.
      SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, the question was one for the House at large to consider and deal with. It was true that some of the Members of the Committee did not very often dine at the House; but, at the same time, other Members of the Committee dined at the House almost every night. The Gentlemen of the Committee, in general, devoted much time and attention to the work assigned to them. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had suggested that Gentlemen who belonged to the Committee received special favours. He (Sir William Hart Dyke) knew nothing of any special favours being meted out to Members of the Committee. The hon. Member for Monaghan had also said something about having had a cold dinner. He (Sir William Hart Dyke) dined at the House that night, and he certainly was favoured with a hot dinner.
      MR. MOLLOYsaid, he thought the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks ought to be removed from the Committee. Year after year attempts had been made to alter the composition of the Committee and improve the refreshment arrangements; but all to no purpose. The dining room attached to the House was

      561
      supposed to resemble a club—the conditions and general arrangements under which Members dined at the House were supposed to be similar to those in an ordinary club. Now, one of the first conditions in a club, or, indeed, in an ordinary restaurant, was that the persons who attended to the members were the servants of the members. The waiters at the House, however, had already declared that they only received a small salary from the contractor, and that they were told to look to the Members, instead of to their employer, for payment. No one objected to the small amount generally given to waiters; but the result of the system which obtained at the House was that hon. Gentlemen were not treated as members of a club were treated. If an hon. Member did not keep to the well-understood rule, and should not make a present to the waiter after dinner, he did not receive the attention he was entitled to. The lack of attention in such cases was well known; but he had never heard of the Committee making any exception to it. His hon. Friend the Member for Waterford (Mr. Richard Power), in one of the funny speeches he was accustomed to make, spoke of the biliousness of those who objected to the composition of this Committee. Last year he (Mr. Molloy) grumbled at the exceedingly bad dinners which were served at the House; and he spoke to his hon. Friend (Mr. Richard Power) concerning the matter. His hon. Friend, in return, asked him where they could get a better dinner. He (Mr. Molloy) thereupon suggested that they should apply a test. The same night they dined together at the House, and the next night he invited his hon. Friend to dine with him at his Club. They took a cab in Palace Yard, and drove to the Club, where they had an infinitely better dinner than they could get at the House. They then drove back to the House, and the price of the dinner, including the cab to and fro, was less than they would have paid for an exceedingly bad dinner at the House. ["What about the subscription to the Club?"] Did not the House give the contractor £1,000 a-year? Did they not find him in kitchen, gas, and all table requirements? Did they not find him in everything but eatables and liquors, all of which were exceedingly bad? The wine list was worse than that in any restaurant in
      562
      London; the most ordinary wines were not to be found on the list, and the prices were 50 per cent higher than those usually charged. It was for these reasons that the Members who were compelled to dine, night after night, at the House objected to the manner in which they were treated. A large number of hon. Members complained of the present state of things. Many who had cause to complain were not now present; but they, nevertheless, felt that the work of the Kitchen and Refreshment Rooms Committee was done very imperfectly. The view was pretty generally entertained that the Committee were an exceedingly amiable body of Gentlemen, who enjoyed their meetings very much after the fashion that a Club Committee meeting was enjoyed. The charges in the Dining Room were exorbitant, and the drink supplied was simply abominable. He had had a little practice in whiskey drinking, though he did not profess to be as good a judge of that commodity as some Gentlemen whom he might name. He agreed, however, in the opinion that the whiskey supplied to them very much resembled a torchlight procession going down one's throat. The whiskey was new and raw; everything was charged double; the coffee was exceedingly bad—worse than that served in any club in London; the waiting was simply abominable; and all this he attributed to the fact that the Committee did not attend to their work properly. He therefore begged to move that the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks, which was the first on the list, be removed; and that in its place be substituted that of——
      MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will not be in Order in moving another name.
      MR. MOLLOYpresumed he was entitled to move that the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks be removed from the list of the Committee.
      MR. SHEILasked if it was not competent for an hon. Member to give Notice of a Motion to substitute another name? The difficulty in which the House found itself arose from the fact that the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) had moved the Motion the very day he gave Notice of it.
      MR. SPEAKER: If the House thought proper to strike out the name of Mr. Maurice Brooks, it would be open for the hon. Member, or any other hon.
      Member, to move another name on another day.
      Question put.
      The House divided:—Ayes 44; Noes 17: Majority 27.—(Div. List, No. 11.)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Henry Edwards be one other Member of the said Committee."—(Sir William Hart Dyke.)
      MR. BIGGARsaid, he would move the adjournment of the debate. It was scandalous to thrust these names upon the House; and if the facts were really understood by hon. Members generally, these proceedings would not be countenanced any longer. There was the article, Irish whiskey, for which a most exorbitant charge was made. Hon. Members had to pay 6d. for only a 4d. glass. For the reasons stated, it appeared to him desirable to postpone the consideration of the names of the Committee to some future time, when they could be properly discussed. The contractor received a large sum in the form of a grant from the House, and that should be considered. On the whole, it was desirable that the matter should be fully and carefully discussed. It was impossible to fully and carefully discuss it now; therefore, he thought there should be an adjournment of its consideration.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Biggar.)
      MR. MOLLOYsaid, he would support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. Hon. Members had no desire to stay here all night, and yet the objection taken to the present refreshment arrangements was a serious one. If the right hon. Baronet (Sir William Hart Dyke) would agree to a re-arrangement of the Committee, that would be sufficient for the time; but if he was determined to carry the whole of the names as they stood on the Paper, there would have to be a fight, and that would be a great pity. He (Mr. Molloy), and those who thought with him in this matter, had lost their opportunity in the more clever tactics of the Committee—who knew what they were going to do, and kept it to themselves—on the last two occasions. The House would be wise, he thought, in agreeing to the terms now offered,
      564
      and allowing hon. Members to go home to bed. Earlier, on another subject, the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney) had given way, and had assented to an adjournment, seeing that there was serious objection to going on with the subject under discussion at that hour in the morning—2.45. The Government had seen no difficulty in giving way; but the right hon. Baronet, who was not a Member of the Government, but simply represented a private Committee, which—the right hon. Baronet would forgive him for saying it—was a very inefficient one, declined to yield. He pointed this out to show that whatever time hon. Members were kept here, and whatever opposition was now shown, would be the fault of the right hon. Baronet. It was to be hoped that the right hon. Baronet would meet those who opposed his Motion in the spirit with which they were willing to meet him.
      MR. HEALYsaid, he must protest against a private Member being allowed to keep the House sitting like this on a private Member's Motion. When the Government could have passed a Motion of theirs through a short time ago, they would not do it, out of deference to their opponents; but here was a private Member bent upon doing it. Let the right hon. Baronet follow the example of the Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Courtney). If he would not do that, then those who opposed him—as there was a principle at stake in this matter—should take a Division against every name on the proposed Committee, and give Notice to add a great many new names. There was upon the Committee the name "Mr. Maurice Brooks." That hon. Gentleman had only attended twice out of 22 times last year. Surely that was not a creditable number of attendances. These suggestions were not made for factious purposes, and it was as much to the interest of the right hon. Baronet as to that of hem. Members that they should work harmoniously and creditably together. Let the right hon. Baronet give them to understand that he would consent to add to his list such names as that of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Sheil) and hon. Members opposite who were constantly in the House. The result, he (Mr. Healy) was confident, would be harmonious working afterwards.
      SIR WILLIAM HART DYKEsaid, he thought there was one consideration which should be allowed to guide them in this matter, and that was the late hour they were detaining Mr. Speaker in the Chair that night, although it must be confessed that the subject, touching as it did the comfort of hon. Members, was not an insignificant one. Hon. Members who had taken part in this discussion, and had been opposing these names, seemed to think that he (Sir William Hart Dyke) had been rather standing on his dignity, and, as Chairman of the Committee, had some feeling in the matter. He could assure the House that was not the case. He had no feeling in the matter, except to do what was right to hon. Members, and to support the Committee, which had worked very hard, and had reached a state of perfection which had never been reached before, in spite of what had been said to the contrary. He had been connected with the Kitchen and Refreshment Committee for some years, and could assure the House that last year and the year before they had had fewer complaints in regard to the refreshments than they had ever had. This matter was somewhat urgent. Complaints had been made by hon. Members with reference to the dinner they had had that evening, and if the Committee were appointed, and could meet on Wednesday next, they could have these complaints brought before them, and could deal with them. This was one of the chief reasons why he proposed that the Committee should be nominated to-night. If they were to wrangle, night after night, over these names, there would be no one to be responsible for those who managed the Refreshment Department. He hoped they would remember that besides the refreshment in the Dining Room there was another refreshment that they all required—namely, a little sleep. He would assent to the appeal made to him now, hoping that, on another occasion, they might be more fortunate in discussing the question.
      Question put, and agreed to.
      Debate adjourned till Thursday.

