Commons Sitting of 21 February 1884

MINUTES.
NEW WRITS ISSUED—For Brighton, v. William Thackeray Marriott, esquire, Chiltern Hundreds; for Lincoln County (Southern Division), v. Sir William Earle Welby-Gregory, baronet, Manor of Northstead.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Clare Sewell Read, esquire, for Norfolk County (Western Division).
PRIVATE BILLS—Second Heading—Ennerdale Railway; Southampton Corporation (Cemetery, &c.).
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Valuation (Metropolis) Amendment* [108].
Committee—Middlesex Land Registry [91], debate adjourned.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ENNERDALE RAILWAY BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir Charles Forster.)
    MR. STAFFORD HOWARD,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, there might have been something unusual in the course taken in regard to this Bill last year in opposing the second reading; but the opposition the Bill then met with received a considerable amount of justification from the fact that the Select Committee, to whom the Bill was referred, rejected it upon its merits. Therefore, in taking a similar course this year, the same objection could not be taken, because the Bill had been brought in again in exactly the same form, and contained no material alteration from the measure which was presented last year. Consequently, the reasons for and against it remained the same, and he could not understand why the Bill should have been again reintroduced this year. It had been alleged that the opposition to the Bill, and to Bills of this nature, generally were prompted by certain views of sentimental, well-meaning, but foolish individuals, whose ideas ought not for one moment to be allowed to stand in the way of those of practical persons who
    1546
    proposed to develope the mineral wealth of the country, and to promote great engineering works to the advantage of the neighbourhood in which they were carried out. Perhaps it would be as well that he should state shortly and clearly the grounds upon which the Lake District Defence Association, and those persons who agreed with that Association in its views, opposed this Bill, and would continue to oppose all such Bills. He might remark, in passing, that those who belonged to the Association he had mentioned were not a small knot of obscure individuals, but they included among their number many influential Members of Parliament, influential and well-known writers for the Press, and hundreds and thousands of the residents of our great cities, who annually resorted to the Lake District for recreation and enjoyment, and for the means of recruiting their health. The number of people who sought this kind of relaxation was every year growing larger, and it would increase with the population of the country. The preservation of the natural features and characteristics of the Lake District was highly essential, if it was to continue to afford that pleasure and enjoyment which was necessary; and, under these circumstances, it was the intention of those who desired to preserve the Lake District to oppose every Bill of this kind until it was proved that such measures were absolutely necessary in order to serve some important public interest, and had advantages which would outweigh those considerations to which he had referred. It was with that object that last year he had moved an Instruction to the Committee, to whom the Bill was sent, that they should have power to consider the nature of the scenery, and the way in which it would be affected by the Bill; and, further, that the Committee should hear evidence as to the injury which the construction of the railway might cause. If the second reading of the Bill were now carried, he proposed to move that a similar Instruction be given to the Committee. But, considering the result of last year's Committee—a Committee of Gentlemen perfectly impartial upon the subject, and not likely to be carried away by sentimental views—considering that that Committee, after careful inquiry, threw out the Bill on its merits, he thought he was justified in asking

    1547
    the House now to throw it out upon the second reading. It was not necessary that he should add more to what he had said. He had tried to explain the grounds on which the Bill was opposed; and should the second reading be carried, he should feel bound to move the Instruction he had moved last year. He begged to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Stafford Howard.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he had hoped that the House would have heard some more valid reason for the rejection of this Bill on the second reading than that which had been given by the hon. Member who had just sat down. He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) represented the district which was nearest to Ennerdale Lake; and knowing that the local feeling was in favour of the Bill, he should give it his support. He had heard no substantial reason given for adopting the unusual course of throwing out a Private Bill upon the second reading. His answer to the objections raised by the hon. Member was simply this. The Bill was not the same Bill as that which was rejected last year. The opponents, in the statement of their case, alleged that, with the exception of a small variation of the line, the Bill was the same as the Ennerdale Railway Bill which was rejected on its merits by a Committee last year. Now, he did not know precisely what it was that guided the Committee in the rejection of the Bill last year; but he had always understood that it was in consequence of a deficiency in the matter of the financial arrangements. It was supposed that the Company had not provided sufficient funds for carrying out the undertaking; and he believed that it was upon that ground that the Bill was rejected, and not at all on the sentimental ground of any interference with the scenery, which it certainly did not effect, as any hon. Gentleman who was acquainted with the district would know. He took his objection to the course now proposed to be taken on a much stronger ground; and as an old
    1548
    Member of the House, he ventured to say that never in his experience had he known so bold a proposal made in reference to a Private Bill. He believed that many hon. Members he saw before him, who were familiar with the practice of the House, would agree with him when he said it was a principle well understood that no Private Bill ought to be rejected on the second reading, unless it manifestly inflicted some injury or injustice, either upon the public, or else upon private individuals, which it was not within the competence of a Select Committee to remedy, or unless the Bill itself followed some solemn rule or decision of the House. This could only be determined after the full and careful examination which a Committee upstairs would give to the Bill. Was it a sufficient ground for rejecting it to say that it would interfere with the Lake scenery? If it would interfere, as the hon. Member said it would, with the Lake scenery—and, he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) had never heard a more absurd objection in his life—that was a matter which would certainly be proved before the Select Committee, who would be able to hear statements both on one side and on the other. If the Committee chose to let the Bill stand or fall on such a ground as that, well and good; but it would be hard and unjust to the promoters that the matter should be cut short in the present instance without any evidence whatever. He would ask the House what was the nature of the opposition that was raised? Who were the individuals who were opposing? He would take upon himself to say that not one in I 00 of the opponents ever saw Ennerdale Lake or Ennerdale Valley. The locality had, however, been familiar to him all his life. Before going through the reasons which the opponents gave against the second reading of the Bill, he wished to tell the House that up to the present moment there had not been one single Petition against the Bill. No landowner had protested against it; no Railway Company had lodged a Petition against it; the local authorities were all in favour of it, and so were the in habitants of the locality. He would now very shortly go through the reasons which had been adduced by two or three people whom nobody ever heard of before, one of them residing at Windermere

    1549
    —which was altogether out of the district—and the other at Ambleside. Those two gentlemen were the authorities on whom the opposition was based. He would go through the reasons they assigned, and he would undertake to knock those reasons all to pieces. In the first place, the Petitioners said that the scheme was, with the exception of a slight variation in the course of the proposed Railway, the same as that proposed by the Ennerdale Railway Bill of last Session, which was rejected on its merits by a Committee of the House. He had already explained that that was not so. The Railway had been considerably altered, and it was now proposed to carry it through a cutting, 25 feet deep, for a considerable distance; whereas last year it was proposed to carry it along the shore of the Lake. He was advised that the financial objection raised by the Committee last year had been removed, and that the line had now received sufficient support in promotion to warrant the passing of the Bill. The next reason against the second reading was as follows:—
    "It is not pretended that the proposed railway is for the convenience of the population in Ennerdale, which consists of the residents in about a dozen farmhouses; but it is intended as a means of developing certain veins of lead and iron, which are alleged to exist in the surrounding hills. The scheme is, therefore, not to serve public, but private interests."
    Not to serve the public interests! Was not the development of the resources of the country, and the employment of labour in the construction of a railway, matters of public interest? He should like to hear any of the sentimental Radical Party deny that proposition. The document from which he quoted said—
    "The scheme is not to serve public, but private interests."
    Was it to serve private interests to develop the resources of the country; and, more than that, to give an access to one of the English Lakes, which at the present moment did not exist? The hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Stafford Howard) could scarcely have visited the locality. If he had, he must know that Ennerdale Water was nine miles from Whitehaven, and that there was no means of getting there without hiring an expensive conveyance, which
    1550
    involved an hour and a-half side. To pedestrians the length of the journey made it almost an impossibility; and to the humbler class of tourists Ennerdale Lake, if worth seeing at all, was a sealed exhibition. The next ground of objection was—
    "That visitors to Ennerdale can now travel by railway to a station within one mile and a-half of Ennerdale Bridge."
    It was quite evident that the compilers of these extraordinary reasons had never been in the district at all. The last statement he had read was altogether false. Ennerdale Bridge was a mile and a-half from the Lake, and the nearest railway station was four miles from the head of the Lake, and there was not a passenger station there at all; it was only a mineral station, and of so obscure a nature that even its name was not to be found in Bradshaw's Guide. In point of fact, to go to Eskdale Station would involve a long journey in a roundabout way from Whitehaven, and would occupy nearly as long a time as driving along the road. The next reason was—
    "That the town of Whitehaven draws its water supply from Ennerdale Lake. Any iron or lead workings in the neighbourhood of the Lake would render the water unfit for use."
    Now, whatever the professors of sentimentalism might say, the inhabitants of Whitehaven were best acquainted with this particular matter; and he declined to allow such a statement as that to be made without challenge. The allegation was that the water supply of the town of Whitehaven would be rendered unfit for use if this Railway at Ennerdale were constructed. It was really a reduction ad absurdum to put forth such childish arguments as that. The inhabitants of Whitehaven, almost to a man, were in favour of the Bill. The whole district was in favour of it, and nobody knew that better than the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Ainsworth), who moved the rejection of the Bill last year, and then withdrew his opposition. Why did the hon. Member take that course, and why did he abstain from moving the rejection of the Bill now? It was because the rejection of the Ennerdale Bill last year had been frequently dinned in his ears since, at every meeting he had attended; and he found that it was likely to make a considerable hole in his future chance of

    1551
    political success. The hon. Member had, therefore, discreetly retired from the front of the battle, leaving it to be fought out by the professors of sentimentalism. He had now gone through the reasons assigned by the opponents of the Bill for its rejection. He had shown that the landowners' opposition had been entirely withdrawn; and, on general grounds, there must be two opinions as to whether a railway which ran through a deep cutting for about a mile, and was altogether invisible from the Lake, was an injury to the scene or not. His own opinion was that the passing of a railway train would not spoil a district like this; but, on the contrary, would be an advantage in a picturesque way. [A laugh.] Well, that was a matter of opinion, of course. Why did not hon. Gentlemen opposite induce Her Majesty's Government to make representations to Foreign Powers not to allow railways on the Italian, Swiss, and Savoy Lakes? He saw an hon. Member who was now opposing the Bill at Aix-les-Bains. Would the hon. Member say that the railway train there, coasting along one of the most picturesque Lakes in the world, and travelling through tunnels, spoilt the Lake? He was afraid, if the hon. Member did, that he would got no one else to agree with him. Why did not hon. Members get up a Society here for pitching the St. Gothard Railway over the precipice? Was it an outrage to cross the Righi in a railway train, or to visit Lake Como, Lake Maggioro, or the Lake of Geneva by railway? Such arguments would not hold water for a moment, if they were to be considered from a common-sense point of view; and he coutended that these sentimental people ought not to be listened to. He maintained that, upon general grounds, and in accordance with the practice of the House, they ought not to reject the Bill upon the second reading; but that the promoters had an indefeasible and absolute right to go before a Select Committee, whore their case could be heard and supported by evidence. If the House refused them that privilege, they would do not only what was inconsistent and what was unreasonable, but what was absolutely unjust.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck),
    1552
    in supporting the second reading of the Bill, had asserted that the Bill differed materially from that which was rejected by the House last year; but as far as regarded the injury which would be inflicted upon the scenery of the locality, it was practically the same Bill as that of last Session. [Mr. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: No.] He believed he was right in the assertion he made; and therefore this argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman fell to the ground. No doubt, in the case of Private Bills it was desirable that questions of detail should go before a Select Committee, and should not be considered in the House itself; but in this instance the question was not one which related to the details of the Bill, but it involved a general principle, which concerned the whole community. It must be borne in mind that the persons most interested against the proposal would have no locus standi in opposition to the Bill when it reached a Committee stage. The public were not represented before the Committee, but only the landowners, and those persons whose interests were likely to be pecuniarly affected. Therefore, so far as the public were concerned, it was only possible to state their case in the House itself. He might mention a precedent which must be in the minds of hon. Members—namely, the Epping Forest Bill, which was rejected on the second reading on account of the injury it proposed to do to the public by destroying the beauty of Epping Forest. The right hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven asserted that this Bill would confer a public benefit by developing the mineral resources of the country. The case of the opponents was that the minerals were of very small value. Indeed, it was proved before the Select Committee last year that the minerals were of such small value that it was very likely it would be found not worth while to work them. In point of fact, the Bill was a Speculators' Bill, introduced in order to float shares in a Company; and he was of opinion that a Bill of that character ought not to be looked upon with any indulgence, as if it were one really developing important industries. So far as access to Ennerdale Lake was concerned, there was already a railway not far from the Lake, within three miles of it; and the fact that it was not used for passengers only proved

    1553
    that nobody wanted to go by rail. The Valley itself was secluded and desolate, and its solitude and desolation formed part of its charms. The public did not require any new access to it, but were quite able to get there by means already existing. As regarded the water question, he believed it was perfectly true that the working of lead and iron ores would pollute the water of the Lake. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in endeavouring to prove that the construction of the line would not interfere with the scenery of the district, practically admitted that the question of scenery was one which the House did well to consider; but contended that the existence of railways tended rather to improve Lake scenery than otherwise. The same argument was put forward by one of the engineers of the Bill, who said, in a letter to which he (Mr. Bryce) wished to call the attention of the House—
    "This railway will do no damage whatever to the scenery. I will go further, and say that it will practically improve the scenery by affording a contrast between the works of the Great Architect and the puny efforts of His creatures."
    But notwithstanding the aspirations of this pious engineer, those persons who took au interest in the scenery of the district had no wish to have their minds improved by any such contrast as the construction of this line would afford. He trusted that the House would, by rejecting the Bill, direct these artistic engineers and speculative promoters to transfer their efforts to districts where they could not destroy a piece of scenery singular even in the Lake Country for its wildness and solemn grandeur.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words before they came to a Division, as he happened to be the surviving trustee of a property which would be largely affected by the Bill; and he wished to point out that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was entirely in error in his statements that the mineral resources of the country were not worth developing. He (Mr. J. Lowther) was advised, on competent authority, that, with regard to the particular estate with which he was connected, the minerals to be developed were by no means inconsiderable. He therefore thought that that was an important consideration in discussing the merits or demerits of
    1554
    the Bill. Whether wisely or unwisely, but wisely he ventured to think, Parliament had thought it expedient to withdraw from the House, as a whole, the consideration of all details affecting Private Bill legislation; and he thought the House would act very unwisely if it now reversed that principle, and consented to deal with the merits of a Bill upon the second reading, thus resuming into its own hands the consideration of details of that kind. There had been one statement made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. Stafford Howard) which, with all respect, he ventured to contradict. The hon. Gentleman said this Bill was rejected last year by a Committee upstairs, upon the grounds on which he opposed it now. [Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD: No.] He saw the noble Lord, who was Chairman of the Committee, in his place, and the noble Lord would contradict him if he was wrong, when he said that a general impression prevailed that the ground on which the Bill of last year, differing as it did in some important respects from the scheme now before the House, was rejected by the Select Committee, was not the reason suggested by the hon. Member, but a wholly different ground—namely, a ground of finance, which had nothing to do with the question of scenery at all. He would only say, in conclusion, that he had every reason to believe that the great majority of those persons in the Lake District to whom the preservation of objects of interest, like this, was far more precious than to any individuals in that House—those persons who lived in the neighbourhood—had arrived at the conclusion that the benefit which would accrue to the general public, as well as to themselves, would be largely augmented by the additional access to the district which was proposed to be given to this Bill. His right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was perfectly correct in saying that at the present moment the British tourist, in whose behalf so much had been said that night, was absolutely unable to get to this Lake. He was told that there was no railway station within four and a-half miles of the head of the Lake; and he need not remind the House that that fact practically withdrew Ennerdale Lake altogether from the ordinary tourist's

    1555
    route. He hoped the House would not be led away, by any of the grounds which had been stated, from following the universal custom of referring details of this sort to the consideration of a Select Committee; and that they would not consent to resume into their own hands intricate questions affecting Private Bill legislation. He trusted the House would refer the Bill to the ordinary tribunal provided by the custom of the House, and would not interfere with the due course of inquiry that was adopted in such cases.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not detain the House for more than two or three minutes. If he had entertained any doubt as to the propriety of opposing the Bill, his opposition would be confirmed by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther). The real fact of the case was this—there existed in this small district some of the most beautiful scenery to be found in the country. No doubt it was quite right to say that there already existed means of getting to it. But the real opposition to the Bill was this—that it involved the destruction of this beautiful scenery in a district very differently situated, as far as regarded railways and such kind of works, from the Swiss and Italian mountains; because it was very easy, by the construction of such works, to have a very beautiful piece of country entirely marred, which it was impossible to do by the formation of railroads in Switzerland and Italy. It was not a mere question of preserving this beautiful piece of country from great injury by railways; but it was the case, which the right hon. Gentleman had put in its right form, of the future possible development of lead and iron mines, which would utterly spoil the scenery, even much more than this railway. It was a question of public policy, therefore, whether the House should consent, for the sake of carrying out a speculative development of the resources of the district, to run the risk of marring a very beautiful part of the country.
    MR. AINSWORTHsaid, that as some reference had been made to him, he was anxious to explain why it was that he had not taken the same course in regard to the Bill this year as that which he took last year. Last year he brought the matter very shortly before the House,
    1556
    but he did not take any part in the Division. He intended to follow the same course on the present occasion, and he should not take any part in the Division. His reason was this—the proposed Railway affected a small portion of land in the country in which he was personally interested, and therefore it might be considered that he was an interested person. He trusted, for the same reason, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. J. Lowther) would also abstain from taking part in the Division, because he, too, was an interested party.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he was quite ready to pair with the hon. Member.
    MR. AINSWORTHcertainly hoped the right hon. Gentleman would follow his example.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, that railways were nearly always of great advantage to the property through which they passed and the surrounding district; and it was no ground of reproach to hon. Gentlemen who had property in the district that they should come to the House and support the introduction of a railway system. Personally, he had no property in this immediate district; but he knew something of the locality, and also something of the people who got up the opposition. They consisted of a few busy-bodies, who had a crotchet they were desirous of bringing before the public in order to win a fleeting popularity. There was occasionally something in the cases which they represented; but in the present instance there was absolutely nothing at all. The Bill proposed to construct the Railway for the purpose of giving access to a district which was at present practically inaccessible—a very beautiful piece of the country, which many who desired to see it found themselves unable to do, owing to the difficulty of getting at it. He must, therefore, heartily support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, in order that it might be referred to a Select Committee in the usual way. He had distinct authority for stating that the Bill was not the same as that which was rejected by the Select Committee last year. It was a different scheme, and there was no reason why it should not be referred to a Select Committee.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 148: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 15.) Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read a second time, and committed.

  SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION (CEMETERY, &c.) BILL.

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Heading read.
    MR. H. LEE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, its main object was to enable the Corporation of Southampton to enlarge their existing Cemetery at Southampton Common by adding to it about 12 acres of the Common on the eastern side of the Cemetery, which was considered to be a most eligible site for the purpose. By the Southampton Cemetery Act of 1843, the Corporation was authorized to make and maintain the Cemetery, which had now been in use for nearly 40 years. The progressive increase of the population of the borough, which now contained upwards of 61,000 inhabitants, and the want of accommodation in the Cemetery, which was practically exhausted, were among the reasons why the enlargement was urgently required. By the Southampton Marsh and Markets Act of 1865, it was provided that the common and waste land of Southampton should be kept exclusively as open spaces for the general advantage of the inhabitants; but certain exceptions were made in that Act with reference to the user of this particular Common, a Common containing about 375 acres, of which the existing Cemetery occupied about 15 acres. The Corporation now wanted to appropriate 12 acres more for the same purpose; and as recently as 1865, when the whole question of dealing with the common lands of Southampton was before Parliament, the principle of appropriating a portion of the Common for the enlargement of the Cemetery was distinctly recognized. He knew that objections were strongly entertained against the appropriation of Common lands, and he sympathized with those who objected; and if this were an application now made for the first time to take a portion of the Common land of Southampton for a cemetery, he should be one of the first to oppose it. But the Cemetery already existed, and the remainder of the Common was used by
    1558
    the inhabitants for recreative purposes. It must also be borne in mind that, besides this Common, Southampton possessed unusual advantages, having about 70 acres of land in the heart of the town, which had been laid out as parks, pleasure and recreative grounds, at a great expense. He therefore thought the House would be of opinion that no material injury would be done to the inhabitants of Southampton if these 12 acres were appropriated for the purpose for which the Bill provided. [Cries of "Agreed!"] He hoped hon. Members would agree to the Motion he was about to make, and he hoped they would, since a Division was to be taken, go into the Lobby in favour of the Corporation of Southampton. He felt quite certain, from what he knew, that the public opinion of the town was entirely in favour of the course the Corporation proposed to take, and the Corporation themselves had been practically unanimous in the matter. Southampton had more Common land for the recreation of the inhabitants than most of the other towns of the Kingdom; and if they were required to obtain a cemetery elsewhere, the town would be put to considerable cost. Anyone who looked at the map, which had been circulated with a copy of the reasons for supporting the second reading, would see at once that the proposed conversion of this land would inflict no injury whatever upon the town of Southampton. He therefore begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. H. Lee.)
    MR. W. H. JAMESsaid, he had no wish to detain the House for more than a few minutes; but, as he had given Notice of opposition to the Bill, without entering into detail or desiring to raise a lengthened discussion, he wished to point out in a few words the principle on which he thought the Bill ought to be opposed. There were only two points to which he desired to refer; one was the assertion of the hon. Member for Southampton that the feeling of the people of Southampton was entirely unanimous upon the question; and the other was the general principle that only where no other land was available should Common land be taken for the

    1559
    purposes contemplated by this Bill. In regard to the unanimity of feeling in Southampton, he had received that day a Petition against it, signed by nearly 200 inhabitants, collected in the course of a few hours, and containing the signatures of magistrates, clergymen, and others. He was of opinion that it was only in cases where no other land was available that Common land should be allowed to be taken for public purposes. He would not argue the case as affecting the town of Southampton, but as it affected, more or less, all large communities who had Common land. In the Act of 1865, no doubt, there was a clause inserted which sanctioned the appropriation of this Common land by the Corporation for the enlargement of the Cemetery at some future time; but within the last few years there had been a more developed public opinion upon these questions; and it was now not merely a matter of open spaces, but a question whether the Corporation had any right whatever to take away from the people what was considered to be an important public right, unless it was found wholly impossible to carry out arrangements for the public advantage by any other means. This important principle was embodied in the Metropolitan Commons Act of 1876; and why it was deemed to be a matter so urgent was, that they knew quite well, at the present moment, there were many persons discussing in popular audiences questions connected with laud, and putting forward projects which were extravagant and foolish, and which would accomplish no useful purpose. He therefore deemed it of importance to direct the attention of the House to every Private Bill which contained provisions of this nature. It was not necessary that he should detain the House further, and he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House is of opinion that it is undesirable to sanction a measure which would lead to the appropriation as a Cemetery of a considerable area of Common Land in close proximity to the centre of a populous town,"—[Mr. Walter H. James],
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. GILESsaid, that after the sentimental objection to the last Bill had been defeated, he hoped the House would not have been favoured with any opposition to the present Bill, but that the Corporation of Southampton would be allowed to enlarge their Cemetery. He said at once that he agreed in principle with the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) who had moved the Amendment; but there was such a thing as riding a hobby too hard, and he thought this was one of those cases. The facts were simply these. That Southampton was in the enjoyment of something like 440 acres of ornamental land, devoted exclusively to the amusement and pleasure of the people of Southampton. The land affected by the Bill was situated in a remote corner of Southampton Common. The Common itself consisted of 375 acres, and in the corner nearest the town 15 acres had been used for more than 40 years as a Cemetery. It was now proposed by the Corporation to add to the Cemetery another piece of ground, 12 acres in extent, adjoining the existing Cemetery and in the same corner. If any Member had inspected the map, he would at once see from the position of the corner in which the proposed increase was to be made, that there could not be any possible objection to this small appropriation. It was assumed by the hon. Member for Gateshead that his Amendment was in the interests of the public. Now, what were the interests of the public of Southampton? It was their interest to keep down the rates, and the effect of having to provide a Cemetery in some other place would be to impose upon the Corporation the necessity of purchasing 12 or 20 acres of land, at a cost of from £800 to £1,000 an acre, and thus to entail increased burdens upon the town, when the inhabitants were already paying something like 8s. 6d. in the pound in the shape of local taxation. He thought he had said enough to show that, while they had every desire to do what was right in the interests of the public, the Corporation and the inhabitants generally, who were favourable to the Bill in the proportion of something like two to one, were justified in asking Parliament to pass their Bill. He thought the people of the town might be safely trusted to look after their own interests.
    MR. FAWCETTtrusted the House would allow him, not as a Member of the Government, but as an independent Member, who took a deep interest in this question, to say a few words, and he could assure the House that, knowing how valuable its time was, his words should be extremely few. The question was one which, in his opinion, raised a most important principle—namely, whether a large town, which had the good fortune to possess an open space, which was devoted to the use and enjoyment of the people, was to do as it liked with it? Was it not the duty of the House to protect the interests of the public by saying that, except as a matter of absolute necessity, such land should not be used for these purposes, and that no Corporation should be allowed to take it away from the enjoyment of the people simply in order to save the outlay of a further sum of money? He would put this very serious consideration to the House—if 12 or 15 acres were to be taken for a Cemetery on the plea that the ground was cheap, what security had they that 20 acres would not be taken for a reformatory from the same ground; or if a new gaol, or a new workhouse was required, what security would there be that this cheap land would not be the place selected for erecting them upon? He would go further, and show by a striking instance that the case he was putting was no imaginary one. He was prepared to say that if the House was not extremely careful in protecting these open spaces, there was no security, if a town required to carry out drainage works, that they would not select a Common in the immediate neighbourhood for a sewage farm. As he had said, this was no imaginary case, because such a proposal was actually made not many years ago in regard to one of the most beautiful Commons in the neighbourhood of London. It was absolutely proposed by a Local Board to establish a sewage farm upon Wimbledon Common, and the proposal was defeated with some difficulty. Some amusement was excited in the House when his hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Mr. W. H. James) said he had received a Petition, signed by some very influential people in Southampton, numbering 200. It was evidently the opinion of the House that this was an extremely small Petition; but then it must be borne in
    1562
    mind that the time in which the Petition had been got up was extremely short. What, however, would be thought of the public meeting to which both the hon. Members for Southampton had alluded, and at which it was said that the proposal contained in the Bill was approved? He understood the hon. Members to say that the proportion in favour of the Bill at the meeting was two to one; but how many persons did the House think were present at that meeting? Not 200, but exactly 74, because the voting was in the proportion of 42 to 32. Therefore, as far as the evidence before the House was concerned, it was rather against the Bill than in its favour. On many occasions applications had been made to the House not to allow railways to select Common land for their operations simply because it was cheap; and it seemed to him that the House had evinced great care in securing for the public the unquestionable advantage of large open spaces. He thought they ought to be equally solicitous that these open spaces should not be taken from the use and enjoyment of the people, by devoting them to cemeteries or any other purpose, simply on the ground that the land could be more cheaply obtained.
    SIR ARTHUR OTWAYsaid he thought it was necessary that he should say a few words upon the question before the House. He had listened to the remarks which had been made by his right hon. Friend who had just sat down; and he was happy to assure his right hon. Friend, in regard to several of the things he had held out as being likely to occur in future in regard to this Common land, that the arrangements of the Common were regulated by Act of Parliament; and it would be sufficient if he were to read to the House a few words from the Act itself, from which it would be seen that none of the dangers which were present in the imagination of his right hon. Friend could possibly occur to the remainder of this Common. It would also be clearly seen what the opinion of the House of Commons was with regard to the matter at the time that Act passed. The Corporation of Southampton was obliged to keep open for ever this Common land—
    "Except where application is made to Parliament for authority that any part of those lands be taken or used for the defence of the realm, or that any part of the Common be taken

    1563
    or used for enlarging the Cemetery there, or for enlarging the Waterworks there."
    Beyond that, the Corporation of Southampton had no power to obtain any part of it; and with regard to any persons who might sustain injury in consequence of the enlargement of the Cemetery, he would remind his right hon. Friend that by one of the Standing Orders of the House, anyone possessing a house in the immediate vicinity of a cemetery would have a locus standi, and could be heard before a Committee of the House as to any injury he might suffer. He had looked carefully into the question; and he had also had the advantage of the assistance of others who had considered it with him, and he had been altogether unable to come to the conclusion that the second reading of the Bill should not be passed in the House. In his opinion, it was simply a question for examination by a Select Committee. He might add that the portion of the Common land it was proposed to take, in order to add it to the existing Cemetery, was not situated in the public part of Southampton at all, and the whole amount of it was only 12 acres; whereas the amount provided by the Act of Parliament, to which he had referred, to be taken for this purpose was 65 acres, so that the amount proposed to be taken was still within the limit laid down in the Act. It was a very small addition that was proposed to be made to the Cemetery; and it was certainly a question which a Select Committee could be safely intrusted to inquire into, and one of those details which a Select Committee, in his opinion, was the only fitting tribunal to investigate. Without entering further into the matter, he hoped the House would be inclined to read the Bill a second time.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 272; Noes 54: Majority 218.—(Div. List, No. 16.)
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

MOTION.

  PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRAD-LAUGH).
  MR. SPEAKERacquainted the House that he had received the following Letter
  1564
  from Mr. Bradlaugh, one of the Members for the Borough of Northampton:—
  21 February.
  To the Right Honourable the Speaker of the House of Commons.
  Sir,
  Having been informed to-day that the Crown is taking proceedings to test the legality of the course taken by myself on Monday 11th February, lam willing, having the consent of my constituents, not to present myself at the Table until judgment be given in such proceedings; and I beg, Sir, most respectfully to undertake not to present myself, under my new return, for the purpose of taking my seat, until after the hearing and judgment in such suit.
  I have the honour to be,
  Sir,
  Your me obedt. servt,
  c. BRADLAUGH.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: In all these proceedings with respect to Mr. Bradlaugh the House has always, I take it, been governed by two considerations. The main consideration has been this—that seeing in Mr. Bradlaugh a person who does not attach the meaning to the words of the Oath which it was the intention of those who prescribed the Oath should be attached to them, the House has considered it would be improper that Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to go through the form of repeating those words, and that the repeating of those words by him would not be tantamount to taking the Oath. This House has, therefore, protected itself against the Oath being taken, or the form of taking the Oath being gone through, by repeated Resolutions on every occasion when Mr. Bradlaugh presented himself to go through the form of taking the Oath. In addition to the desire of the House to prevent the form of the Oath from being taken in that way, there has also been a desire—and a very natural desire—on the part of the House to guard against the interruption of its proceedings at uncertain times and without Notice, or even with Notice, by Mr. Bradlaugh frequently attempting to enter the House. And, therefore, on each occasion that the question has arisen, the House has passed two Resolutions—one, that he be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath; and the other, according to the necessities of the case, that

  1565
  he be not permitted to come within the House, or, in some cases, within the precincts of the House. On the 11th of this month—10 days ago—Mr. Brad-laugh presented himself, and without waiting to be called to the Table, in a manner decidedly and entirely irregular, he came to the Table and went through the form of taking the Oath. The House had no real cognizance of what was actually done; but that appeared to be the real nature of the proceeding. The House thereupon proceeded to pass the old Resolution, that he should not be permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath, and also passed another Resolution excluding him from the precincts of the House until he should undertake not to disturb the proceedings. Within a few days of this, a new Writ was moved for by the Colleague of Mr. Bradlaugh, the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), on the ground that Mr. Brad-laugh had vacated his seat by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds. This was a Motion which was made rather unexpectedly, and many Members of the House did not desire to pronounce a decision upon it immediately; but the majority were for going on, so that that there was no alternative, and the Writ was issued. That being so—the Writ having been issued, and a fresh election having taken place—we are thrown back upon the position in which we were before the Resolutions of the 11th of February were passed; and it becomes a question, whether, under these circumstances, the House ought not to do that which it did on a former occasion when it ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh was re-elected—that is to say, as soon as it obtained information and knowledge that Mr. Bradlaugh had been again returned, it re-affirmed the Resolution which had been made before and adopted by the House. That is a course which I think it would be entirely in conformity with the precedent and reason of our proceedings that we should now take. A letter has been addressed to you, Mr. Speaker, by Mr. Bradlaugh; and a question might be raised whether, after that letter, this course ought to be taken. I would remark upon that letter, in the first place, that I do not understand the course the Government are pursuing in this matter. They are now proposing to proceed against Mr. Bradlaugh
  1566
  for something he did before his last re-election—and no doubt proceedings have actually been commenced, in order to test whether what he did was of such a character as to bear the legal interpretation of taking the Oath, and to empower him to sit and vote in this House. Now, if that course had been taken before the new Writ was moved for, and while Mr. Bradlaugh was still claiming to be a Member of the House—if that step had been taken then, I could understand the meaning and object of it. It would have been a mode of testing whether he did or did not vacate his seat; and if the decision were against him there would have been a vacancy on that ground, and further proceedings would have to be taken. But now, whatever decision the Court of Law may pronounce, the act belongs to his previous connection with the House, and not to his present connection with it. It would in no way affect his present connection with the House, whether the Court pronounced that his going through that form was a good method of taking the Oath or not. Therefore, I do not see why we should want the decision of the Court upon the question: although as an historical fact it might be an important feature as bearing upon other questions; but it does not bear upon Mr. Bradlaugh's present position. If the decision is that the course taken was wrong, it does not make void the election which has taken place since that time. That being so, I think, and the House will also feel, that whatever might be the decision of the Court of Law as to the legality of what was done—if the decision were in favour of the legality of what was done—it would not in the slightest degree touch the objection which the House has always entertained. It is not a question whether Mr. Bradlaugh takes the Oath at the hands of the Clerk at the Table or at his own hands. That is not the question. What the House objects to is the substance of the matter—namely, the going through a form which the House considers ought not to be gone through in its presence. Therefore, it does not appear that we should be in any better position to deal with the question after the Courts have dealt with it than we are at the present moment; and I think, under those circumstances, the House would do wisely and rightly to adopt the same course

  1567
  that it adopted on the occasion of his former election, and at once proceed, on hearing that he has been re-elected, to re-affirm the Resolutions passed on the 11th of February. I have not the slightest doubt that Mr. Bradlaugh's engagement would entirely protect the House from any inconvenience until the decision to which he refers could be given; but it does not appear that that has anything to do with the matter. Whether the decision were one way or the other, the House would still remain unprotected in a matter in which it would require protection. I think hon. Members must themselves be sufficiently conscious of the extreme inconvenience it would be for Members of the House that they should be in the position of never knowing from day to day whether the question was to be raised or not. Therefore, I will place in your hands the following Resolution—
  "That this House, having ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh has been re-elected for the Borough of Northampton, doth re-affirm the two Resolutions made on the 11th February, directing that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted I to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 81 and 32 Vic. 0. 72; and directing the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House, unless he shall engage not to disturb the proceedings of the House."
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House, having ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh has been re-elected for the Borough of Northampton, doth re-affirm the two Resolutions made on the 11th February, directing that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72; and directing the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House until he shall engage not to disturb the proceedings of the House."—[Sir Stafford Northcote.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: I quite agree, Sir, with one of the right hon. Gentleman's conclusions, that it is extremely desirable to relieve the House from uncertainty as to the particular moment that any further step may be contemplated by Mr. Bradlaugh. Certainly, it is not desirable that anything should take place in a grave matter of this kind except with full Notice to the House, and in order that this House might have the deliberate judgment of an abundant number of its Members. I am very glad, indeed, to agree to any course
  1568
  that is taken which obviates a repetition of the disagreeable and painful scenes which have been witnessed, from time to time, in this House; and I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has elected to proceed preventively, instead of waiting for the action of Mr. Bradlaugh. Beyond that I am not able to accompany the right hon. Gentleman. In my opinion there is a great change in the circumstances since we last heard of this matter. At that time I endeavoured to persuade the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) not to divide the House, but to be content with recording the repeated attempts of Mr. Bradlaugh to establish himself as a Member of the House—these repeated attempts being simply repetitions made against the known Order and will of the House, and repetitions which I thought it was quite competent for the majority to repress and prevent, I think, without any opposition on the part of the minority. But we have now, it appears to me, arrived at circumstances entirely new; and I think that it is very desirable indeed—not for the sake of Mr. Bradlaugh, and not even exclusively or mainly for the sake of the constituency of Northampton, but for the sake of the House itself—to consider accurately, and ascertain clearly, the position in which we stand. We have the choice of two courses before us. The right hon. Gentleman says he thinks the circumstances would have been materially varied had my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General determined upon taking steps to prosecute Mr. Bradlaugh before the recent election. I am quite at a loss to understand what practical bearing the postponement of the prosecution of Mr. Bradlaugh has upon the present question. To me it appears that the matter stands thus—the House has decided that Mr. Bradlaugh's operation at this Table was not the taking of the Oath; but the House, while claiming its own privileges and powers, will, I apprehend, be always ready, in the exercise of those privileges and powers, to have every possible light and assistance that it can derive from any quarter. My proposition is this—that the judgment of the Court of Law upon this subject, which it is the intention of my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General to obtain with all possible despatch—a

  1569
  judgment for which I do not assert any authority against the House—will be or may be—it is enough if I say—and I think the House generally will agree that I am moderate—if I say that it may be a material aid to the House in arriving at a right, and final, and conclusive judgment upon this question. The proposition I am laying down is this—that before we can approach the question of the exclusion of Mr. Bradlaugh—unless there is some practical objection—we ought to wait until we obtain that judgment. I go no further. I do not proceed now on the principle that you were wrong in excluding Mr. Bradlaugh—I do not question the propriety of the judgment of the House at this moment, whatever I may think of that judgment—but I say that that is a judgment which will be more satisfactorily and more authoritatively given, and carry greater weight with the country, if it is given under circumstances that show a disposition to obtain every possible light that can be thrown upon it. Is there anyone who will deny that a calm decision on this question in a Court of Law, entirely apart from every religious emotion and excitement, and every action and organization of political Party, with the most acute minds addressed to it, to raise all points of law that can be raised in relation to it—is it not likely to add very materially to our stock of information for coming to a true judgment in the matter? If that proposition cannot be contested—and I doubt whether it can be contested—what reason is there now for our proceeding to reiterate our judgment with less and inferior light, instead of waiting until we have greater and superior light? It would be no answer to say that on any day Mr. Bradlaugh might present himself at the Table and again disturb the proceedings of the House, which must be painful to him and painful to us all. Mr. Brad-laugh's engagement entirely relieves us from that. What is the difference between that which is tendered and that which the right hon. Gentleman demands? I address myself to the right hon. Gentleman himself, because I frankly own that I regard him as having the greatest responsibility in this matter, and as being mainly, if not exclusively, responsible for the present position. Let me for a moment explain. When I say that, I do not beg the question in
  1570
  favour of ourselves—I merely draw a distinction between the right hon. Gentleman and those who act with him and follow him. But let us look at the difference between that which is tendered to the right hon. Gentleman, or, if you like it, to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and that which they demand. They demand an engagement, without limit of time, that Mr. Bradlaugh shall not disturb the proceedings of the House, while Mr. Bradlaugh tenders an engagement not to disturb the House until a given event occurs. And what is that given event? It is the judgment of a Court of Law, which, as we say, will materially improve the position of this House in arriving at a final decision. So far from dissuading the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) from taking the judgment of the House on this Motion of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall feel it my duty to say "No" to that Motion. It is not necessary, and it is not my intention, to go over the ground so often trodden. In my opinion, the pith of the argument in favour of the course which the Government has pursued on this matter was never better or more concisely or fairly stated than by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster) the other night, when he said that no greater disservice could be rendered to religion, no greater blow could be inflicted on religion, than to be brought into conflict with those principles of civil right and justice which commend themselves to the minds of all men. I will not enter into that argument; but I will remind the House that it is engaged in a serious contest. There have been times when this House has been in conflict with the constituencies of the country, and those conflicts have always ended in the defeat and retreat of the House. It is perfectly certain that the retirement of the House from this contest must come at some time or other. ["No!"] The question is how and when? I do not say that the House is to retire now. I do not ask that of the right hon. Gentleman and of the majority. What I ask is simply and solely this—that having the engagement of Mr. Bradlaugh, which secures the peace and dignity of the House, you will consent to wait after the new election has taken place for the judgment of the Courts in this case, which,

  1571
  if it affirms your view, will immensely strengthen your position—["No!"]—and if it does not, will yet increase your means of investigating and deciding upon the question. It is for that postponement that I feel it my duty to ask, and on that ground to give a negative to the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The Prime Minister has stated that the contest in which the House is now engaged is a serious contest, and with that observation I think everyone will concur. It is not only a serious contest, but in some sense it may be regarded as an alarming contest. I do not think, however, that hon. Members on this side of the House will be inclined to recede because the contest is either serious or alarming. Whenever the right hon. Gentleman opposite is in power hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House always have to face alarming contests. They are accustomed to that kind of struggle. But the right hon. Gentleman stated in his speech that the House ought to wait—and I ask the attention of the House to this—before considering this matter further, until a decision has been come to in a Court of Law. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he did not take that view of the subject when the Writ for Northampton was moved? The Chancellor of the Exchequer made himself an accomplice to precipitation in this matter, either on his own responsibility, or, at any rate, on the responsibility of himself and his Colleagues, by allowing the Chiltern Hundreds to be conferred on Mr. Bradlaugh when it was in their power to withhold it, for the Chiltern Hundreds are absolutely in the discretion of the Government. Under the circumstances of the case, and with the information which they possessed that the Attorney General was going to take proceedings against Mr. Bradlaugh, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have acted more wisely if he had acted less precipitately, and had declined to bring about a fresh contest in Northampton. But the right hon. Gentleman would not wait a moment. The Writ must be issued. And why? Because the Government wished to intimidate the House of Commons. Mr. Bradlaugh was to be allowed once more to appeal to the mob, in order that not only the
  1572
  House of Commons, but the Court of Law should be biassed by the demonstration in his favour.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I rise to Order. I gather from the noble Lord that he referred to my constituents as a "mob." I would ask you, Sir, whether that was a proper and decorous word to use towards any constituency in this country?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to say that the observations of the noble Lord were out of Order.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I will merely say, in extenuation of the description I gave, that I did not apply the term "mob" exclusively to the electors of Northampton. [Cries of "Birmingham!" I did not apply the expression to the Northampton electors; but I meant by the expression to combine the whole army of Mr. Bradlaugh's supporters. In extenuation of the expression, which, no doubt, the hon. Gentleman very naturally objects to, I may say that I have been informed by a gentleman who was present during the whole of the Northampton contest that the election was seriously influenced by the extreme fear which pervaded a considerable portion of the constituency, that if Mr. Bradlaugh was not returned the town would be wrecked by the mob. I would not have mentioned that if the hon. Member had not interrupted me. I wish now to ask the Prime Minister a question on another point—a point of procedure. The Prime Minister stated that the Attorney General would take proceedings to test the legality of what the right hon. Gentleman guardedly called "the operation" Mr. Bradlaugh went through the other day; and added that the Attorney General would pursue those proceedings with all possible despatch in the Court of Law. Now, I believe it is the case—and I shall be corrected if I am wrong—that the Attorney General possesses certain privileges, and has special facilities, which enable him to obtain decisions from the Courts with greater rapidity than an ordinary suitor. I should be glad to know, therefore, the Attorney General's opinion as to when this case is likely to come before a Court of Law; and further—and this is a most important point—I want to know whether the Crown, or the Representatives of the Crown, are going to be satisfied with the decision of a Court of Law, or whether they intend to take this great