    PUBLIC PETITIONS.
    Select Committee appointed, to whom shall be referred all Petitions presented to the House, with the exception of such as relate to Private
    566
    Bills; and that such Committee do classify and prepare abstracts of the same, in such form and manner as shall appear to them best suited to convey to the House all requisite in formation respecting their contents, and do report the same from time to time to the House; and that the reports of the Committee do set forth the number of signatures to each Petition only in respect to those signatures to which addresses are affixed:—And that such Committee have power to direct the printing in extenso of such Petitions, or of such parts of Petitions, as shall appear to require it:—And that such Committee have power to report their opinion and observations thereupon to the House:—Committee to consist of Sir CHARLES FORSTER, Mr. RICHARD POWER, Mr. M'LAGAN, Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK, Mr. REGINALD YORKE, Mr. CHARLES DALRYMPLE, Viscount NEWPORT, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Marquess of TAVISTOCK, Mr. CHARLES TENNANT, Marquess of STAFFORD, Mr. HANBURY-TRACY, Mr. WILLIAM LOWTHER, Colonel DIGBY, and Colonel COLTHURST:—Three to be the quorum.—(Sir Charles Forster.)

    ECCLESIASTICAL DISCIPLINE AND PUBLIC WORSHIP REGULATION ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Bill to amend the Ecclesiastical Discipline and Public Worship Regulation Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MORGAN LLOYD, Sir HENRY HUSSEY VIVIAN, Mr. GREER, and Baron de FERRIERES.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 96.]
    House adjourned at a quarter before Three o'clock.