  1573
  legal and Constitutional question, if necessary, right up through all the Courts of Law to the highest Court in the Realm—the House of Lords? A great deal may turn upon this point. We have not, Sir, such exclusive confidence in Her Majesty's Government at the present moment, in this matter, that we can afford to leave the House in doubt on this point, especially as the whole proceedings are, I imagine, going to be in the nature of friendly proceedings. That is what those who wish to see the question honestly decided are most anxious to guard against. Therefore, when the Prime Minister states that with all possible despatch the Attorney General will obtain the opinion, not of the Courts of Law, but of a Court of Law, that is a matter which might certainly be settled very rapidly indeed; and the House might be brought face to face with the decision before, or certainly very soon after, Easter. If the Crown was satisfied with the decision of a Court of Law, look at the position in which the House would be placed if it did not adopt the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote). Take it that the decision is given in May. Well, Mr. Bradlaugh might come down to this House the very next day, perhaps on a Wednesday morning, fortified with a decision in his favour—and I am inclined to think that if it only went before a Court of Law it might be in his favour. Well, fortified with that decision, Mr. Bradlaugh comes down, without any notice having been given to hon. Members, or any preparation having been made for the presence of that competent and abundant number of Members which the Prime Minister spoke of; and he might go through the form of taking the Oath at the Table. The Government having got what they wanted, which was, no doubt, a decision in a Court of Law in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh—["No!"]—would afford every facility to Mr. Bradlaugh to take the Oath; and would, no doubt, at once bring before the House the question whether it could any longer deliberately refuse its consent. Such a course as that would not meet the justice of the case, which requires that the matter should be presented properly to the Courts of Law; and that, if the decision of those Courts should be in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh, due notice of any further
  1574
  steps should be given to the House before Mr. Bradlaugh attempted to come to the Table to go through the form of taking the Oath; and that thus the proceedings of the House should be insured against being disturbed by what can only be stigmatized as a vulgar brawl. That is exactly what this Motion is designed to insure; and it is also intended to give the House some sort of control over the proceedings of the Attorney General, so that if the House, or a majority of the House, are of opinion that the case has not been adequately placed before a Court of Law, or adequately decided, the House may take steps to direct that the matter should be taken before a higher tribunal. In these circumstances, I think the House would only be acting with due regard to its own dignity if it agreed to this Motion.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The noble Lord, I think, has thrown a great deal of light upon the position in which the House stands in relation to the constituencies of the country, because we now learn that the battle is being fought, not against a particular man, but against the constituency of Northampton. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] I use the word "constituency" advisedly, because I do not think it decent to describe the constituencies of this country as "mobs;" and, therefore, I shall not follow the example of the noble Lord in referring to them by that name.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; I never said that—I did not refer to the constituencies as "mobs." I applied that term to those who sought to intimidate this House into allowing Mr. Bradlaugh to profane the Oath.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The noble Lord is good enough to say that he dilutes the phrase by extending it not only to the constituency of Northampton, but to the constituencies of those who support the hon. Member for Northampton. ["No!"] I am glad to hear that the mass of hon. Members opposite repudiate the noble Lord's language and doctrine on that point. But the noble Lord has made another statement which is very important, and which also throws a great deal of light upon this question. I do not know whether the noble Lord is acting as spokesman of hon. Members opposite—that is a matter which is sometimes left in doubt—but, at all events, speaking for himself, he wishes us to

  1575
  take this course, because in his opinion—for my part, I offer no opinion as to what the decision of the Courts of Law will be; but we all know that the noble Lord is a high legal authority—the Court of Law will determine that Mr. Bradlaugh properly and legally took the Oath.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I said that it might do so.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Let the House consider the result of that opinion, because, if the Courts should so decide, then the position of the Party opposite, so far as they are represented by the noble Lord, will be this—that the House of Commons has deliberately excluded, and is excluding from his seat in this House, a man, who, they believe, has legally taken the Oath. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No.] We now, therefore, see upon what principles this battle is being fought. The battle is being fought against a "mob" of constituencies, who are represented by a man who has legally taken the Oath. I think that that sums up the position very well. In these circumstances we and the "mobs" we represent shall continue to come to you and protest, as we have all along protested, against a proceeding which the noble Lord admits he believes to be illegal.
  MR. NEWDEGATE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary seems to imagine that the majority of this House misrepresents the feelings and opinion of the country in this matter. I am convinced that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is totally mistaken; his view is supported by no evidence whatever. Last year Her Majesty's Ministers introduced the Affirmation Bill in order to legalize the attainment of Mr. Bradlaugh's object, admission to a seat in this House; the number of Petitions and Petitioners was five to one against the attainment of Mr. Bradlaugh's object. The right hon. and learned Gentleman can produce no evidence to contravene that test, which proves that the majority of this House, in its opposition to Mr. Bradlaugh's pretensions, are in thorough accordance with the opinions of the country. I must enter my protest against this attempt to force the majority of this House to act against their convictions. I rejoice, Sir, that the Attorney General has intimated his intention
  1576
  of proceeding to recover the penalties, which Mr. Bradlaugh has presumptuously incurred by three times voting, whilst unqualified to sit in this House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared, however, to have little confidence a few days since that the Attorney General would proceed as he has now announced; for the right hon. Gentleman granted the Chiltern Hundreds to Mr. Bradlaugh, apparently ignoring the fact that if the Attorney General proceeds to sue Mr. Bradlaugh under the Oaths Act of 1866, and recovers even one penalty; that if the judgment of the Court be thus adverse to Mr. Bradlaugh, that decision must not only entail the payment of the penalty, but the voidance of the seat, which Mr. Bradlaugh at present half occupies. The whole case of Mr. Bradlaugh has been tested, not only in one Court, but throughout the Courts, until it finally reached the House of Lords. It may be asked, why was not the penalty, when sued for, recovered by the plaintiff? The answer is simple enough; the Lord Chancellor, as the organ of the House of Lords, decided, not that the penalty then incurred by Mr. Bradlaugh for voting when disqualified was not due or was not annulled, but simply said that the penalty could not be recovered by the suitor; because, under his Lordship's novel interpretation of the Oaths Act of 1866, the ancient right of Action Popular had been annulled, and the then suitor was incapable, since no one but a Representative of the Crown had a right to proceed; the penalty, therefore, is not annulled, but simply suspended, until the Attorney General shall sue for its recovery. I cannot adequately express my regret that the present Prime Minister should have been the person to introduce the Oaths Bill of 18 66, which, as enacted and now finally interpreted by the Lord Chancellor as the organ of the House of Lords, effects the annulment of the ancient right of Action Popular—the right of any English subject to recover the penalty for the abusive usurpation of the functions of a Member of this House by an unqualified person. Anything more inconsistent with the antecedents of the right hon. Gentleman than his being a party to annulling this ancient popular right—the right of the people of this country to secure by law their rightful representation—I cannot

  1577
  conceive. I say that to have substituted for this popular right the direct intervention of the Officers of the Crown in matters relating to the election and qualification of Members of this House was an action totally inconsistent with the right hon. Gentleman's antecedents. The right hon. Gentleman seems to imagine that more light could be thrown upon this subject by its being again referred to the Courts of Law. I have had very expensive experience in this matter; it has cost me enough; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the whole bearings of the case have been submitted to the Courts of Law, and that no further light can be obtained by referring it back again to the Courts. I am confident—and I speak from experience—that if the Attorney General be in earnest in his suit, he cannot fail to recover the penalties which Mr. Brad-laugh has incurred. I well remember the debates in 1866 upon the Bill of which the present Oaths Statute is the product. I little dreamt then—the House of that day little dreamt—that the effect of that Bill would be to substitute the action of the Crown for the ancient right of Action Popular. The House should be aware that Mr. Brad-laugh's intrusions are not the effect merely of the ascendancy he has obtained over the majority of the constituency of Northampton. These operations of Mr. Bradlaugh are not stimulated and supported by the Freethinkers and Atheists of this country only—they are the results of a conspiracy not limited to this country. "With the permission of the House I will read part of an account of an International Congress of Freethinkers in 1881—
  "Mr. Bradlaugh, M.P., as Chairman of the Council of Freethinkers, and President of the National Secular Society, took the chair, pending the election of its officers by the Conference. The number of delegates present was between 70 and 80; and among them, besides those from various parts of the United Kingdom, were representatives from the United States, Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, and Hungary. Of the leading foreigners may be named, Professor Dr. Beuchner, Darmstadt; Dr. Schlaeger, Berlin; M. Von Canbergh, Brussels; Mrs. Foote, New York; M. Gerritson, Dr. Hartog Heys Van Zouteveen, and others, Holland; M. E. Cointepas, and others, France; M. Le Lubez, who resides in London, represented The Union Anti-Clericale of Paris, of which Senator Schælcher is President. The portions of the floor not assigned to delegates were filled with the most influential members of
  1578
  the National Secular Society, and in the galleries were a large number of spectators."
  I take this from a report in The Times; but a similar account of that Conference was given in a newspaper under the title of The National Reformer, of which Mr. Bradlaugh is the avowed owner. It appears that Mr. Bradlaugh declined to take the chair at this Conference, but that he nominated the Chairman. After what has occurred, I do not think that this House ought to remain even for an interval with no security against Mr. Bradlaugh's interruption of its Business but his bare promise not to intrude himself. I see nothing in Mr. Bradlaugh's re-election to justify the House in failing to re-adopt the securities which were contained in the Resolutions of the 11th of this month. The House had then sufficient light and sufficient information to justify its action. I see nothing in the subsequent circumstances that can justify the House in failing to re-inforce those securities. I shall, therefore, certainly vote for the Resolutions now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: I was not surprised at the cries of "Shame" which proceeded from this side of the House when the Resolution moved by the Leader of the Opposition was brought forward. Still less was I surprised at the Leader of the Opposition moving the Resolution which he now asks the House to pass, because I have found that when men enter upon a course of illegality the tendency is to go on from bad to worse, until they end by ignoring law and justice altogether. Nor was I surprised at the remarks which fell from the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). I was under the impression for the moment that the noble Lord called my constituents a "mob." I am not surprised at that, because, if I remember rightly, the noble Lord on a previous occasion spoke of my constituents as "scum."
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; I did not. I never applied the word the hon. Member has mentioned to his constituents.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Well, the remark has frequently been quoted, and I am glad to hear the disclaimer, and to find that the noble Lord entirely withdraws it. Now, what strikes me as being the leading characteristic of the

  1579
  noble Lord is that he is perpetually finding mares' nests, and coming down to the House of Commons to announce the fact. Look at what has happened to-day. An election took place at Northampton the day before yesterday. The noble Lord was not there; but as he was coming down to the House he happened to meet with some gentleman—some mysterious stranger. We do not know who that gentleman was, because his name was not mentioned by the noble Lord; but this mysterious stranger informed the noble Lord that the Conservatives on the day of the Northampton Election were in dread of their lives from some "mob" which was roaming about the streets, and was put in such deadly peril that they did not dare to vote. Now, allow me to tell the noble Lord, from my own knowledge, that the Conservative vote in Northampton was a perfectly full vote. All the Conservatives voted; and I do protest against the noble Lord calling the Conservatives among my constituents such abject cowards that they are absolutely afraid to vote. There was no attempt in Northampton to intimidate any man. I was down there myself, and I am able to say that the election was a perfectly fair and honest election on both sides—both in regard to the Conservatives and Liberals. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northamptonshire (Mr. P. Phipps) is in his place; but I think he will bear witness that, as is always the case in Northampton, there was no intimidation, or bribery, or unfairness either on the one side or the other. I think one of the Members who represent Northampton in this House ought to know the constituency better than the noble Lord, or this mysterious stranger who has confided in him. The noble Lord has not paid a high compliment to the Courts of Justice. He implies that the Chief Justice and the other Judges would, under any circumstances, decide against the views of hon. Members opposite, and would say that the oath Mr. Bradlaugh has administered to himself was a legal oath. In point of fact, the noble Lord knows it must be so. He knows that it is the law—he has not been able to answer Mr. Bradlaugh's claim; but, having been pointed out what the law is, he now applies for time. He humbly appeals to the Attorney
  1580
  General, in order, if necessary, that there should be an extended period in which he and his friends may go about bragging and swaggering of their knowledge of the law, concerning which they absolutely know nothing. The noble Lord and his friends seem to know everything, and they have not the courage to admit that they have made a mistake, and to apologize to Mr. Brad-laugh, the elected Member for the constituency of Northampton, and say they will now allow him to take his seat without further hindrance. I venture to point out to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon that his proposition is hardly a fair one, if I may be allowed to say so, because he prejudges the question. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, we have certainly some new grounds to go upon if a Court of Law should decide in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh. I do not say whether the decision of the Court would be right or wrong; but there can be no question that it would throw new and additional light upon the case as to whether the oath which Mr. Bradlaugh administered to himself was or was not valid. The House would then be able, with its own knowledge, to do justice to Mr. Bradlaugh, and to decide by its vote whether the judgment of the Court that Mr. Bradlaugh had taken the Oath should be acted upon or not. I cannot imagine that the House would still be determined to set up its own judgment against what is laid down by the Courts of Law as the law of England. That is why I should have wished the House to have been content to accept the assurance of Mr. Bradlaugh; and I can only say that, although it is possible that Mr. Bradlaugh may be defeated again in this House, he is ready to return again to Northampton and take the voice of his constituents. You may send Mr. Bradlaugh 50 times to Northampton, but he will be elected again and again; and, what is more, when the next General Election comes, Mr. Bradlaugh will be able to take his seat, because no House of Commons can prevent him doing so if he presents himself for that purpose among the first 40 Members to ask to be sworn at the Table.
  MR. WARTON: It is quite possible that the Courts of Law will decide in favour of Mr. Bradlaugh; but I wish

  1581
  to have an assurance that the Attorney General will submit to the Court not merely the dry question of whether Mr. Bradlaugh had or had not the right to administer the Oath to himself, but also all the surrounding circumstances connected with the administering of the Oath and the manner of it, and the question of whether the usages and customs of the House are not essential points to be decided.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASE: I have never been able to vote in favour of Mr. Brad-laugh being allowed to take the Oath at the Table. I may be wrong, but I came to that conclusion after carefully reading Mr. Bradlaugh's evidence before the Select Committee; but it seems to me to-night that we are in a position somewhat different from that in which we have been previously placed. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon asks us now to come to a Resolution that Mr. Bradlaugh shall not take the Oath at the Table. At the same time, we have from Mr. Bradlaugh a declaration that he is prepared to give his word to this House that he will not come to that Table until certain legal proceedings, which, I understand, are already instituted, shall have been decided. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that the House will do well to take the advice of the Prime Minister and pause before it passes that Resolution. For my own part, I should like to see the judgment of a Court of Law upon the matter. I am one of those who entered this House by making an Affirmation, and I believe it would be wise to give the same privilege to every man. I am certainly unwilling to come to a decision upon the question until the legal proceedings which have been taken are brought to an end; and I therefore beg to move, as an Amendment to the Resolution of the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Previous Question.
  Previous Question proposed, "That that Question be now put."—(Sir Joseph Pease.)
  MR. J. G. HUBBARD: The Prime Minister has accepted the wisdom and utility of the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) pending the proceedings which may be instituted and the verdict which may be obtained in a Court of Law. The only objec-
  1582
  tion I can see to that limitation is that the verdict of the Court, whatever it may be, would be perfectly unavailing as affecting the Motion, and for this reason—if it declares that black is black it leaves the House in its present state of mind; and if it says that black is white, we should disbelieve the decision, and pursue the course which we originally took upon entering into this contest. [A laugh.] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary laughs at my declaration; but I will give him a satisfactory and responsible authority for what I said. I am going to quote the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister himself. The House must recollect that the question at issue is whether a person who denies the existence of God can take the Oath and pronounce the name of God in the sense of one who believes in the existence of God? The right hon. Gentleman said, as distinctly as possible, during the discussion on this subject in 1880—"Taking the Oath with the declaration that the words were of no avail was not taking the Oath at all." That is the evidence of the Prime Minister. What is the evidence of the Attorney General? In the same discussion the Attorney General said he had taken great pains to ascertain what were the legal rights of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), and he concluded by saying that the conviction he had arrived at was that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) could not take the Oath. I think, therefore, I have proved, by the evidence of the Prime Minister and of the Attorney General, that the farce perpetrated in the House the other day was not the taking of the Oath. The House must recollect that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) is incapable of taking the Oath; and no form he can go through, either by stratagem or otherwise, can put him in a position to do so, seeing that the highest authorities have declared him incapable. No Court of Law can alter the plain facts of the case. Here is a man who is declared incapable of doing certain things, and we are going to ask a Court of Law whether a man can do a thing which he has been declared incapable of doing. The Prime Minister has repeated with emphasis words which I heard with extreme pain and surprise as falling from the right hon. Gentleman

  1583
  the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). The right hon. Gentleman, whose honesty and integrity are above suspicion, accused hon. Members on this side of the House of acting in a sense that is hostile to religion. I deliberately repel that charge, and affirm that our course has been guided by our religious instincts. [Murmurs.] I understand those murmurs to mean that what we call religion you deem superstition. ["Oh!"] If that is not so, why do hon. Members murmur at it? If they admit the religious feeling, why do they murmur at the assertion of it? I believe that hon. Members of this House, as Christian Gentlemen, and as Jewish Gentlemen, are all deeply interested in the assertion of religious instincts in the interests of the House itself. The Government, while admitting that Mr. Bradlaugh is incompetent to take the Oath in its true sense, contend that there is no precedent for the intervention of the House. That is true, for the offence is itself unprecedented; and the House, called to provide a remedy for a new offence, decides that it will not, by acquiescing in a procedure which it can prevent, become accomplices in the attempted blasphemy.
  Previous Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 226; Noes 173: Majority 53.

  AYES.

  Alexander, Major-Gen.

  Carden, Sir R. W.

  Allsopp, C.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Amherst, W. A. T.

  Chaine, J.

  Ashmead-Bartlett, E.

  Christie, W. L.

  Bailey, Sir J. E.

  Clarke, E.

  Barry, J.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Coddington, W.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Colthurst, Colonel

  Beach, right hon. Sir

  Compton, E.

  M. E. Hicks-

  Coope, O. E.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Corry, J. P.

  Beresford, G. De la P.

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Biggar, J. G.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Cubitt, right hon. G.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Curzon, Major hon. M.

  Boord, T. W.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Broadley, W. H. H.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. P.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Brooks, M.

  Dawson, C.

  Brooks, W. C.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Brace, Sir H. H.

  Digby, Colonel hon. E.

  Bruce, hon. T. C.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Brymer, W. E.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Burghley, Lord

  Eaton, H. W.

  Buxton, Sir B. J.

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Egerton, hon. A. de T.

  1584

  Egerton, hon. A. F.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Elton, C. I.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Mac Iver, D.

  Ennis, Sir J.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Ewart, W.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Ewing, A. O.

  M'Carthy, J.

  Feilden, Lieut.-General R. J.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J. M'Mahon, E.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Finch, G. H.

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

  Fitzwilliam, hn. C. W.

  Fletcher, Sir H.

  March, Earl of

  Floyer, J.

  Martin, P.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Marum, E. M.

  Forester, C. T. W.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Foster, W. H.

  Maxwell, Sir H. E.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Mayne, T.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Meldon, C. H.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Miles, C. W.

  Gardner, R. Richardson

  Mills, Sir C. H.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Milner, Sir F.

  Gibson, right hon. E.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Moore, A.

  Giles, A.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Moss, R.

  Gore-Langton, W. S.

  Mowbray, rt. hon. Sir J.R.

  Grantham, W.

  Gray, E. D.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Greer, T.

  Newport, Viscount

  Gregory, G. B.

  Nicholson, W.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Hamilton, right hon.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Lord G.

  Northcote, rt. hon. Sir S. H.

  Hamilton, Lord C. J.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Harrington, T.

  O'Brien, Sir P.

  Harvey, Sir R. B.

  O'Brien, W.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral

  O'Connor, A.

  Sir J. C. D.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Hicks, E.

  O'Donoghue, The

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Onslow, D. R.

  Hill, Lord A. W.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Hill, A. S.

  Paget, R. H.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Parker, C. S.

  Home, Lt.-Col. D. M.

  Parnell, C. S.

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

  Pell, A.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Houldsworth, W. H.

  Percy, rt. hon. Earl

  Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Jackson, W. L.

  Phipps, P.

  Kennard, Col. E. H.

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Kennard, C. J.

  Power, R.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Price, Captain G. E.

  Kenny, M. J.

  Puleston, J. H.

  Knight, F. W.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Knightley, Sir R.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Lawrance, J. C.

  Repton, G. W.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Leahy, J.

  Ritchie, C. T.

  Leamy, E.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Ross, A. H.

  Legh, W. J.

  Ross, C. C.

  Leigh, R.

  Round, J.

  Leighton, Sir B.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Leighton, S.

  Salt, T.

  Lever, J. O.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hn. G.

  Lovett, T. J.

  Scott, Lord H.

  Lewis, C. E.

  Scott, M. D.

  Lewisham, Viscount

  Selwin - Ibbetson, Sir H.J.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Lowther, hon. W.

  Severne, J. E.

  Lowther, J. W.

  Sexton, T.

  1585

  Sheil, E.

  Tomlinson, W. E. M.

  Small, J. F.

  Torrens, W. T. M.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Smith, A.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Smithwick, J. F.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Stanhope, hon. E.

  Warburton, P. E.

  Stanley, rt. hon. Col. F.

  Warton, C. N.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Watney, J.

  Strutt, hon. C. H.

  Whitley, E.

  Stuart, H. V.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  Sykes, C.

  Wortley, C. B. S.

  Synan, E. J.

  Wroughton, P.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Thomson, H.

  Thornhill, T.

  TELLERS.

  Tollemache, hon.W. F.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Tollemache, H. J.

  Winn, R.

  NOES.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Davey, H.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Davies, D.

  Agnew, W.

  Davies, W.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Dilke, rt. hn. Sir C. W.

  Anderson, G.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  Armitage, B.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Armitstead, G.

  Duff, E. W.

  Arnold, A.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Edwards, P.

  Balfour, Sir Gr.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Barclay, J. W.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Barran, J.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Bass, Sir A.

  Fay, C. J.

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Ferguson, R.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Firth, J. F. B.

  Biddulph, M.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Brand, H. R.

  Forster, rt. hn. W. E.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Fowler, W.

  Brett, R. B.

  Fry, L.

  Briggs, W. E.

  Fry, T.

  Bright, right hon. J.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W.E.

  Bright, J.

  Gladstone, H J.

  Broadhurst, H.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  Brogden, A.

  Grant, A.

  Brown, A. H.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Bryce, J.

  Grosvenor, right hon.

  Burt, T.

  Lord R.

  Buxton, S. C.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Caine, W. S.

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Campbell, Lord C.

  Harcourt, rt. hn. Sir W.

  Campbell, Sir G.

  G. V. V.

  Campbell, B. F. F.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Campbell - Bannerman, H.

  Hastings, G. W.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Carbutt, E. H.

  Henderson, F.

  Causton, R. K.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Hill, T. R.

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

  Holden, I.

  Clark, S.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Clarke, J. C.

  Holms, J.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Hopwood, C. H.

  Collings, J.

  Howard, E. S.

  Cotes, C. C.

  James, Sir H.

  Courtney, L. H.

  James, W. H.

  Cowen, J.

  Jenkins, Sir J. J.

  Craig, W. Y.

  Johnson, E.

  Creyke, R.

  Kensington, rt. hn. Lord

  Cropper, J.

  Labouchere, H.

  Cross, J. K.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  1586

  Leake, R.

  Roundell, C. S.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Leo, H.

  Russell, G. W. E.

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

  Rylands, P.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Sellar, A. C.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Shaw, T.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Shield, H.

  Macliver, P. S.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  M'Arthur, Sir W.

  Slagg, J.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Smith, Lieut-Col. G.

  Magniac, C.

  Smith, S.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Spencer, hon. C. R.

  Maskelyne, M. N. H.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Story-

  Stanton, W. J.

  Mellor, J. W.

  Summers, W.

  Monk, C. J.

  Tennant, C.

  Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  Morley, A.

  Thompson, T. C.

  Mundella, rt. hn. A. J.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Muntz, P. H.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G.O.

  Paget, T. T.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Palmer, G.

  Waddy, S. D.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Waterlow, Sir S.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Waugh, E.

  Ponder, J.

  Webster, J.

  Pennington, F.

  West, H. W.

  Potter, T. B.

  Whitbread, S.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Willis, W.

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Pulley, J.

  Wilson, Sir M.

  Ralli, P.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Rathbone, W.

  Woodall, W.

  Richard, H.

  Roberts, J.

  TELLERS.

  Roe, T.

  Fairbairn, Sir A.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Pease, Sir J.

  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Resolved, That this House, having ascertained that Mr. Bradlaugh has been re-elected for the Borough of Northampton, doth re-affirm the two Resolutions made on the 11th February, directing that Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to go through the form of taking the Oath prescribed by the Statutes, 29 Vic. c. 19, and 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72; and directing the Serjeant-at-Arms to exclude Mr. Bradlaugh from the precincts of the House until he shall engage not to disturb the proceedings of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: After the vote just given by the House, I must call upon Mr. Bradlaugh to withdraw.
  MR. BRADLAUGH,who had been seated under the Gallery, but was now standing at the Bar of the House, said: I obey your directions, Sir, respectfully protesting against a persecution which has degenerated into illegality—and then withdrew.

QUESTIONS.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—THE RIVER SCARIFF.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it is the intention

  1587
  of the Irish Board of Works to undertake any improvement of the Scariff River, which falls into Lough Derg, whereby floods may be rendered less dangerous to the navigation of that' tributary; whether the Board has considered the advisability of building a protection wall from the bridge at Killaloe to the pierhead, similar to the wall which'; was removed by the former Shannon Commissioners, or of adopting other means to insure the greater safety of the navigation of the Shannon at that point; and, whether the "cut" in the shoal at Bunnown, between Killaloe and O'Brien's Bridge, has been allowed to become choked with sand, the traffic-boats being thereby forced to use another course, condemned as dangerous more than sixty years ago?
  MR. COURTNEY,in reply, said, that the channel of the Scariff River had been marked so as to show the course during floods, which had been considered sufficient for navigation. The Bunnown channel had been cleared last in September, 1882, and would be cleared again as soon as the state of the river permitted.

  FISHERIES (IRELAND)—THE EEL FISHERIES ON THE SHANNON.
  MR. O'SHEAasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Irish Board of Works will advertise the reletting of the eel fisheries of the Shannon at an early date, in order that the inhabitants of the banks of the middle and upper sections of the river may be afforded a reasonable opportunity of competing; and, whether it is intended to revert to the former practice, under which the lessees were obliged to fish the weirs at Killaloe, County Clare?
  MR. COURTNEY,in reply, said, that the eel fisheries at two or three places on the Shannon would be advertised to be let in two or three months, and the one at Athlone as soon as the present lease had expired. No such practice referred to by the hon. Member was known to have existed.

  INLAND NAVIGATION AND DRAINAGE (IRELAND)—BRIDGE ACROSS THE SHANNON AT DRUMSHAMBO.
  MR. BIGGABasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the
  1588
  inquest held on the body of James Quinn, who was drowned at the latter end of October last, or early in November, by falling from the temporary bridge which crosses the Shannon near Drumshambo; whether he is aware that the Grand Juries of Leitrim and Roscommon have levied a considerable part of the expense of a new bridge; and, whether he will use his influence with the Grand Juries of the two counties to have the new bridge contracted for as soon as possible?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, that James Quinn was drowned at the place mentioned on the night of the 27th of October last. He was informed that it was a fact that considerable expenditure for the new bridge had been already levied. He was not aware of the causes of the delay in the commencement of the new bridge; but he had communicated with the Grand Jury, urging the desirability of proceeding with the work as quickly as possible.

  SCOTLAND—DISASTROUS FIRE AT DUNDEE—CASUALTY TO FIREMEN.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Lord Advocate, If, in view of the deplorable accident during the fire at the Clipington Steam Waste Works, Dundee, on the 11th February, which resulted in the death of four members of the Fire Brigade, the Government would order a public inquiry into the whole circumstances?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Full inquiry has been made in the usual way by the Procurator Fiscal into this lamentable accident. The cause of the fire was clearly ascertained. When the foreman was lighting a lamp preparatory to the opening of the works, between 5 and 6 in the morning, some waste or dust which had collected on the lamp, and the rod by which it was suspended, took fire, and the fire ran up the rod and communicated with the highly inflammable materials in the warehouse. The death of the four firemen was caused by the front wall of the building falling outwards unexpectedly, about an hour and a half after the commencement of the fire. A large number of witnesses have been examined, and the fall of the wall is attributed by some of them to defective masonry, while others are of opinion that the iron columns and beams had

  1589
  expanded, owing to the heat, and burst the wall. As the building was totally destroyed, it is impossible to determine with certainty to which cause the fall was due; and I do not think that any further light would be thrown upon the matter by following the exceptional course of holding a public inquiry.

  SOUTH AFRICA—NATAL—THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNORSHIP—MR. SENDALL.
  MR. SALTasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, when Mr. Sendall's appointment as Lieutenant Governor of Natal was cancelled by the Secretary of State, any promise was made to him of employment elsewhere in a similar capacity; whether any opportunity has occurred of making such an offer; and, whether there is any prospect of a suitable offer being made in place of that which was made, accepted, and withdrawn?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: Mr. Sendall was encouraged to hope that it would become possible to offer him employment as a Governor. The Secretary of State has not as yet been able to recommend him for such employment; but the matter has not been lost sight of, and Lord Derby will be glad if an opportunity of so employing him should occur.

  CORONERS (IRELAND).
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Dr. Parke, the coroner for the northern division of the county Down, is also medical officer to the Newtownards (county Down) union workhouse; whether on the 17th ult, an inquest was held on the body of an inmate of the Newtownards workhouse, and it became necessary for two Justices of the Peace to hold the inquest, as Dr. Parke, in his capacity of workhouse medical officer, had to appear as a witness in the case; and, whether Dr. Parke will continue to hold the offices of coroner and workhouse medical officer, with the result that he never can act as coroner whenever it may be needful to hold an inquest on the body of an inmate of the workhouse?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The facts are as stated in the Question. The Local Government Board have under consideration the question whether Dr. Parke
  1590
  can continue to hold the office of medical officer of the workhouse if he retains the position of coroner to which he has recently been elected.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—PROCLAIMED MEETING AT BLACKLION.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What were the grounds for proclaiming the Blacklion meeting; whether the magistrates, Messrs. Boulby and Mac Ternan, had any legal authority to force their way into the private room of a hotel in the town; and, whether he approves of their conduct; and, if not, whether he will take steps to punish them for their conduct?
  MR. TREVELYAN: This was a case in which a counter-demonstration on a large scale was organized, and both meetings were prohibited, because the Government was advised by experienced officers who knew the district well that the meetings, if held, could not fail to result in the gravest peril to the public peace. There was a certainty of the assemblage of very large and hostile bodies, and the physical character of the place chosen and of its surroundings was such as to make the preservation of the peace a matter of special difficulty. It was calculated that a force of at least 1,000 men would have been required, and that in a place difficult of access, and where no accommodation for them could be obtained. With regard to the indoor meeting subsequently interfered with, the magistrates who were charged with the duty of enforcing the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation considered that they were bound to prevent the making of speeches in circumstances which would have been a practical violation of the prohibition. They felt that a meeting hold in a licensed house open to the public, with reporters present, with the doors open, and with people on the landing and stairs listening to what was said, was, to all intents and purposes, as public a meeting as if held in an open space. This was a matter as to which some discretion must be left to magistrates; and in this particular case he saw no reason for disapproving of their exercise of the discretion intrusted to them.
  MR. HARRINGTON: Is the fact of a Member of Parliament replying to the

  1591
  toast of his health to be considered a public meeting?
  MR. TREVELYANreplied that, under all the circumstances of the case, the magistrates had exercised a wise discretion.

  JAMAICA—EMIGRATION OF LABOURERS.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Colonial Office will cause Papers to be laid upon the Table of the House showing the number of the black population who have left Jamaica for Panama, under contract with the Canal Company, and the nature of the contracts under which they are employed; and, whether any have returned to Jamaica; and, if so, what number?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The only information we have is contained in a short despatch just received from the Governor, in which he says that during the year ending on December 31st, 13,348 labourers left Jamaica for the Isthmus of Panama, and that only 4,992 returned to the Colony. Up to the end of January of this year, 1,346 had left the Island, and only 196 had returned. We have no information as to the nature of their contracts.

  LABOURERS' COTTAGES AND ALLOTMENTS (IRELAND) ACT—LABOURERS' COTTAGES, MACROOM.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has observed the following statement in this day's Times (18th February)—
  "All the landlords of the Macroom Union, with one exception, have refused or declined to reply to the request of the Board asking for sites for labourers' cottages;"
  whether he is aware that this is the attitude generally adopted throughout the country by the landlords; and, whether the Government propose any remedy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I am informed that it is true that the great majority of the owners of property in Macroom Union have either dissented in respect of the taking of their lands, or have not replied to the notices served on them under the 7th section of the Labourers' Act. Landlords have in many oases elsewhere assented to giving land; but there are also numerous instances in
  1592
  which they have not done so. This, however, will be no bar to the operation of the Act; as, if the schemes are approved by the Local Government Board, and Provisional Orders are made confirming such schemes, the lands required can be taken compulsorily.

  JAMAICA—THE WEST INDIAN ESTATES COURT.
  MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commissioners to the West Indies, who, in their Report on Jamaica, paragraph 408, strongly urged the abolition of the West Indian Incumbered Estates Court, and the transfer of its duties "to the Supreme Court of the Colony, where ordinary Commercial Law prevails;" and, whether the Report of June last, on the West Indian Estates Court mentioned in the same paragraph (408), will be presented to the House?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY: The general Report on Jamaica, as well as the special Report on the West Indian Estates Court, have been referred to the West Indian Incumbered Estates Commissioners for their observations; and until their statements have been received—which, I understand, will be shortly—the Government do not propose to come to any decision as to any action in the matter. The special Report referred to will be given to Parliament.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES)—LEGISLATION.
  MR. RICHARDasked the Vice President of the Council, When he expects to introduce the measure relating to Intermediate Education in Wales promised in Her Majesty's Speech?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I cannot, as yet, fix the exact day for the introduction of the Bill to which my hon. Friend refers; but I hope to be able to do so at a very early date. I will give Notice of its introduction as soon as some details, still pending, are settled.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACTS—THE MEDWAY BOARD OF GUARDIANS.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether, at the meeting

  1593
  of the Medway Board of Guardians held on Wednesday last, the result of the suspension of the Contagious Diseases Acts, in the Chatham District, was fully discussed; whether the medical officer (Dr. Buchanan) attended the meeting, and wished to know what he should do with male persons who entered the house with venereal disease, as he could not put them amongst the other patients in the hospital; whether Dr. Buchanan is correctly reported to have said to the Guardians—
  "The condition of affairs that existed were of such a shocking nature as to be unfit for publication. Never in the whole course of his medical practice had he experienced such a state of affairs as there was at the present time. Husbands and wives, and babes, born within the last two months, he was sorry to say, were suffering from the disease, and he had to turn many away from his door who were suffering. Little girls were also suffering. It was something shocking. Male persons were likewise under his treatment in the Union, and he did not know what to do with them. Certainly they would have to have venereal wards again. He knew of three streets where there were nothing but brothels. He had no personal feeling in the matter, but thought it his duty to state how the disease was spreading. When the Metropolitan Police were there prostitution was subdued, but now the women made no secret of their infamous trade. He had been connected with that Union since 1864, and he never knew so many male persons with the disease as at the present time; "
  whether the Medway Guardians have made any report relative to the above matters to the Local Government Board; and, whether he will institute a full inquiry into the circumstances, and lay the result of such inquiry upon the Table of the House?
  MR. GEORGE RUSSELL: The Local Government Board, when Notice was given of this Question, had not received any communication from the Medway Guardians on the subject referred to. The Board wrote to the Clerk to the Guardians for information, and it appears that the medical officer of the workhouse attended the meeting of the Guardians on the day alluded to in the Question, and reported that—
  "If the number of venereal cases, which was greatly increasing, became much larger, new wards would be required for such cases,"
  and also gave his views with regard to the Contagious Diseases Acts. The report which appeared in the local newspaper of the proceedings of this meeting is stated to be in many respects inaccurate.
  1594
  The Board, in reply to their request to be furnished with a statement of the number of inmates of the workhouse, who, according to the entries in the workhouse medical relief book, were suffering from this disease, are informed that there are three such cases. They are cases of male adults, the youngest of whom is 28 years of age. At the corresponding date in 1883 there was one case. It would not be within the province of the Board to institute an inquiry into the prevalence of prostitution and the communication of this disease at Chatham; but they will request one of their Inspectors to confer with the Guardians as to the provision which should be made for cases of this disease which are admitted into the workhouse, if it should appear that further provision is necessary.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Will the hon. Gentleman lay Dr. Buchanan's Report on the Table?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKErequested that Notice should be given of the Question.

  TURKEY—GREEK PATRIARCHATE AT CONSTANTINOPLE.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has instructed Lord Dufferin to press any advice upon the Porte with reference to the difficulty which has arisen in regard to the privileges of the Greek Patriarchate at Constantinople, affecting 8,000,000 of Greek population inhabiting Turkish territory?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Her Majesty's Ambassador at Constantinople has lost no opportunity of recommending the Porte to bring about an amicable settlement of this question, and he has been instructed to point out that the delay in settling it must be disadvantageous to Turkey from a political point of view.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—ARMY OFFICERS—THE QUEEN'S REGULATIONS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is aware that Lord Ernest William Hamilton, a Lieutenant in the 11th Hussars, directly abetted a body of armed Orangemen, at Derry, on the 1st November last, in

  1595
  taking possession of the Municipal Hall, which had been duly engaged for the delivery of a lecture by the Lord Mayor of Dublin on the subject of the franchise; whether Mountifort J. C. Long-field, a Lieutenant in the 2nd Life Guards, has signed, in his capacity as a magistrate of the county of Cork, a public manifesto approving of the course of conduct by which Lord Rossmore incurred removal from the Commission of the Peace, and condemning the Government for having superseded him; and, whether such conduct is incompatible with the Military duty of the officers named; and, if so, what steps will be taken in regard to it? I would also ask the noble Marquess whether Lieutenant Lord Ernest Hamilton is not the same person who harangued a body of Orangemen in Derry Town Hall immediately before shots were fired from the Town Hall, by which two persons were wounded?
  MR. LEWISasked, whether a Government inquiry had not been held into the proceedings at Derry; when this Report would be laid before the House; and, why it was not laid before the House before the present time?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understand from my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary that the proceedings at Derry on the occasion referred to have been the subject of an inquiry ordered by the Irish Government, and that the result of that inquiry has been, or will very shortly be, brought under the consideration of the Government with reference to the conduct of several persons who took a prominent part in the proceedings. I am unwilling, therefore, at this time, to express any opinion as to the part which was taken by Lord Ernest Hamilton or any other person on that occasion. With regard to the general question, I may add to what I said the other day, that I think the terms of the Queen's Regulations on the subject are liable to misinterpretation. The words of the Regulation are—
  "Soldiers are forbidden to institute or take part in any meetings, demonstrations, or processions, for Party or political purposes in barracks, quarters, camp, or elsewhere."
  The meaning of this Order seems to me to be that officers or soldiers on duty should not attend political meetings in which they have no local interest beyond being quartered in the vicinity. It could
  1596
  never have been intended that an officer or soldier should be altogether deprived of his civil rights, which would be the case if the word "elsewhere" was interpreted literally. It must, I think, be governed by the words which precede it, and be held to mean "elsewhere in the vicinity of the barracks, quarters," &c. It appears that the officer in question was, at the time referred to, on leave of absence from his regiment. The case of Lieutenant Longfield has not been brought to my notice; but it would seem that if his proceedings were reprehensible, it would rather be as a magistrate than in his military capacity.
  MR. SEXTON: I beg to give Notice that I will ask the noble Marquess, whether there is any intention to change the Regulations so as to prevent military officers from taking part in such proceedings at a distance from their barracks; and, if I do not get a satisfactory answer, I beg to give Notice that I will call attention to the subject on the Army Estimates.

  IRELAND-BOYCOTTING—CASE OF——HALLISSY.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a report in The Cork Constitution of February 15th of a speech delivered at the Castletownroche Petty Sessions by Capt. Plunkett, divisional magistrate, with respect to the removal of the extra police tax from the parish of Monaning; whether he has observed that, Capt. Plunkett having stated that the man Hallissy, for whose protection the extra police tax was imposed, "was fired at in August," Mr. M. Hickey, one of the presiding magistrates, stated "it was not true that Hallissy was fired at," adding—
  "It was investigated here fully before Mr. Lanyon, district inspector of police, and Mr. Butler, B.M. and I think everyone who heard it denied he was fired at at all; "
  whether Mr. Starkie, another of the presiding magistrates, stated that—
  "There was no more peaceful district in Ireland until unfortunate Hallissy got up this business; "
  whereupon Capt. Plunkett said—
  "There is no doubt about what Mr. Hickey stated; but it will be recollected this tax was originally imposed on account of the boycotting of Hallissy, and there can be no doubt about

  1597
  that, whatever doubt there may he about the matter Mr. Hickey referred to; "
  whether a public inquiry into the alleged firing upon Hallissy was repeatedly demanded and refused; whether Hallissy is the person to whom Capt. Plunkett, with the knowledge that Hallissy's story was discredited, proposed that the ratepayers should present £50 in consideration of the withdrawal of the police tax; whether, in view of the declarations made by Mr. Hickey and Capt. Plunkett, a prosecution for perjury will now be instituted against Hallissy; what are the special circumstances now, as compared with six months ago, which justify the withdrawal of extra police; and, whether, if then as now they could be withdrawn with safety, the ratepayers will be pressed for payment of the tax up to the 31st December last as a condition precedent to the withdrawal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have seen the report referred to. Mr. Hickey was not present at the place where it is alleged that Hallissy was fired at, and therefore he cannot be considered to have done more than express an opinion. The Resident Magistrate's remarks as to the peaceful state of the district referred to a time long before the Boycotting of Hallissy. It was Mr. Hickey, and not Mr. Starkie, who expressed concurrence with his remarks on that subject. A public inquiry into the alleged firing at Hallissy has not been repeatedly demanded and refused. But whether the man was fired at or not, there is no doubt that he was assaulted and cruelly Boycotted, and required on that account the police protection which was given him. Captain Plunkett did not propose that the ratepayers should present £50 to Hallissy in consideration of the withdrawal of the police tax. A proposal was made in the district that £50 should be collected to enable Hallissy to emigrate. I have on former occasions stated that the proposal did not come from Captain Plunkett. With regard to the withdrawal of the police tax, the Lord Lieutenant was recently in the neighbourhood, and was presented with a Memorial praying for the revocation of the Proclamation, and His Excellency assented to comply with this prayer as soon as the tax up to the end of last year shall have been paid; but stated that if Hallissy should afterwards appear to be in danger the question of re-imposing
  1598
  the tax would be considered. It will thus be seen that His Excellency has only conditionally consented to the withdrawal of the police in consequence of the representations of a strong body of local persons who disapproved the Boycotting, and who, it may be hoped, will do their best to prevent it; and it remains to be seen if circumstances will enable him to carry out and adhere to his wishes in that respect. His Excellency would not feel himself justified in not requiring the fulfilment of the condition precedent as to the payment of arrears.
  MR. HARRINGTONasked, whether Mr. Hickey was not present at the investigation into the firing at Hallissy; and whether he, the Resident Magistrate and Sub-Inspector, did not say there was not the least foundation for it; and, whether the Memorial to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was not signed by 13 persons, four of whom had since repudiated it; and, whether these persons included the four magistrates and two Earls who had signed a previous Memorial which the Lord Lieutenant had refused?
  MR. O'BRIEN: Am I to understand that Captain Plunkett will deny the public report of what he said? There is no doubt that Mr. Hickey stated that everybody believed, who was present at the investigation, that what Hallissy stated was a fabrication; and I would like to know whether, in view of the declaration made by Mr. Hickey and Captain Plunkett, a prosecution for perjury will be instituted against Hallissy?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Captain Plunkett was the first person to recommend a charge of perjury against Hallissy. There can be no doubt whatever that the poor man was knocked down and persecuted.
  MR. O'BRIEN: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman——
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out the inconvenience of the course now taken by the hon. Member. The hon. Member for Mallow put a Question, the hon. Member for Westmeath then put another Question, and the hon. Member for Mallow rose and put a rejoinder. These Questions cannot be answered without Notice.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I respectfully submit that I am quite in Order, arising out of this Question, to ask the Chief Secre-

  1599
  tary to answer the part of the query that he has omitted to answer.
  MR. SPEAKER: I did not rise to object to the hon. Member putting the Question; but I say Notice should be given of it.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Then I beg to give Notice that I will renew the subject.

  POST OFFICE (IRELAND)—APPOINTMENTS IN THE GENERAL POST OFFICE, DUBLIN.
  MR. O'BRIENasked the Postmaster General, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that, of the officers and clerks employed at the General Post Office in Dublin seventy-seven are Protestants, and only eighteen Catholics; and, what proportion of these officers obtained their positions by free and open competition, and how many by official nomination or patronage?
  MR. EAWCETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not the practice, nor do I think it would be at all desirable, to make any inquiry into the religious opinions of the officers of the Post Office. With regard to the second part of the hon. Member's Question, I find that out of 95 officers employed in the General Post Office, Dublin, 74 were admitted by nomination before the system of open competition was introduced. That system was introduced for men in February, 1878, and for women in October, 1881, and since those dates 21 officers have been thus admitted.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to mean that they were admitted to the lowest grade of the service by competition, and that they have been promoted to the higher grade by patronage without having been subjected to proper competition?
  MR. FAWCETT: Undoubtedly, there has been a certain number of promotions; but I can assure the hon. Member and the House that since I undertook the duties connected with the Post Office I have always been most scrupulous to know nothing whatever about the religious or political opinions of the officers engaged in the Department.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I do not attribute favouritism in that respect to the right bon. Gentleman; but I do attribute it to the Masonic ring that dominates the Dublin Post Office and I beg to give Notice that I will ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the last four promo-
  1600
  tions appointed in the Dublin Post Office to clerkships—Mr. Corry, Mr. Bernard, Mr. Sheridan, and Mr.——, who never passed an examination—whether these gentlemen are Protestants?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite obvious that is a new Question, of which Notice should be given.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I am giving Notice that I will ask this Question arising out of it.
  MR. EAWCETT: I shall be very glad to answer it if the hon. Member will put it on the Paper.
  MR. O'BRIEN: I think I am entitled to mention the terms of the Question I want to ask, whether those gentlemen have been put into office over the heads of men of long and faithful service who petitioned the Postmaster General for an examination? I wish to ask if the right hon. Gentleman has any objection?
  MR. SPEAKER: This proceeding is out of Order. The House is now engaged in Questions, and the hon. Member is now giving Notice.
  MR. O'BRIEN: Well, all I can say, Sir, is that I hope it is in Order to say nothing.

  ARMY—MILITIA RESERVE FOR THE ARMY HOSPITAL CORPS.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether any Militia Reserve for the Army Hospital Corps was being formed?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The subject referred to by the hon. Member is under consideration; and General Officers commanding districts have been directed to obtain information upon it from Commanding Officers of Militia. I am unable to give further information pending the result of these inquiries.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (SCOTLAND)—PROCURATORS-FISCAL.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If he would cause to be prepared and lay upon the Table a Return of all the Procurators Fiscal in Scotland, with their salaries, giving the number of those gentlemen who, in addition to their public duties, occupy the position of private land agents?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): All the particulars asked for by the hon. Member, except the salaries, will be found in a Return or-

  1601
  dered to be printed on July 18, 1882, and numbered 286. The salaries will be found on page 297 of Oliver and Boyd's Almanack for this year.

  CHINA—THE OPIUM TRADE.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the proposals having reference to opium, which were made by the Chinese Government, and to which Her Majesty's Government have signified their readiness under certain conditions to agree, as was stated in the reply to the question of the honourable Member for Merthyr Tydvil on August 10th of last year, have been accepted by both Governments; and, whether he can present to the House the Papers connected with these negotiations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: No further communication has been received since last August in regard to the opium proposals from the Chinese Government; and I am afraid that we can hardly expect that they will be able to give their attention to the question until the Tonquin affair is arranged. It is not proposed to lay Papers at present.

  KOREA—THE TREATY OF 1882—OPIUM.
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Treaty with Korea, which was negotiated by Admiral Willes in 1882, contained an article which forbad trade in opium in terms similar to Article VII. of the Treaty between the United States and Korea; and, whether that article has been expunged in the Treaty which has recently been negotiated by Sir Harry Parkes with the Korean Government?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The Treaty with Korea, recently concluded by Sir Harry Parkes, does not contain an article forbidding trade in opium; but the exclusion of opium from Korea has been equally well provided for by its insertion in the Tariff as a prohibited article.

  PRISONS (IRELAND) ACT, 1877—REMOVAL OF FEMALE PRISONERS FROM KILKENNY TO WATERFORD.
  MR. SMITHWICKasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that,
  1602
  under prison regulations, female convicts and female prisoners under remand of the county and city of Kilkenny are sent under escort from the city of Kilkenny to Waterford City, a distance of twenty-five miles per rail, at the expense of such county and city respectively, instead of being committed to some gaol or bridewell in such city or in the locality; and, whether, in view of such hardship towards prisoners, he is prepared to propose some remedial legislation upon the subject; or, at all events, to have the expenses of such removals charged upon the Estimates until a remedy be devised?
  MR. TREVELYAN,in reply, said, he was aware that under the general re-organization of prisons under the Prisons Act of 1877, Kilkenny had ceased to be a legal place of detention for female prisoners, and the majority of such prisoners formerly confined there were now sent to Waterford. He was not aware that any hardship resulted to prisoners from this arrangement. In some instances the result was to lessen considerably the distance travelled. With regard to the expense involved by the general change which this arrangement had caused, it must be remembered that the cost of maintenance, clothing, &c, was borne by the Treasury.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—MIDDLE SCHOOL FOR WILTSHIRE.
  MR. ACLANDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is the fact, as stated in a recent letter in The Pall Mall Gazette (5th Feb. 1884), signed by Mr. Jesse Collings, M.P., that the Charity Commission have propounded a scheme for the establishment of a middle class school in the county of Wilts, in which "the rights of the poor of West Lavington whose property is taken from them are not even mentioned;" and, if not, what is the real state of the case?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am informed by the Charity Commissioners that they have under consideration a scheme for the establishment of a middle school in the county of Wilts by aid of certain funds agreed to be provided by the Mercers' Company, who are the Trustees of Alderman Dauntsey's Charity at West Lavington. They assure me it is not the fact that the property with

  1603
  which it is proposed to endow the school will be taken from the poor of West Lavington, or belongs to them. The educational endowment founded by Alderman Dauntsey was for a grammar school not limited to parishioners of "West Lavington. The Commissioners have, however, made express reservations on their behalf, and believe that, under the scheme proposed, the poor of West Lavington will enjoy educational advantages superior to those which the endowment has provided for them in the past. When the scheme is submitted to the Education Department, it will be my duty to consider its provisions, together with any objections or suggestions from parties interested.

  POST OFFICE—RURAL LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has given any additional pay to rural letter carriers, in consequence of the introduction of the Parcel Post system; and, if not, whether he intends to do so, and when?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said: In answering the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Mr. Birkbeck), on the 7th instant, I stated that there had been no general revision of rural postmen's pay since the introduction of the Parcel Post; but that when it is found that there is any special reason for an increase of pay, it is given, the pay being adjusted according to the distance traversed, and the wages prevailing in the locality. If the hon. Member has any case to bring under my notice in which a fair claim for additional pay appears to exist, I shall be happy to make inquiry respecting it.

  EGYPT—SUZERAINTY OF THE SULTAN.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Sultan of Turkey, who is Sovereign of Egyptian Territory, was consulted by Her Majesty's Government as to the abandonment of the Soudan, which Her Majesty's Ministers are now forcing upon the Khedive, his vassal? The hon. Member also asked, whether the Sultan had given his assent to the Proclamation respecting the Slave Trade which had just been issued on the authority of
  1604
  Her Majesty's Government and the Khedive?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask my hon. Friend to give Notice of his second Question. With reference to the Question on the Paper, the Sultan was not consulted on the subject.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: What! I beg pardon. The noble Lord replied so quietly I did not grasp it. I wish to know whether the House is to understand the noble Lord to state that the Sovereign of that country was not consulted before the order for the abandonment was given?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: My answer was very distinct, and I am sorry it did not reach the hon. Gentleman. The Sultan was not previously consulted on the subject.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I understand the noble Lord to say he was not previously consulted. [Cries of "Notice!" from the Home Rulers.] I am perfectly in Order. Are we to understand that the Sultan has been consulted since?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I used the word "previously," and I used the word advisedly.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: Exactly; therefore I beg to ask whether the Porte has been consulted since?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to give Notice of that Question.

  TRAMWAYS AND PUBLIC COMPANIES (IRELAND) ACT.
  MR. MELDONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the Lord Lieutenant, in fixing the amount of paid-up capital upon which a Grand Jury guarantee will be given, will estimate the amount necessary for the construction of the line on the basis of the shares in the Company being placed at par, or if an increased capital will be allowed, in order to enable the shares to be placed at a discount by reason of the Grand Jury guarantee being given at a rate lower than would be accepted if the capital was placed at par; and, if not, whether an intimation to this effect will be given to the Grand Juries before they decide on the guarantee to be given?
  MR. COURTNEY: The Irish Government and Treasury have agreed that the paid-up capital on which the Imperial

  1605
  subsidiary guarantee is given under the Tramways Act should represent the actual cost of construction and equipment only. I think this decision gives the assurance which the hon. and learned Member desires.

  ARCTIC EXPLORATION—NAVIGATION OF HUDSON STRAIT.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether, having regard to the great importance attaching to the practicability of a route through the Hudson's Straits to the grain-growing districts of the North-West, Her Majesty's Government will assist in this research by placing one or more vessels of the Royal Navy at such stations and for such periods as may enable a report to be made upon the number of days during the year for which such route is available?
  MR. CAMPBELL - BANNERMAN: We are in possession of information derived from the experience of a century and a-half, as to the limited season of the year for navigating Hudson Strait. This experience has proved that the Strait is so hampered with fixed and floating ice as not to be free for secure navigation for more than an average of seven or eight weeks in the year, confined between July and September. The open time varies considerably from year to year; for although the Strait is occasionally open by the middle of July, it has been found closed until the middle of August, and is rarely free after September. It would be an arduous and, to some extent, a dangerous service for one or more of Her Majesty's ships to be placed in this inhospitable region for a season to watch the movements of the ice; and the observations of many years would be necessary in order to come to a safe conclusion. The Government are, therefore, not prepared to undertake the duties suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, although they fully appreciate the importance of the subject.

  FRANCE—RUMOURED COMMERCIAL TREATY.
  MR. MAC IVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there is any foundation for the rumour telegraphed yesterday by The Central News from Paris, that M. Waddington is in this Country for the pur
  1606
  pose of negotiating a Commercial Treaty; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will pledge itself that no engagement shall be entered into without the consent of this House of a character to bind this Country to the continued importation, free of duty, of manufactured articles of luxury which compete with those of our own home industries, that are already in a depressed condition?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: It is, of course, true that M. Wadding-ton is in this country, as he is the French Ambassador; but as no negotiations for a Commercial Treaty are now proceeding with France, it is not necessary that I should enter into further details.

  EGYPT (ARMY RE-ORGANIZATION)—BRITISH OFFICERS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether the British officers now being sent out to the Egyptian Army are to form new regiments, or to add to the number with those already formed; and, whether, contrary to the Indian practice, a large number of British non-commissioned officers are attached to Egyptian regiments, and more are being sent out?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The British officers now being sent out were asked for by Sir Evelyn Wood for the new Brigade which he is forming, and I presume, therefore, that they will be attached to it. British non-commissioned officers are attached temporarily to Egyptian regiments, and more are being sent on Sir Evelyn Wood's requisition. It is obvious that an entirely new force cannot at once produce its own non-commissioned officers, and must for a time depend on some external source of supply. The engagements made with these non-commissioned officers are purely temporary.

  EGYPT—PETITION OF EGYPTIAN SOLDIERS.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now give any further information regarding the circumstances attending a recent Petition of Egyptian soldiers to the Khedive?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: A Petition was presented to the Khedive by six men belonging to the Artillery,

  1607
  stating that they did not wish to go to the Soudan or elsewhere with the English, unless they had Mussulman officers. The incident has not had any further consequences.

  EGYPT—THE WAR IN THE SOUDAN-BAKER PASHA'S DEFEAT.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, On what date, if any, General Gordon was informed of the defeat of General Eater's Array?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: The day on which General Gordon received the news was the 11th instant.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT: Will the noble Lord lay on the Table, or at least refer the House to the despatch in which Her Majesty's Government informed General Gordon of General Baker's defeat?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: I cannot undertake to produce further Papers without consulting the Secretary of State. There are several telegrams bearing on the subject.

  EGYPT—THE SLAVE TRADE CONVENTION OF 1877.
  MR. GIBSON (for Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF)asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, on 4th August 1877, a Convention was concluded with the Egyptian Government containing, among other stipulations, the following:—
  "Article 2. Any person who, either in Egypt, or on the confines of Egypt and her Dependencies towards the centre of Africa, may he found engaged in the traffic in slaves (Negroes or Abyssinians), either directly or indirectly, shall, together with his accomplices, he considered by the Government of the Khedive as guilty of stealing with murder ('vol avec meurtre'); if subject to Egyptian jurisdiction he shall be handed over for trial to a court-martial," &c.;
  whether in the annexe to this Treaty, and forming part thereof, there is contained a Decree by the Khedive Ismail, in the following words:—
  "Article 1. The sale of slaves, Negroes or Abyssinians, from family to family shall be and is prohibited in Egypt, in an absolute manner, in all the territory comprised between Alexandria and Assouan. This prohibition will have effect in seven years from the signature of the said Convention, of which the present Ordinance will form an integral part. The same prohibition will he extended to the Soudan and other Egyptian Provinces, but only in twelve years from the date of the above signature; "
  whether such dates are respectively 1884
  1608
  and 1889; and, whether the recent Proclamation of General Gordon relieves the Egyptian Government from the obligations of the said Convention?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The citations which occupy the second and fourth paragraphs of this Question are, I believe, accurate, and the dates referred to in the next paragraph are, I believe, also correctly given. With regard to the legal bearing of the recent Proclamation of General Gordon, I could not undertake to enter into the question, or to discuss that subject, until the Government are in authentic possession of official information. I have no official or certain knowledge as to the text of the Proclamation.
  MR. GIBSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to say whether the translation of the Proclamation, as given in The Times, is accurate?
  MR. GLADSTONE: There is no doubt the translation approaches to accuracy, but it does not agree with other accounts; and even if we were certain of its accuracy, it would be obviously rash for me to give an opinion on its legal bearing until the text was in the possession of the Government.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman state when the Government are likely to be in possession of the text of the Proclamation; and, whether the House will be put in immediate possession of it?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEwas understood to say that he expected to have the text of the Proclamation by Wednesday.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I suppose the House will be put in possession of it as soon as it arrives?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes.
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: And of all the Proclamations?
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE: Yes.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE IRISH LANGUAGE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet had the conference with Sir Patrick Keenan (referred to in his recent interview with the council of the Gaelic Union) as to the teaching of the Irish language to Irish-speaking children in the National Schools of Ire-

  1609
  land; and, if so, whether he can indicate the result?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have received from the Commissioners of Education to-day, in answer to my letter, Papers which I certainly consider of sufficient interest to lay before the House of Commons, and if the hon. Member moves for the Correspondence he shall have it.
  MR. SEXTON: Has Sir Patrick Keenan written a statement on the subject?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Correspondence, I think, will completely satisfy the hon. Member.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.
  [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [SEVENTH NIGHT.]

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) ACT, 1882—SUPPRESSION OF PUBLIC MEETINGS.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Main 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. Partiell.)
  Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he proposed to deal with the conduct of the Government in connection with the Orange riots, and of certain Government officials. Considerable discontent had been expressed by Irish Members at the disgraceful Orange riots that had taken
  1610
  place, but he entirely disagreed with every one of his Friends in the matter. He found no cause of complaint at all. On the contrary, they were to him the cause for the greatest jubilation. Up to the present time there had existed in England a belief—although it was an absolute myth—that the Orange Party in Ireland was composed of the entire population of Ulster, and that the larger proportion of the Ulster men were anti-National in every sense of the word. For a very long period an attempt had been made to persuade the House and the people outside that the Orange faction in Ireland was a very small faction indeed; that its principles were of the most selfish character; and that their loyalty was, perhaps, more selfish than that of any other section of Loyalists in the whole of Europe. But that attempt was always met with the most absolute denials. Ulster Members above the Gangway had told the House, over and over again, that they really represented not only the sound and educated opinion of Ireland, but the entire loyal population of Ireland. He was, therefore, exceedingly glad that these riots had taken place in Ulster, for it had disillusioned the country. The House of Commons now realized for the first time what the Orange faction was. They realized that it was composed, in the first place, of a certain number of landlords holding strong political opinions. The motive power of that body was selfish in its very essence. When he read of the first Orange riot he feared that the Government should stop the Orange proceedings, and thus prevent the Orange myth being exploded. This debate was a proof of the weakness of Orangeism. He regretted that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken so early in the debate. He thought the right hon. Gentleman had been anxious to get through his explanations at the earliest possible moment, and he avoided everything connected with the subject of the Amendment. Since then Members of the Government had been content to sit upon the Treasury Bench and allow what had been described as a faction fight to be fought out between the Representatives of both Parties in the House. The Solicitor General for Ireland had yet to speak, and he desired to ask him whether the Government admitted the right of any person in Ireland

  1611
  to make use of language such as that which had been quoted as used by members of the Orange Party, and acknowledged to have been used by them. Unless some answer were given to the question the natural inference would be drawn that there was one law for the people of Ulster and another for the people of the rest of Ireland. He understood the difficulty which the Government had in the matter of the magistracy, and in all probability, if they acted as was desirable, they would have to deprive fifteen-sixteenths of them of the Commission of the Peace. There was yet another matter connected with this subject to which he desired to draw attention, and that was the conduct of Mr. Jenkinson, the permanent Under Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. Mr. Jenkinson at present held the position of adviser to the Lord Lieutenant, and was practically the administrator of Ireland. It would be within the memory of the House that when Mr. Jenkinson was appointed some question was raised as to the reasons given by the Chief Secretary for his appointment. At that time he remembered distinctly a letter was read by the Chief Secretary from Mr. Jenkinson from which the House was given to understand that he had taken the post as a matter of duty, and was practically sacrificing himself to duty. He (Mr. Molloy) always had doubts of Mr. Jenkinson, but, from what had taken place of late in Ireland, they all knew that Mr. Jenkinson practically ruled Ireland, and that was the reason he intended to deal with him. He had often felt the greatest sympathy for the Chief Secretary in the position he occupied. He very often had to defend incidents with which he had nothing whatever to do, and over which he had no control. Mr. Jenkinson was the gentleman through whose hands all the correspondence, all the complaints, and all the official matters passed, and it was notorious that the mind of that gentleman, of whom, at the time of his appointment, the Chief Secretary boasted so loudly, was a gentleman whose mind was not of the character which one would call judicial, was warped and prejudiced to the last degree. As a rule it was easy to make such a statement, and difficult to prove it; but he should hesitate to make so broad an accusation unless he felt justified in
  1612
  doing so. He stated distinctly that at the present time it was well known in all circles in Dublin that Mr. Jenkinson was nothing more nor less than an official intriguer for his own benefit. Even The Evening Mail, a Dublin journal, far from being of a National character, but entirely in favour of the dominant classes, condemned his appointment. He had been recently intriguing and bargaining with another official that he might get his place, but he supposed this was not an unusual thing in Dublin Castle, but rather was one of the traditions of the place. What he objected to was the fact that Mr. Jenkinson was getting into his own hands, not only the power and emoluments of the post he held, but was gradually absorbing the government of Ireland, and no greater evil could befall the Government than this. It was true that the Lord Lieutenant issued proclamations, &c, in his own name, but in reality Mr. Jenkinson was not only his adviser, but was largely responsible for what was going on in Ireland. He (Mr. Molloy) did not know Mr. Jenkinson, and had never seen him; he had nothing to say against his private character or honour; he was merely referring to his official capacity. As an instance of one of his intrigues, he might mention the Constabulary Bill last year introduced into that House. Mr. Jenkinson, as they were perhaps aware, retired from one branch of the service on a pension of £1,000 a-year; and, without going into the question of pensions, he might still say that he thought they were only intended to be granted to persons who had become so infirm as not to be able to further work in the public service. However, when the Constabulary Bill was mooted, Mr. Jenkinson, as Chairman, Captain Slacke, now a divisional magistrate, Mr. Theod, Royal Irish Constabulary, now also a divisional magistrate, and Mr. Ross, of Bladensburg, constituted themselves as a Committee to consider the Bill. It recommended the pay of Mr. Jenkinson to be £2,200 per annum, with £200 additional for horses and forage, and that of the divisional magistrates to be £1,000 per annum with allowances. This Report was submitted confidentially, and was seen only by the Lord Lieutenant and the divisional magistrates, to whom copies were sent. The Law Officers were not even consulted. It was

  1613
  believed that a secret Circular was sent to the county inspectors, asking them to get up a memorial in favour of the Bill, which they declined to do. It was simply absurd to say that Mr. Jenkinson was sacrificing himself—he was simply looking for a higher position than he now occupied, and was not the pure-minded patriot which he had been described to be.
  MR. TREVELYANsaid, he felt bound to say that he had no recollection of having made any statement of the kind with regard to Mr. Jenkinson, although he did make such a statement with regard to Mr. Hamilton.
  MR. MOLLOYaccepted the correction. He would only add, in conclusion, that he hoped the Solicitor General would answer him two questions—firstly, whether the same treatment which had been accorded to the Orangemen after their meetings in Ulster would have been shown to others in like circumstances in other parts of Ireland; and, secondly, if not, why should Orangemen be exempt from the punishments which were inflicted on others in case of disturbances arising at their meetings? He did not much care whether an answer was vouchsafed to him or not, for the minds of the people of this country were now opened to the fact that the loyalty of the Orange Party was only selfish class interest, and the desire to retain a supremacy which was passing out of their hands.
  MR. CORRYsaid, the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) described the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) as a speech of tight-rope dancing; and he thought he must be thinking of the Leader of his Party when he made such a reference to that class of performance. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) undoubtedly, in many instances in that House, showed very great talent and tact in his tactics; and anyone reading his Amendment would think that his chief invectives would have been against Her Majesty's Government, and especially against the Irish Executive; but instead of that it was a tirade of abuse against the Orangemen and Loyalists of Ulster. The hon. Member knew more about Orangemen than many who were more closely associated with that body. He (Mr. Corry) was not an Orangeman, but he was proud to say he
  1614
  had a very large number of them in his constituency, and the more he knew them the more he honoured and respected them. He could not agree with the hon. Member for the City of Cork that it was the rejection of the Irish Registration Bill by the House of Lords which had induced the National League to hold meetings in Ulster. The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) came nearer the mark, when he said that the resolution to hold those meetings had been come to on account of the Monaghan Election. He quite admitted that that election was one of the circumstances which led the people of Ulster to make up their minds that they would not allow it to be made a precedent for other elections in that Province. He was himself very much surprised at the result of the Monaghan Election, but much more surprised that the Government candidate was able to poll less than 300 votes. When the National League resolved to hold meetings in Ulster the people of that Province began to consider what was the best means of meeting them on their own ground. It was the inhabitants of the district—not the landlords—who made up their minds to oppose them, or at least to hold counter meetings, in order to show that the feeling of the Province was not that which the Nationalists would lead the public to believe if meetings were held by them alone. The result was to bring out the loyalty of Ulster in a very marked way. He was, unfortunately, from home at the time, or else he would have felt no hesitation in taking his share of the responsibility for those counter-meetings. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) went so far as to say that the time would come when Ulster would be all National like the other Provinces. He could tell the hon. Member for Longford that, especially in Belfast and that neighbourhood, they were never deluded by the Home Rule cry. They knew that it meant the Repeal of the Union, and they resolutely set themselves to oppose the dismemberment of the Empire, and would do so to the end. He was very strongly of the opinion that when a successor of the hon. Gentleman came to write the History of our Own Times, it would be found that the hon. Member was not a very good prophet. The hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) had asked the Govern-

  1615
  ment to withdraw their troops, and let the Nationalists and Orangemen fight it out. If the Government accepted that challenge, he would undertake to say, on the part of the people of Ulster, that the first meeting held by the Nation alists in that Province would be the last; but he did not think the Government would act upon the advice of the hon. Member. The Nationalists had a very small following in Ulster, though, no doubt, among the large population of the Province there were men who would be glad to get as much as they could of other people's property and as much power as possible into their own hands. [Mr. HARRINGTON: The landlords.] The recent proceedings in Ulster proved that the Nationalist Party had but a very slender footing in that Province. When their meetings were held in the South and South-West they were followed by crime and outrage, and the Ulster men were determined not to permit that sort of thing. It was due to the fact that the hon. Members for Westmeath, Mallow, and Monaghan used language in the House of the same character as they used out of it, that the English and Scotch Members were acquainted with the words and opinions that were poured into the ears of the Irish people. He (Mr. Corry) had observed that the visits of the Leader of the National Party to Ireland were few and far between; and that, except on some great occasion, as, for instance, the presentation of a large sum of money, he was very seldom induced to visit that part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Hon. Gentlemen who were Members of that Party had taken to themselves the name "Nationalists," and, so far as he was concerned, they were welcome to it; but, looking at the state of the country, he did not think they were entitled to any such designation. He should like to know what those hon. Members had done for Ireland, how much capital they had expended in the country, and what interest they had taken in the introduction of manufactures? Their action, it was evident, had created discontent, and that had been followed by outrage. He gave credit to Lord Spencer and the Chief Secretary for the manner in which they had performed their arduous tasks, but at the same time he held a strong opinion as to the action of the Government in the case of Lord Rossmore.
  1616
  Greater urgency was shown in that case than was exhibited in the case of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who was not removed from the Commission of the Peace until he was a prisoner in Kilmainham. The Government, therefore, had either become more vigilant, or some other cause must be assigned for their action. He might say that in Ulster the people held a very important position, and as one of the Members for the capital of that Province he could assure the House that they did not intend to lose that position if they could help it. The instances given yesterday by the hon. Member for Monaghan showed that justice was fairly administered in Ireland, both upon Nationalists and Orangemen; and he was perfectly sure that no charge of unfairness in the administration of the law could be brought against anyone in the North. If the Nationalist Party were to come to Belfast, and only conducted themselves in a quiet and lawful manner, he was quite sure they would not be molested or interfered with.
  COLONEL O'BEIRNEsaid, he trusted that the Land League Party would learn from this debate that intimidation was a game two people could play at. If they had their way, such a thing as differences of political opinion in Ireland would have been inadmissible, and a state of things would have followed which would have made the country simply intolerable. He hoped they would profit by the lesson they had recently received. The Chief Secretary had spoken of the improved condition of Ireland; but that condition was, in his opinion, entirely deceptive, and he believed that the right hon. Gentleman had given an exaggerated idea of the peace and contentment which existed in the country. The contentment was all on the surface, and the Irish people would never be satisfied with the settlement of the Land Question on the lines laid down by the Act of 1881. The subject of leaseholders, of whom there were 70,000, especially wanted dealing with. If the Chief Secretary could speak of the improvement of the country after the withdrawal of the Coercion Act, his statements would be relied upon; but at present there was no doubt that the condition of Ireland was due to the operation of that Act. An opinion had been expressed that the magistrates who ap-

  1617
  proved of Lord Rossmore's action should have been removed from the Commission of the Peace; but, considering that there were so few persons in Ireland having the necessary qualifications of a magistrate, some difficulty would be experienced in the administration of justice if they were relieved of their duties on the Bench. At the same time, he could not say that they did not deserve to be removed. Much less difficulty would have been experienced if the Government had dismissed the Lord Lieutenants who were connected with the meeting. He could not approve of the passive and inactive manner in which the Government had dealt with Irish affairs, and thought that their conduct in regard to Ireland during the Recess had been vacillating and inconsistent. That term could be applied with much more truth to their Irish policy than to their action in Egypt. Some meetings had been prohibited, some had been permitted; and for the difference there was no apparent reason. It was simply absurd for the Chief Secretary to say that a large military force would be required in each case. Fifty policemen would have done it. The Government ought either to have permitted all or suppressed all meetings; but, instead of that, they acted on no fixed principle whatever.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he should not like the debate to close without expressing the view which he took of the transactions under discussion. He did not intend to deal at all in detail with the controversy as to the supersession of Lord Rossmore in the Commission of the Peace; neither did he desire to speak at length of the action of the Government in suppressing some meetings and permitting others in Ulster. He merely recorded his own opinion that the conduct of the Government in dealing with Lord Rossmore was harsh and unjust in the extreme; and in regard to their action in suppressing some meetings and permitting others—thus running a terrible risk of very serious consequences—he could not see on what principle they could vindicate their consistency. He was satisfied, for the present, to adopt the condemnation which was passed upon the conduct of the Government in these respects by his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson) on the first night
  1618
  of the debate. Nor would he go into the details of any of those other transactions in Ulster which had been fully, and, he thought, satisfactorily vindicated by hon. Members from that Province. What he wished to explain were the action taken and the views held by numbers of loyal men outside Ulster. For his own part, he deeply regretted that any circumstances should have arisen in which the Loyalists in the South and West of Ireland should have been found in controversy with the Executive; he did not care to which political Party that Executive belonged. These men—Grand Jurors, petty jurors, men of official positions, and men not in official positions—had, during the last three or four years, been found supporting the Government through thick and thin, and often at the peril of their lives. It was an unfortunate circumstance that even for a time they should have been forced into the attitude of protesting against the action of the Government. He trusted such circumstances might not occur again, and that what was passed might soon be forgotten. But some advantages had arisen out of recent events in Ulster. It had been demonstrated that a large proportion of the population of that Province, embracing all classes of society, from the highest to the lowest, were absolutely resolved to resist every attempt to sever the Union of the Three Kingdoms. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) found it convenient yesterday to speak of what had happened in Ulster as a mere faction fight; it had, indeed, been the misfortune of all Ireland in recent years that she had been divided into two hostile camps by the action of the Government. Recent events had, however, on the other hand, drawn together in the South and West Provinces, as well as in Ulster, many men who were previously separated by differences in religion and politics, but who were now bound together in a common cause, for what they believed might very soon be a struggle for political existence. Was it not a strange circumstance that in those protests which had been signed by magistrates in different parts of Ireland they found old political antagonists, Whigs and Tories, joining together cordially for the purpose of protesting against the action of the Liberal Government against Orange Leaders?

  1619
  Was it not a strange thing that numbers of Roman Catholics in Roscommon should be found joining with the Protestants for that purpose? The hon. Member for Mayo tried to represent the Loyalists as well as the Nationalists as only small sections of the people; but he should like to ask him this question—how many Members did the hon. Member suppose would be returned at the next General Election by the South and West of Ireland in opposition to the extreme Nationalist view? Was it not a fact that, with the exception of the thorough-going Conservatives, and, perhaps, one or two Whigs in Ulster, the wave of Nationalist sentiment would sweep Ireland from end to end? The speech of the hon. Member for Mayo was listened to with rapt attention, for it was a skilful piece of rhetoric; it not only gave intellectual pleasure to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but it seemed also to give great solace and satisfaction to the Treasury Bench, as it indicated that at last one advanced Nationalist had been converted by the beneficent legislation of the last few years. He was sorry to dispel the illusion, but he must give it as his opinion that, although the piece was excellent, and the acting was admirable, and although in this arena a great success was achieved, in Ireland it would be played to an empty theatre. There was no audience anywhere in Ireland at the present which would feel sympathy with those views. For his own part, he deeply regretted that things had come to that pass, but it was madness for the Government to shut its eyes to the real state of the case and the dangers which that state betokened. He was not an Orangeman; so far as Orange institutions were inspired by religious exclusiveness he had no sympathy with them; and there were some pages in their annals he would gladly see torn out of the book of Irish history; but with all their faults, in the controversy of today, as between Orangemen and Nationalists, the former had his entire adherence. There had, he knew, been epochs when Orangemen had borne themselves in a way he could not approve; but he also knew that whenever rebellion was attempted or threatened in Ireland, they had been found willing and ready to support, not merely with words, but also with physical strength and courage, the established Government.
  1620
  Again, as he considered the history of the last few years, on the one hand he saw, among the followers and supporters of the Land League, agitation, conspiracy, bloodshed, plunder of the rich, and oppression of the poor; and on the other side in Ulster he saw tranquillity, order, the absence of crime, and the union of all classes in mutual respect and in observance of the law. But when he looked forward to the further development of the Separatist movement, and feared they had not by any means seen the last or worst of it, he felt that it was mainly on the solid loyalty of Ulster that they must rely for resistance to that movement. He was not speaking only of the Orangemen, whose numbers he did not know, but of all the loyal men in Ulster, who had proved, and would again prove, that they were neither to be coerced nor coaxed away from their loyalty. In the South and West there were hundreds of thousands of loyal men, of Catholics as well as Protestants, who were as devoted to the Union as the Orangemen of Ulster; but they were scattered thinly amongst overwhelming numbers of those who had joined the Separatist movement, and their influence and votes were lost. [Cheers, and cries of "Monaghan!"] Well, he knew that in Monaghan Parties were supposed to be more equally divided, but he did not see what that interruption had to do with his argument; but, as Monaghan had been mentioned, he would say that he believed a great deal of this excitement which had occurred in Ulster had grown out of the Monaghan Election. When the hon. Member (Mr. Healy) came to Monaghan, he sunk, to a certain extent, the Separatist character of his programme. He went entirely upon his offers and proposals about land, which were happily described yesterday by the hon. Member for Mayo as "modern Socialism." The Government candidate received very few votes; but the Loyalists of Monaghan were not at all deceived or carried away by the Nationalist candidate's representations. It was true, the hon. Member received a small majority of votes, but the body of the old Conservative phalanx of Loyalists stood firm, and rejected the bribe offered them. Immediately the hon. Member for the City of Cork changed his hand altogether, and proclaimed that he had won the North

  1621
  of Ireland for the Nationalist Party, and then commenced the campaign in Ulster, of which they had read and heard so much. What was the feeling which instigated those Orangemen to take the course which they adopted? Great efforts had been made to prove that the instigation was wholly on the part of persons in high position, who had none but selfish motives for their action. He was glad that there had been an opportunity in that debate for Members from Ulster to prove convincingly that the movement had been entirely a spontaneous one. The question in their minds was one of self-preservation. Devotion to the connection with England, and their opposition to every proposal of separation between the two countries, was with them a political instinct. For they knew that their civil and religious liberty was at stake, and that if the Nationalist Party attained their ends, a Celtic claimant would rise up for every rood of Ulster ground, and that farmers in whose families holdings had been for centuries would be imperilled in their homes. He would remind the House that that protest against the programme of the Nationalist Party was by no means the first which had been made by Ulster men. These were the same men who had gone to the Southern and Western Provinces to assist loyal men to stand their ground against the oppression of the Land League. He had himself seen them on Captain Boycott's farm, when the Land League was at its height. He could quite understand what tidings those men took to their homes when they returned; tidings of outrage, cruelty, torture of men and women, murder undetected, not only of landlords and men in high positions, but humble men like themselves—farmers shot at through their windows, their families scattered about the hearth; herds and labourers dragged out of bed and shot on their own thresholds. Doubtless, as they told these stories, they swore that, so long as they had voice to utter or strength to resist, that vile conspiracy should never get foothold in Ulster—the one spot on Irish ground on which the blood-stain had not fallen, where outrage had not entered, nor treason triumphed. And if they swore this deeply and fiercely, he could not find it in his heart to blame them for it. However, he would not say more on that sub-
  1622
  ject. He would next refer to the view taken by the Government of the present state of Ireland, and the particular measure of legislation which they proposed for the present Session. The Government seemed to be perfectly content with the present state of things, and to look forward with confidence to the future. The important measure which they proposed was one for the extension of the franchise, which would have the effect of practically throwing the whole electoral power into the hands of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, if he should still lead his Party. The Franchise Bill, until it was followed by a Redistribution Bill, would efface and silence the loyal Party, who formed more than a third of the population of Ireland. As to the present state of Ireland, he did not wish to underrate the improvement which had taken place, nor did he desire to minimize the good effects which had been brought about by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary, to whom great credit was due for their firm, and patient, and vigorous administration of the law. The Land Act had been passed, and, much as he opposed it, it was his duty, as a good citizen, to make the best of it. He rejoiced that there had been an improvement in the observance of covenants, and the payment of rent and other just debts. But, on the other hand, the condition to which, in many instances, the landlords had been reduced was one of great misery. He was not referring to the reduction of their rents—that was a controversy of the past; but to one thing which had been specially promised when the Land Act was passed. The Prime Minister admitted last year that they had been called upon to make great sacrifices, and that further sacrifices which would be inconsistent with justice ought not to be demanded of them. They were promised in 1881 that, at all events, there should be no reduction in the capital value of their property; and provisions were inserted in the Land Act to secure a market for those who might wish to sell their estates. But those provisions had proved a dead letter, and at the present time the interest of the landowners was absolutely unsaleable. This result was not owing to the effects of agricultural depression, because the tenant's interest was never so valuable as now. He had been informed, on good authority, that in the

  1623
  present year the landlord's interest would, in many cases, be absolutely sacrificed by forced sales to land jobbers. Encumbrancers had not pressed their claims; but in the face of falling markets they could not be expected to show much more forbearance, and unless something was done within the present year, numbers of estates would be disposed of in the Landed Estates Court for a mere nominal price. He was glad to think that there was in progress a movement among men of different political Parties with a view of having some steps taken which would enable that part of the Land Act to be worked fairly; and he trusted that the Government would honestly consider the case, which was one of the most cruel and undeserved hardship which had fallen on the landlords of Ireland without any fault whatever of their own, and in the teeth of promises and assurances which were made to them by Ministers of the Crown when the Land Act of 1881 was passing through Parliament. He was extremely glad that as to the decrease of agrarian outrages the country continued to show signs of improvement, and so long as the law was firmly administered he had no doubt that the improvement would continue. At the same time, no one who knew the country well could deny that to a great extent, if not altogether, the tranquillity at the present time was due to the enforcement of a strong Coercion Act; and that, if the pressure of that Act were removed, things might soon begin to wear a different aspect. He would read a few passages to the House, which would enable them to form an opinion on the subject. The Rev. Mr. Ryan, in a speech delivered on September 2, 1883, said—
  "Verily the calm which succeeds the storm was fast disappearing, and, despite the operations of the Crimes Act, a new life, and a new spirit, and new hopes were gradually taking possession of the people…… The retrogression which was said to have set in after the agitation was, as Mr. Healy happily stigmatized it, 'hacking for a bound'—that is to say, it was only setting back in order to take a running jump towards the goal of Irish independence."
  The following was an extract from another speech, delivered by Mr. Davitt on the 4th of February of the present year:—
  "The struggle against Irish landlordism.—The struggle which commenced four years ago for the overthrow of Irish landlordism, root and
  1624
  branch, is still carried on. Although, owing to the coercive laws which have been passed, it is not proceeded with as determinedly and vigorously as two years since, you must not conclude that the struggle has ceased, or that we have grown weak in our purpose to carry on that movement until the iniquitous system of land tyranny is completely destroyed."
  It was evident that Mr. Davitt regarded the comparative tranquillity of the present moment, not so much as the result of the satisfaction at the Land Act, but as the consequence of the Crimes Act. However, there was another element in the present state of Ireland which seemed to him to be even more formidable, especially having regard to the legislation with reference to the franchise with which they were threatened in the present Session. He was afraid it was true—and he said it with the deepest sense of the seriousness of what he uttered—that never in the memory of living men—perhaps never in this century—liad there been such widespread and such distinct expectations of the realization of those dreams and hopes of National independence which it had been the object of all our great statesmen of both Parties for the last 50 years to turn the people away from. He knew it was very acceptable to Members of that House, wearied with the troubles of Ireland, to think that when tranquillity existed on the surface all was well, and to believe that this Nationalist agitation was not really of a serious or a dangerous character. If, however, we might believe those Nationalist Leaders who spoke or wrote for the great masses of the Irish people, nothing could be more clear and distinct than that they had attained to enormous influence and power in Ireland. But he did not depend solely on the expressed opinions of the Nationalists. Lord Carlingford, who probably of all the present Ministers had the most close personal acquaintance with Ireland, said in Liverpool last month—
  "The truth is that in Ireland nobody cares much about Home Rule. As I understand Home Rule, it means the ingenious system of Federalism, the creation of superintended legislation, with carefully-defined and limited functions. It is not what the dangerous or active Party in Ireland care for. No system of the kind is ever alluded to in Nationalist circles and speeches; it is always Ireland as a nation, the harp without a crown. What is wanted is either literal or virtual separation, and that is exactly what we in Great Britain have a moral right to refuse."

  1625
  Yes; and if they Lad a moral right to refuse it, was it wise for them to do everything in their power to exaggerate this movement to the utmost extent, and to give it a double or a treble power? Was it wise at such a time to throw into the hands of the Leaders of this Separatist movement an overwhelming and swamping influence in the constituencies of Ireland? He did not know whether hon. Members had been led to forget this by the daring and adroit tactics of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the way in which he had introduced the Amendment to the Address now before the House. The hon. Member had contrived for the moment, and in view of the approaching Franchise Bill, to shift his attack entirely from the Government to his loyal fellow-countrymen in Ireland. Not long ago there was a banquet given in Dublin on the occasion of the presentation to the hon. Member of a considerable sum of money. On that occasion there was a large assemblage at the Rotunda, but there was a total absence of the well-to-do classes of society. ["Oh, oh!"] He had gone through the list of those who were present, and he asserted that positively as a matter of fact. But there was an enthusiastic gathering of the representatives of Irish democracy. On that occasion the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy) said—
  "We carry on a combat in an alien Parliament. We can give back the English Government blow for blow, hate for hate; and so, I trust, we will pursue our course—patient, relentless, untiring."
  The same hon. Member also said—
  "We shall establish in this land once more a Parliament, which shall be no successor of the Parliament of the Pale—no pale echo, miserable and subservient to the Foreign Assembly, but which shall be the free and independent expression of a democratic people determined to work out to the end the destiny of this grand old nation."
  And what did the hon. Member for the City of Cork himself say?—
  "Beyond a shadow of doubt it will be for the Irish people to determine at the next General Election whether the Tory or Liberal Ministers shall rule in England. If we may not rule ourselves, we can, at least, cause them to be ruled as we choose; "
  and he concluded—
  "This generation shall not pass away until it has bequeathed to those who come after it the great birthright of National independence and prosperity."
  1626
  In the face of these distinct declarations and frank avowals on the part of the men who, at the present moment, had sole audience of the great masses of the people of Ireland, he asked the House most solemnly whether to throw additional power into the hands of the Leaders of that movement would not be an act of the most amazing and the most culpable folly that had been ever committed by the Government of this or of any other country? It was not his intention that evening to enter upon the subject of the coming Reform Bill. As he had already said, he accepted with gratitude and satisfaction the improvement which had taken place to some extent in the condition of Ireland; but he had also pointed out circumstances of a very grave character, and of very formidable omen. He was perfectly certain that if the issue were put plainly even now to the people of England whether they would encourage or tolerate the further growth of this Separatist movement, leading on, as it must lead if successful, not only to civil war and ruin in Ireland, but likewise to the breaking-up of the strength, the greatness, and the power of this Empire, there was still sufficient public spirit, sufficient political instinct, and there was undoubtedly ample strength and courage in the English people to resist and to defeatthose objects. But he was afraid that, in obedience to Party tactics in that House and the exigencies of the Government, the Representatives of this Party in Ireland, whose proceedings and whose purposes he had been describing, might be admitted within those walls in overwhelming numbers, and that, through this hasty act of legislation, the Government might facilitate and give a speedy success to a movement which they all declared they were willing, if the issue were raised openly, to resist in the last resort, if necessary, by force of arms. He appealed very seriously to the House, and, as far as he could, to the people of this country, to consider that, although the present state of Ireland was comparatively tranquil, those grave dangerswere underlying that tranquillity on the surface, and that they might very easily be developed into the most formidable proportions.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was sure the House must have listened with great interest, and, perhaps, with equal amaze-

  1627
  ment, to the protestations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) upon the deleterious effects of an Irish National Party in the House of Commons. Not many years had passed since the great regret of the Party represented by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was that the Irish National Party was not strong enough in combination with the loyal Gentlemen who sat above the Gangway to change the Government of the United Kingdom. [Mr. PLUNKET: No.] Considering this, he certainly thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman's protestations savoured somewhat of strangeness. He believed that if the right hon. Gentleman's terrifying prophecy proved true, and if, at the next General Election, there was an overwhelming representation of Irish National feeling in the House, the most direct result of that apparition would be to quicken the desire of Her Majesty's most Conservative Opposition to enter into terms of profitable negotiation with the Irish National Party. A great deal had been said about the virtuous indignation of the Conservative Party in Ulster, and also the Orange Party in Ulster, at the appearance of Nationalists at a meeting held there. Had they forgotton the Tyrone Election not many years ago, when the Irish Nationalists deliberately started a candidate with the charitable purpose of preventing the success of a supporter of the Liberal Party? Later still, had they forgotten the County of Derry Election, when the Nationalist voters and the Orange voters marched to the poll together in order to oppose Porter and fair rents? On that occasion it fell to his lot to share with redoubtable Orangemen the duty of bringing up the allied voters, and the common regret of Orangemen and Nationalists was that their union did not succeed in defeating the Representative of the policy of Her Majesty's Government. If the like emergency were to arise, he was certain that all the declamation which had been heard from above the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House would be just as completely forgotten in the future as similar declamation had been forgotten in the past. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed the House pointed out the evils which would befall the propertied classes in Ulster if the Irish
  1628
  Nationalists succeeded. But what could those who wished this evil to come about do better than to maintain in the House of Commons a Party actuated by a desire to avenge a terrible wrong, and ready by any means in their power to punish the propertied classes who refused justice to Ireland? He (Mr. O'Donnell) now repeated what he had said in the days of Isaac Butt—that the safest, wisest, and most Conservative policy—using the phrase in no Party sense—as far as Ireland was concerned, would be to allow the Irish people to look after the prosperity of their own land, and not to insist on their sending into the Imperial Parliament a hostile army who, if they could not do any good to Ireland, could, at any rate, in some dark day do an infinity of harm to England. He looked upon Orange excesses as the results of delusion and deliberate deception. The ignorant Orangemen were taught by those whom they were accustomed to respect, and who, he thought, were also their paymasters on a recent occasion, that it was their duty to oppose in a riotous and tumultuous manner their Catholic fellow-countrymen, not only from other parts of Ireland, but from Ulster itself. The persons who were to blame for that were, in the first place, the deceivers of the ignorant Orangemen, and, secondly, Her Majesty's Government. His own belief was that if a single clear intimation had been given to certain noble Lords and estated gentlemen that they were within an equally measurable distance of picking oakum as were the poor cottiers in the South and West of the country, there would not have been the semblance of an Orange riot from one side of Ulster to another. As an Irish Nationalist, he was very anxious occasionally to play the game of equilibrium, and he regretted the success which had attended the tactics of Her Majesty's Government in so thoroughly hoodwinking the Orange Leaders and the Conservative Party, and in leading them to the most disastrous fall which they had experienced in Ireland for many a day. But while he congratulated the Government upon the cleverness of that move he must condemn them for its unscrupulousness. There were, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket) had said, many passages in Irish history which the Orange Party would be glad

  1629
  to have erased from the annals of the country. Taking the worst picture of the excesses of the Land League ever drawn in that House, even by the horrified imagination of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when smarting under the sting of compulsory resignation, they would not have even an approach to the murderous horrors of Orange activity during many years in the North of Ireland, when it was directed against the weak and comparatively defenceless Catholics in that part of the country. Why, the ancient name of that Society, "Peep o' day Boys," was a remarkable and significant designation. At the peep of day, while the dawn was breaking, or ere it had broken, while the Catholic family were still slumbering under the humble roof-tree, the terrorists and outrage-committers came stealthily to the door, sometimes putting a torch to the roof-tree or bursting in the door, and proceeded to hamstring the father and to beat and bruise and torture the other members of the family, and in the excesses of their mercy giving them so many days to clear out "to hell or to Connaught." All these facts were contained in a document which hon. Members might consult. [An hon. MEMBER: Where?] In the Report of the Royal Commission of 1835 or 1836. Those were the dark pages which he could agree in thinking it would be well to pluck out of Irish annals; but, while arraigning the misconduct of the Orangemen in the past, he did not forget to glory in one event, and that was the occasion when loyal Orange Lodges united as one man in the last years of the last century, and in the first years of the present, against the cursed Act of Union, which every true Irishman must only curse. The vast majority of the Orange Lodges at this time were ready to maintain the liberties which Grattan had won. There was still some hope of the Orangemen of Ireland. The object of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for the City of Cork was to expose, above all, the shameless inconsistency of Her Majesty's Government, and in that sense he, for one, would support it. If only the Irish Nationalist Party continued to enlarge according to circumstances, the area of its operation and the circle of its allies;
  1630
  if, looking on the Irish nation as a whole, welcoming the alliance of every class which loved Ireland, above all things steering clear of every unworthy prejudice, carrying out to the letter and in practice those noble declarations of toleration which were conspicuous in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork; if the Irish National Party would proceed on strictly National lines until it gathered every Irishman into the National fold, then he should make the confident prediction that the present generation would not pass away without bequeathing to its successors the realized heritage which they derived from so many generations of freemen—free, even though struggling—and resolved, in spite of so many unsuccessful struggles, never to rest until a National Irish Parliament, without the control or the yoke of any English Minister, governed Ireland in the Irish capital.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, that after the eloquent and statesmanlike speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) he did not think he ought to trouble the House at any great length. A great Liberal statesman, Castelar, the Spaniard, had said—
  "I toll you order is like air, while liberty is like food—that it is possible to live hours, even days, without food; but without air it is impossible to live even for five minutes."
  Those weighty words should be his text in then addressing them. Orangeism had been on its trial, so to speak. Orangeism was instituted at a time when the Scotch, Dutch, and Huguenots, principally composing William's Army, were the sharers in the confiscations then made. And many of them—most of them holding Puritanical religious opinions, hated the old holders of the soil, almost all of whom were Catholics, with an intensity and intolerance ever found in a wrong-doer or a fanatic. It was, indeed, a sad day for the mass of the Irish people, though he was not prepared to deny that those who had struggled hard for their strong opinions were not entitled to maintain them, and that they might not feel justified in raising the institution of Orangeism as a bulwark against James Stuart, who, in his early days, he (Sir Patrick O'Brien) had heard Irish Catholics call by an expression of a stinging but not polite character. He was not there to fight the

  1631
  ancient battles of the Stuarts, for he pitied those men who in times past were induced to fight for such a cause. In making that allusion to remote history, he wanted to say that he had hoped that in that House, as elsewhere, Irishmen, instead of opening up stories of direful and fearful wrong, would have directed their efforts to other labours. He believed that for the last 100 years fair men of all Parties in Ireland had done their best to put down the demon of religious bigotry; but what had occurred now? Noblemen and gentlemen of high education had so far forgotten their position as to think that, by means of what he had thought was a discarded agency, they might suppress in Ireland what they considered a Communistic and revolutionary movement. It would have been wiser in those influential men in the North of Ireland to have restrained their own excited opinions and those of their followers, and to have been a mollifying force in the government of society; and to have left to the stringent law in existence the suppression of seditious meetings and utterances if they had taken place. That that should have occurred was greatly to be deplored; but in all times of great political excitement there were instances on every side of gross blunders, and even of great misdeeds perpetrated by the leading men on both sides. For his part, his name and religion would make him look upon the Orange Institution as a badge of his country's slavery in the past; and, now that they had relieved themselves of the difficulties connected with the free exercise of religious opinion, he had thought that the raison d'être of that Society would have passed away; and that there would have been no more of those bickerings and heartburnings and excited opinions leading often to outrage. It might be said that the object was not to bring forward recollections of a bad past, but to prevent seditious speeches being delivered; and to prevent incitement to murder and outrage being carried out. But did it, he asked, lie with that Party, who par excellence distinguished themselves by the name of the Constitutional Party, to interfere in an unconstitutional manner with meetings which should have been left to the stringent law that had been passed within the past three years, for the suppression of any of those outrages or seditious utterances that took place?
  1632
  He had heard that it was the vaunt of those who professed Orange principles to say that they were, above all, the supporters of the Imperial Union. He was astonished to hear the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) in that respect claim Ulster as belonging to his Party, and endeavouring to break that Union which it was the boast of his Party to preserve. It might be said that these opinions appeared to be in favour of the Government. He might be called a "Government hack," as he had often been before, for what he was saying; but for favours past or favours to come he owed little allegiance to Her Majesty's Irish Government. When the Land Act was passed he wished to see it successfully administered; and it occurred to him to recommend to the Government for some of those appointments of Sub-Commissioners members of his own constituency, capable men, but influenced by no partizan feeling. He sent the names of four men to Earl Cowper and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster); but they were not appointed. He repeated it in the case of Earl Spencer and Mr. Trevelyan; and none of those men were appointed. A local vacancy occurred in his own county, and he nominated a man of undoubted character; but he was not appointed. Did they think it was from any miserable feeling that he might derive kudos from those nominations? No; he merely mentioned the fact to justify the statement that he was not a Government hack. He knew the people believed that, in the Land Act, they had received a boon beyond their utmost expectation. That Act was, no doubt, capable of amendment, especially as regarded the question of leaseholders; but he did protest against a journalistic syndicate in that House, who endeavoured to prevent the Land Bill passing, but feared, at the last moment, to carry out their views by throwing out the Bill, and now were broadly flaunting it about the country as their sole peculiar and entire achievement. If there had been intimidation in the North, it did not lie in the teeth of some people to cry out loudly about it. They could all remember the lines taught them at school, which were fairly applicable to the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite below the Gangway—

  1633
  "Verum parcite dignitate Lentuli, si ipsæ pudicitiæ—si famæ suæ, si dus aut hominibus ullis unquam pepercit."
  For his part, he was as much an opponent of intimidation, or attempting to trample upon men's private consciences and convictions in the South as in the North. Hon. Gentlemen might yet learn that, with the operation of the Ballot, they would not, even with the aid of the local Geslers, find themselves in a favourable position at the declaration of the poll. Self-interest, no doubt, was one of the strongest feelings of the human heart; and the Irish farmer, having obtained great results in the past, would naturally wish to progress still further, and would ask himself how best could he forward his object? but, at the same time, he knew there were many farmers in the country and shopkeepers in the towns who were sick of the payment of what might be considered black mail, and resented the impudent and dictatorial assumption of despotic authority by paid individuals, their inferiors generally in education, means, and manners. He much doubted that the farmers' vote would be always cast to continue this system of social tyranny. For his own part, he had a record that, although he might be called names fit for children at school, contained no promise he had broken, or not preserved, or one vote he had refrained from giving when he believed it was in the interest of those who sent him there; and, therefore, whether he came back to that House or not, whether he was sent into exile as most of them on that side of the House were told they were to be, he still would maintain that in that House he had always been true to the faith that was in him. Why were Liberal Irish Members unceasingly reviled? Why was no kind word ever spoken of them? He would tell them—it was because there was in Ireland a great company of trumpet blowers. They had often heard of one man blowing his own trumpet, but now they had an orchestra. One man was termed Demosthenes. He turned round, immediately embraced his neighbour, and said—"Coke and Black-stone were nothing to you." The two rake up another, and recognize in him the last remaining preserver of the fire of Irish culture—"the poet of the century." They had seen this in the streets. They had read it in the papers—the
  1634
  papers paid for by the American dollars. The very men who wrote the copy praising themselves were paid by the Bonanza silver that was sent them by Mr. Egan. That sort of thing was con. temptible. How long was it to exist in the country? They heard that there were no longer to be any landlords; but hon. Gentlemen forgot that no country in Europe or America was without them. He had heard great praise given to hon. Gentlemen in their initiation of the grand system of "Boycotting," with its attendant blessings. But it was like other things. There was nothing original in it. In a small town in a small Department in the North of France, near Peronne, the ancient Vermandois, there had existed for 300 years this "Boycotting," this mutilation of animals, this outrage on unoffending people—even in France, the country of peasant proprietors and no landlords. He had read that, in an address by the Procureur Impériale, M. Sombreuil, on the opening of the Court at Amiens in 1864. There was everything that had occurred in the late proceedings in Ireland foretold in that address. With regard to the "No Pent Manifesto," of which they had all heard, that document had appended to it the name of one who had greater influence in Ireland than anyone, except, perhaps, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He did not now speak of "the lieutenants" of that hon. Member, as some called them, or of the journalistic syndicate, as others termed them. He himself designated them a Convention, who, although not prepared to use the guillotine, were quite ready to massacre character. Mr. Davitt's name was appended to the "No Pent Manifesto;" but his signature was a forgery. [Laughter.] The joyous laugh of the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. Harrington) seemed to stick in his throat. Mr. Davitt ought to be a happy man, because he could say that by no action of his had poor peasants been evicted and turned out on the highway or left shivering in a shanty. He had said what he had to say without fear, favour, or affection. He regretted that in the struggle that was now taking place old friends should be separated. It had been the dream of his youth at least to be one of those who would endeavour to remove in every way religious distinctions, to make men friends when

  1635
  they met, without inquiring or caring what was their religion. They had unfortunately had a system of recrimination and of name-calling and abuse; but some men's shoulders were broad enough to bear this. Anyone who received unjust opprobrium in a cause he believed to be right would regard it as a favour bestowed upon him rather than a nuisance. He was one of those who had spoken with pride of all his countrymen. In literature, in arms, and in art, Irishmen, Milesian or Cromwellian, Williamite or Catholic, had played no ignoble part. If William's troops on Namur's wall gained the laurels that were that day emblazoned on the standards of the Royal Irish, their countrymen could, with equal pride, glory in the recollections of Ramillies, Landen, and Almanza. He cared not what men said for the passing moment, whether their motives were pecuniary, selfish, or otherwise; time would create higher and better aspirations. His own desire both in and out of the House, as long as he lived, was to be able freely and frankly to express his opinion, with but one hope—that every class of Irishmen should cease to revile one another, and should treat each other as brethren.
  MR. LEWISsaid, that it would be no part of his duty to answer the wild statements of the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). The hon. Member had talked of his wish to preserve the equilibrium of Parties; but the Members of the Conservative Party in Ireland did not seek the alliance of hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and were never more glad than when they found themselves in a different Lobby. Before referring to the Amendment he desired to say a few words with regard to the covert allusion in the Queen's Speech respecting the extension of the county franchise to Ireland. That question had been before the constituencies in England in the last elections, but not before those of Ireland. If they looked at every election address issued by Liberal candidates in Ulster at the last General Election, with the single exception of that of the defeated Liberal candidate for Belfast, they would see that all were silent on that point; even at Derry County most recently not a syllable had been said about it by the Solicitor General for Ireland in his address, though he knew that the
  1636
  measure would be brought forward a few weeks after his election, and when he had to refer to it in his speeches he did so most gingerly and slightly, although it was to be one of the chief questions of the Session. The fact was that the respectable Liberal Party in Ireland thought the extension of the franchise as objectionable as the Conservatives did. As regarded the Amendment, he cordially agreed with the first part, but would change the word "recent" into "whole;" for the Government could not have done more than they had to disturb the loyal portion of the Irish population who bad many things of which to complain. In the first place, they had been discouraged by the direct encouragement given by the Government to the Land League; the disorderly had been encouraged and crime allowed to go unpunished, while the Government refused to throw their ægis of protection over those who were loyal. In the second place, the Supreme Judge of the Land Court was a man who had published seditious poems, and these had been re-edited and reproduced when he was on the Bench. Though he himself had not signed the Memorial which so many of his fellow-magistrates had signed with regard to Lord Rossmore, he thought that the Government had unjustly and recklessly brought down punishment on a man whose only offence was that he was resisting the disloyal, and who had thought he was doing the best under the circumstances. With regard to the disturbances at Derry, the visit of the late Lord Mayor of Dublin to Derry had taken place under peculiar circumstances. In the first place, the meeting he was to attend and the lecture which he was to deliver were originally to have been in the National League Rooms. So long as the Corporation Hall was not to be used for the purpose, there had been no desire on the part of the Orangemen to interfere; but when the daring step had been taken of asking for the Corporation Hall, which was the property of the citizens, in which to carry out the Nationalist operations in Derry, it was no wonder that there had arisen a great feeling of indignation. He would appeal to the hon. Member for Dungarvan whether he had not often attended meetings in Derry without being disturbed in any

  1637
  way? Coming to the most remarkable speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), he thought it was a most able, eloquent, and even statesmanlike speech; but it showed that during the past few years a vast change had come over the hon. Member, whom they all recollected as one of the most extreme of the Nationalist Party in that House. They had heard from that hon. Member on the previous day such expressions as the "unity and integrity of the Empire." Why, these were odious words to the hon. Member a few years ago. Like former Leaders of the Irish Party, the hon. Member now found himself stranded and left ashore by its new and more adventurous Members, and doubtless his intercourse with Parliament and English society had toned down the hon. Member to a moderate politician. He (Mr. Lewis) could assure the House that in spite of all the Government had done they had failed to dispirit those who were loyal; they would only stimulate them to further efforts, and if the Nationalists appeared again in the City of Derry they would have a very warm time of it. There was not the least intention there to haul down the British Flag and to substitute for it the harp without a Crown. Peace reigned within the borders of Derry until outsiders came to interfere, and they were quite right in objecting to the promulgation by strangers of "National" or Fenian doctrinos.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, he was not surprised at the remarks of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, with reference to the franchise, for there was no doubt if the franchise were extended to Ireland, the hon. Gentleman would not again be returned for Londonderry. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) should strongly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He considered that the Lord Lieutenant had specially abused his powers by quartering extra police upon districts free from crime and charging them with their maintenance. In his own county he knew of three cases in which the police were employed, not for the purpose of repressing outrage, but to keep evicted tenants out of farms. The landlord had evicted the old tenants and refused to re-instate them, though the tenants had offered to pay any rent that chosen arbi-
  1638
  trators might fix, or even permit the Land Court to assess it. He must also complain of the way in which the Compensation Clauses of the Crimes Act had been worked. He knew of cases where persons who had sustained very slight injuries had received as compensation more money than they had earned during their entire lives.
  MR. MOOREsaid, there was no doubt that a feeling of expectancy and unrest prevailed among the people of Ireland, and that all the coercion and repressive legislation would be of little benefit to the country at large until the Government definitely stated the limits to which they were prepared to go on the question of peasant proprietary. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) in deprecating the uncertainty which prevailed on the subject of the Land Act. Whatever schemes the Government might or might not have, they should say decidedly what they intended to do, in order that the people might quietly settle down and employ themselves on their farms. He was glad to see the proposed enlargement of the franchise, and he believed the exercise of that privilege would have a beneficial effect on the people. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin had spoken about the danger of enfranchising large classes in Ireland; but he would ask which Party had done all in its power to keep these classes in ignorance, and unfit to fulfil the duties of citizens? It was with pain that he saw such a respected Member of the House as the right hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) go over to Dublin and taunt the Irish people with the fact that they were poor, and ignorant, and lived only in mud cabins. It was because these people were neglected and degraded that he wished to help their condition, and was anxious to extend to them so important a privilege. When the franchise was extended it was to be hoped that the poor labourer, whose lot was so bitter now, would be able to make his voice heard, and that something would be done to deal with those important questions which were now pressing for settlement in the towns. When, however, he came to consider the Irish Magistracy, he was bound to say that he thought the Government might have exercised much

  1639
  stronger measures towards them. Vigorous language might be used in the House by persons who were avowedly prosecuting an agitation, or by those who denounced the agitation; but such a case as that was altogether different from the position of those who were the sworn defenders of law and order. The Government had, in his opinion, acted with weakness in dealing with the Irish magistrates who had used violent language. The Government ought not to be strong merely in suppressing disorders, but also in the administration of justice. Greater care should also be exercised in the selection of magistrates. At present it too often happened that the only qualification expected from candidates for the magistracy was, not mature age, nor discretion, nor acquaintance with the law, but the mere possession of so many acres of land. He could not help censuring the Government for the attitude they had taken up in regard to the Irish magistracy in neglecting to initiate a new policy in dealing with this subject. The number of Roman Catholic magistrates as compared with the Protestant magistrates bore no comparison. In the whole county of Fermanagh, out of 77 magistrates, there was only one Roman Catholic. In Tyrone, out of 169 magistrates, there were only six; in Donegal, out of 137, there were only nine; and in King's County, out of 104, there were only 11 Roman Catholic magistrates. It was almost impossible to get a Roman Catholic on the Bench, whilst the shopkeepers dealing with the squire were pitchforked into the position. He asked the Government to look this matter in the face, and sweep away this partizan Bench. They lived in dangerous times and could not look back. To deal with the question properly, however, he would advocate that the recommendations by the Lord Lieutenants of counties should be abolished, and leave the nomination as well as the appointment in the hands of the Lord Chancellor. The Government should be strong enough to take decided measures of this kind.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONdesired to say a few words in regard to the proceedings in Ulster during the autumn and winter of which so much had been said. Reference had been made to him in the course of the debate. He was prepared to justifiy every act which he
  1640
  performed and every word which he uttered. Great misconception existed in the House as well as in England and Scotland regarding the condition of the Province of Ulster, to which he wished alone to confine his remarks. This Province had to be considered not only as regards itself, but also in relation to the three other Provinces. Ulster had a poorer soil than any of the three other Provinces, and it had a less genial climate. It was inhabited by a population loyal, industrious, contented, and, above all, living in harmony one with another. The majority of the population were Protestants; but not only was that the case, but the landlords, the largest employers of labour, the large shopkeepers, and every person of wealth in Ulster were Protestants, and it was only among the smaller shopkeepers and farmers, and the poorer classes generally that Catholics were to be found. This was the reason, much as he deplored the fact, that so few Roman Catholics were made magistrates in Ulster. What were the Lord Lieutenants of counties to do in the circumstances? The Lord Lieutenants did not recommend men to the Lord Chancellor on account of their religion, but of their capacity for administering the law. The question to be considered was whether the gentlemen possessed the position and qualities which would enable them to administer the law with impartiality and justice. [A laugh.] Hon. Members below the Gangway might laugh; but it was a fact that his noble Relative, who was Lord Lieutenant of a county, had been unable for many years past to find properly qualified Roman Catholics whom he could recommend as magistrates. On the occasion of a similar complaint with regard to the county of which his noble Relative was Lord Lieutenant, he told the hon. Member by whom the objection was taken, that if he or any hon. Member who was supposed to represent Roman Catholic feeling in Ireland would give him a list of those whom he considered qualified to be recommended to fill the post of magistrates, he would undertake to forward their names to his noble Relative, and if inquiries justified the appointment he would be happy to appoint them; but not one name had been mentioned to him. He had, therefore, been unwillingly bound to come to the conclusion that owing to the impo-

  1641
  verished condition of the Roman Catholic population of the district there were no persons fitted by their position to hold the office of magistrate. He also wished to state, that at a time when the rest of Ireland had been under the terrorism of the Land League, the population of Ulster had remained peaceable, loyal, and contented; and it was only, by the action of agitators like the Rev. Mr. Flanagan that ill - feeling had been raised in certain districts between class and class, and between religious denominations. What was the state of things now? Why it was only the other day, when the murderer of Carey was executed, the Roman Catholic population celebrated a mock funeral of the "heroic martyr," as they termed the murderer, and went down on their knees round the pretended coffin while representatives of hon. Members in that House collected considerable sums of money from these poor starving and deluded people. It had been said that the loyal inhabitants should have taken measures to oppose the Land League meetings of 1881; but they were not at that time fully acquainted with the objects of the League, and they could not have attempted to put them down by force, seeing at that time that Her Majesty's Government itself was paralyzed throughout the greater part of Ireland, and that the Land League ruled supreme over three-fourths of the country. All that the loyal portion of the population could do in the two instances mentioned of contested elections in Ulster was to steer their own course and endeavour to return their candidate if possible. Notwithstanding that the Land League was suppressed, its results were plainly visible throughout the whole of Ireland. Did the House suppose that the people of Ulster were not intelligent enough to observe what was going on under its influence in the other three Provinces in Ireland, and, indeed, in the capital of Ireland itself, which at the time was under the Mayoralty of the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Dawson)? Judge O'Brien, speaking from the Bench, described Dublin as—
  "Presenting a very painful picture. Trade was in a bad condition, and everyone who could carry their fortunes elsewhere were flying from the city."
  Dublin, since the last municipal election, was under the sway of the hon. Member
  1642
  for the City of Cork and his Friends, and what said one of the Dublin magistrates on taking his seat one morning after Christmas?—
  "I have a nice state of things before me this morning arising out of Christmas festivities. Such brutality and such violence I do not think I have ever heard of before."
  He would contrast that state of things with the condition of Derry in the Province of Ulster, and for that purpose he would quote the words of the Recorder of that place. He had said—
  "Gentlemen, nothing can be more gratifying than to find such a calendar as this in such a large and populous town as Derry.… Your city bears a most favourable contrast to many towns in which it has been my fortune to hold sessions, and it is with the greatest possible pleasure I congratulate you on on the calendar now before me."
  The Recorder then went on to comment on what had occurred during the visit of the hon. Member for Carlow. The House, however, had had all that to a certain extent before them; but the hon. Member himself and the House were aware that it was in that prosperous state of things in Derry that the hon. Member made his visit there. As to the election of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), the people of Ulster considered they were disgraced by the return of that hon. Member, on account of his connection with the Land League and its pernicious doctrines. He (Lord Claud Hamilton) was the last person to say one word against an hon. Member who showed such marked ability as the hon. Member for Monaghan; but he could not help saying that his election had sent an electrical shock throughout the whole of Ulster, and all that had since occurred in that Province might trace its origin to that event. The objects of hon. Members below the Gangway were plainly evident to anyone. They proceeded to found branches of the League and societies and organizations, which gradually spread throughout the districts where meetings had been held, until at last, by means of "Boycotting" in outlying districts, they brought everyone into the folds of their net. Now, those hon. Members had before them the programme of Her Majesty's Government, who had told them that they intended to bring in a measure for the extension of the franchise. The object, then, was that before that measure became law the National

  1643
  League should be firmly established throughout Ulster, and that when there was an appeal to the constituencies they might return from the Province of Ulster Members who would sympathize with them and who would accept the hon. Member for the City of Cork as their Leader. They would then come forward to Her Majesty's Government, or whatever Government was in power, and say, presenting an almost unbroken front to the Representatives of England, Scotland, and Wales—"Here we are, representing the so-called people of Ireland. We demand Home Rule. We demand separation. [An Irish MEMBER: No, no!] We demand a National Parliament." In Ulster they were not unaware of the objects of those Gentlemen, and they had some little notion of what a National Parliament meant for them. What had the Prime Minister said of the hon. Member for the City of Cork?—
  "A man who has made himself beyond all others prominent in the attempt to destroy the authority of the law and to substitute an anarchical oppression exercised upon the people of Ireland."
  What, too, were the objects of the Land League, which was now defunct, but which had been resuscitated under the name of the National League? Of that organization the Prime Minister had said that the immediate object proposed was rapine, and that it was to be carried into effect by intimidation caused by threats of danger to life, of violent destruction of property, and of ruin resulting from the withdrawal of employment. The intention, the right hon. Gentleman added, was to march through rapine to the disintegration and dismemberment of the Empire. With those expressions from the Prime Minister the Loyalists of Ulster cordially agreed. Though the Land Act at first caused a convulsion in Ulster, it had now been accepted as the law of the land, and the decisions of the Commissioners were acquiesced in both by landlords and tenants. The greater number of cases were now being settled out of Court, and landlords and tenants, Protestants and Catholics, were living hamoniously together, trade was increasing, and prosperity was everywhere apparent. Such was the moment which hon. Members below the Gangway chose for interfering in Ulster. All that
  1644
  that Province wanted was to be left to take care of itself and to develop its great resources. The Chief Secretary had suggested that the Loyalists of Ulster ought to have held their meetings on days subsequent to those on which Nationalist meetings were held. The reason why they did not adopt that course was that they were in earnest and not playing. What would have been the use of allowing seditious speeches to be delivered and of postponing counter-demonstrations until after the mischief had been done? What was the use of locking the stable-door after the escape of the steed? The Loyalists of Ulster desired to prevent the dissemination of evil, wicked doctrines among their peaceful people. After appealing in vain to the good feelings of hon. Members below the Gangway, they determined to see who were the stronger, who really represented the wealth, responsibility, and education of the Province. Hon. Members below the Gangway had said that at the meetings which were held their Party were in the majority. If that was so, they must have been terrible cowards; for if they were in the majority, why did they call for the aid of the police and military? As a matter of fact, the followers of the hon. Members were a miserable minority. He could not agree with the Chief Secretary that the state of Ireland now could compare favourably with the state of almost any country in Europe. Though a happy calm had come over Ireland the seeds of disaffection were still present there, and if the Coercion Act were abrogated, there would be renewed disturbance. He trusted, therefore, that the Government would not diminish the stringency of the powers which Parliament had placed in their hands. The only way to insure peace and prosperity in Ireland was by prohibiting absolutely the outdoor meetings and processions of both parties. So long as members of the Land League were allowed to hold their meetings undisturbed by the Government, and to make speeches which loyal men listened to with pain and regret, so long would there be disorder, discontent, and crime, and increasing hatred on the part of the people towards England. But if, with a firm hand, the Government put down for a certain time all meetings and processions, no matter

  1645
  whether of Protestants or Roman Catholics, they would adopt a course which would recommend itself to every loyal and sensible man in the Kingdom. In conclusion, he would say, that though looking to the past he had very little faith in the Government, yet he hoped under existing circumstances they would, without fear or favour, carry out the law placed in their hands. He spoke not only for the Protestants, but for the Roman Catholics of Ulster, for there were loyal Bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church who were utterly uncontaminated by the doctrines of the Land League, and if let alone they would endeavour to do what they had done in the past—inculcate good feeling and fellowship between their flocks and the Protestants, and then they would have Ulster the pride of the country. Representing as he did the majority of the people in that Province, he must say they had little faith in Her Majesty's Government. This was no political struggle so far as Ulster was concerned, it was a National movement, and the people of Ulster only asked that they might retain what they had received from their fathers, a right to remain citizens of an integral portion of the Protestant United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and to enjoy the rights and liberties which were guaranted to them by that citizenship. It was not much to ask, and he appealed on their behalf to those hon. Members who represented English and Scotch constituencies to assist them in that great struggle. They relied upon the justice of their claims; but if hon. Members turned a deaf ear to their entreaties, they had still themselves to fall back upon, and when he said that he spoke with a full knowledge of their determination and their strength.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Sir, I owe an apology to the House for venturing, thus early in my Parliamentary career, to take part in its debates; but as, in the course of the debate, the remarks on the action of the Irish Executive have naturally extended into matters of which my official position gives me some little knowledge, I do not think I should be discharging my duty if I were to abstain from taking some part in the discussion. I must remember that I am speaking on the Amendment of the hon. Member for
  1646
  the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but, first, I must observe that it is no part of my business, speaking on behalf of the Irish Executive, to interfere in those bitter controversies which, since the debate commenced, have been carried on by the Irish Conservative Members who sympathize with the Orangemen, and those Irish Members who sit below the Gangway—controversies which have absorbed a great part of the debate. It is the duty of the Irish Government to rise superior to all these controversies, and to steer an impartial course. There is also another controversy in which, I think, the Irish Government have no part to take. I certainly listened with great interest to the able speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), in which he vindicated the course he has taken; but we have no part in that controversy. It lies between the hon. Member for Mayo and the hon. Members who sit behind him; but, perhaps, I may not be wrong in saying that when the personal animosities excited shall have passed away, the speech of the hon. Member may afford matter for calm reflection to Irish Members who take an interest in the affairs of that country. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was sufficiently comprehensive; but the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), in his able speech, travelled over far wider ground, and assailed the Government on various minor points, and for alleged acts of partizanship towards Orangemen, some of which, even at this late hour, it would not be unbecoming of me to notice. Indeed, I feel that there are one or two that it is my duty to mention. The hon. Member for Monaghan assailed the Irish Government for partiality in reference to the case of a man named Matthews and his associates, who were recently tried in Dublin. Now, what was the action of the Government in regard to those men? It was this. Matthews was the editor of a paper circulating in the county of Tyrone, a county full of strong party feeling. He was naturally a man, being the editor of a paper, who held a position with respect to which prejudices might be awakened. He and his associates were charged with a most serious offence—namely, that of setting fire to a building in which human beings were at the time. What was the action of the Irish Government? By

  1647
  the power conferred on them by the Crimes Act, in order to obtain a fair trial, they changed the venue.
  MR. SEXTON: It was the Judge who was assailed, and not the Government.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): I am showing that the action of the Government was impartial from first to last, and that their first act was to secure an impartial trial. There followed a conviction and a sentence, and is the Government to be impeached for the action of the Judge over whom the Executive had no more power or control than any Member of this House? It is the very essence of justice that they should have no control over him. Because the hon. Member says that too light a sentence was passed, is that to be charged to the discredit of the Government?
  MR. SEXTON: Nobody accuses the Government.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Nobody knows better what sentence ought to be passed than the Judge who heard the trial; but, be the sentence too light or too heavy, it was the action of the Judge, over whom the Executive had no control, and no blame can be attached to the Irish Government in the matter. As I understand the complaint of the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Healy), it was against the Judge, and not against the Government, and I cannot see why the conduct of the Irish Executive should have been imported into the matter at all. Another charge has been made against the Government in regard to the selection of juries and the conduct of the High Sheriffs. Now, hon. Members should remember that the High Sheriffs have no control whatever over the selection of juries, and that it is a mere mechanical operation. There was one other topic alluded to in the speech of the hon. Member for Monaghan—namely, the question of the Irish magistrates. No doubt it might be better, and would be better, that the Irish magistrates should have a larger number of men among them whose feelings were in accord with those of the people among whom they administered justice; but if persons of that character are not appointed, it is not the fault of the Irish Executive. Let proper men be submitted to the Lord Lieutenant and to the Lord Chancellor; and if such cases
  1648
  should arise, the Gentleman who fills the high Office of Lord Chancellor would not be sorry to exercise his inherent power. The Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork comprises three subjects. The first is, that the action of the Irish Executive has not tended to produce tranquillity and contentment among the Irish people. That is a matter which must be judged by results, and I look for those results in the social and material condition of the people, in the way in which they have discharged their legal obligations, and in the absence of crime. The bulk of the population of Ireland consists of tenant farmers and of an agricultural population; and I ask what now is the condition of the tenant farmers compared with what it was? Will anyone deny that the tenant farmer is now better fed, better housed, that he has a greater stake in his farm and better security for his property and for the products of his industry? Not only that, but he has a stake in the order and well-being of the country which tends to make him a loyal and contented man. Further, having a stake in the country it is obvious and, indeed, it is well known that the people of Ireland have discharged their legal obligations within the last year, with a faithfulness and punctuality quite equal with that of the English tenants. As to the state of crime, I will ask the attention of the House to a few figures in reference to the last three years. I give the figures for each of the three years. In 1881 there were 4,439 agrarian crimes and 17 murders; in 1882 there were 3,433 agrarian crimes and 26 murders; and in 1883 there were 834 agrarian crimes and two murders. Whatever may be the cause of such results, they furnish ground for congratulation and for grateful acknowledgment to any Government that has produced them, and they are not to be got rid of by any notions such as those expressed by the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien), whose speech I heard with pain, or by the arguments of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), who said that capital has been banished from the country and that land has lost its value. I say that I heard the observations of the hon. Member for Mallow with regret and pain. I do not question his sincerity,

  1649
  but I disclaim his being the exponent of the views of the tenant farmers. With reference to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, when he spoke of the non-return of capital, he must know that it would take more than a couple of years to allure back capital after it has been driven out of the country. When my right hon. and learned Friend spoke of the value of land, I think he was answered by an observation which has been made to-night, that there never was a time when land, accompanied with the possession, has reached a higher value. My right hon. and learned Friend attributed these results to another cause—namely, the operation of the Grimes Act; but my right hon. and learned Friend should have remembered, that the same year as that in which the Crimes Act came into operation, there also came into operation one of the most beneficent measures which was ever given to an agricultural population—namely, the Land Act of 1881. That Act struck at the root of discontent in Ireland. It may be, as was said by my right hon. and learned Friend, that the Crimes Act struck at the surface of crime; but a measure like the Land Act, which strikes at the root of discontent—and discontent and crime have generally gone together in Ireland—is more likely to produce enduring contentment and enduring tranquillity. There is every reason to hope that that has been the case. The hon. Member for the City of Cork complained of the wanton prohibition of public meetings. Now, the whole force of his argument is contained in that word "wanton." What is the fact? Why, that since the Prorogation of Parliament last Session 15 meetings have been prohibited. It would have been easy for the Government to have suppressed the whole of them; but the powers conferred upon Lord Spencer were powers which had to be exercised within the limits of the Constitution, which invites, as well as sanctions, free discussion. I quite accept the doctrine laid down in this House last night by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) that it is our duty to maintain liberty, as well as order, and that the Constitutional rights, which it is our duty to maintain, are not to be invaded unless the Government have reason to believe that the
  1650
  holding of a public meeting would be dangerous to the public peace and the public safety. Each meeting had its varying incidents to be considered—its varying dangers to be appreciated and anxiously weighed before the meeting was allowed to be held. It is very easy to criticize the action of the Government after the meetings were held; but I may inform hon. Members that each case as it arose was carefully weighed, and all the circumstances attending it carefully considered by the Irish Executive. We received reports from all who were able to give us information; and as to the fault found with the Government for suppressing one meeting and permitting another, once you give credit to the Executive for the honest exercise of their powers the suppression of one meeting and allowance of another show that in each case they exercised the discretion invested in them, because if, on the one hand, they had permitted all the meetings, or, on the other, they had prohibited them altogether, they would have been open to the charge, on the one hand, of sacrificing Constitutional right to a personal desire to avoid responsibility, and, on the other, of gambling with human life in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin has so inconsiderately charged us. In Ulster seven meetings have been held and five prohibited, and there was no reason why meetings should not be held in Ulster, unless they were likely to be dangerous to the public safety. The noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Lord Claud Hamilton), who last addressed the House, told us that the position of Ulster was such that it was not to be invaded by the doctrines of the Nationalist Party. Then, why were not the Orange meetings held at another time and upon another opportunity, and why was danger courted by convening Orange meetings at the same time and place as the Nationalists' meeting? I admit that the noble Lord may very rightly have disliked anything that in his view threatened the integrity of the Empire; but were those doctrines to be supported best by holding meetings at a time when they could not be hold without danger to the public peace and the public safety? The meetings that we prohibited in Ulster were prohibited for precisely the same reasons they were prohibited in

  1651
  other places. A meeting was prohibited in Newry because the county had been proclaimed, and information was given that 500 armed men were going to attend; and at Garrison a meeting was prohibited because a proclamation had been issued inciting to civil war, and calling upon the Orangemen to remember what had occurred in 1689. What the Government disapproved of in the action of the Orangemen, and in my opinion rightly disapproved of, was the manner in which the Orange meetings were got up. We do not complain of Orange meetings being held under certain circumstances, but we do complain of their being held at improper times and places; and we complain further of the language used at them, and the manner in which they were convened. The remarks of the Prime Minister have been frequently appealed to in justification of the action of the Orangemen, remarks in which the right hon. Gentleman commented upon the apathy of certain classes in Ireland, and called upon them to support the office of the law. There is no complaint of apathy now; but the complaint is that a certain section of the Orange Party has embarrassed the office of the law, and when the encomium of the Chief Secretary for Ireland is referred to, instead of placing patriotism above Party, for party reasons have been too ready to place Party above patriotism. In regard to Lord Rossmore, I will only say a few words, in order to meet the argument of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. It is natural that Lord Rossmore's friends should have defended him with the loyalty they have exhibited. I do not blame them for that; but I think the course of the debate will have satisfied every impartial man that, whether you call the conduct of Lord Rossmore an error of judgment, or a grave indiscretion, or a rash disregard of law and the duties of his office induced by political feelings, I think most men will admit that he was rightly dismissed by the Lords Commissioners from the high office which he occupied. It is said that Lord Rossmore is a young man. That may be true; but he was not too young to receive and fill the responsible office of magistrate, which charged him with the duty of administering the law to those beneath him in station, and mostly differing from
  1652
  him in politics and religion. It was the duty of Lord Rossmore as a magistrate, when the Rosslea meeting was not proclaimed, to deem it a legal meeting; to trust the Executive, and, by his example and counsel, to prevent the public peace from being in danger. But what did Lord Rossmore do? He used his influence, as Grand Master of the Orangemen, to organize a counter-meeting of some 5,000 armed men, appealing to their strongest political and religious feelings in a placard calling upon them to oppose the rebels to the utmost. The right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin has founded arguments in favour of Lord Rossmore more ingenious than candid on an incident for which Lord Rossmore was not dismissed, while he has passed by those matters for which he was dismissed. Now, let there be no confusion. The Nationalist meeting was held on one hill and the Orange meeting on another, sufficiently far apart to prevent collision. Lord Rossmore chose and insisted upon taking a route which would bring him into close and dangerous proximity with the rival meeting. It has been said that he got no warning, but, on the contrary, a sort of assent from Captain M'Ternan; but that is a point which the Lords Commissioners held to be immaterial, and was not the matter for which he was dismissed. As I have stated, it had been arranged with the authorities that the Orangemen should not march by a route which would lead them into dangerous proximity to the rival meeting. The noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) said that was the arrangement made with him, and that he took the route indicated. But what did Lord Rossmore do? He was in command, and he admits and justifies his action in leading his men beyond the point which had been laid down as the point of divergence, knowing that he would consequently get to a point which would bring him in dangerous proximity to the hostile meeting, and that the result, in the event of a collision, would most probably be the loss of life. In a speech made by Captain Barton, on the 4th of December, that gentleman said that—
  "He was a Fermanagh magistrate, and he was within six yards of Lord Rossmore, at the head of the brethren at Rosslea, and they ran straight up to the rebels."

  1653
  Further on, he added—
  "That the Orangemen were not ready at that time, because they were engaged in cutting sticks for themselves. They had revolvers most of them."
  The noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin took up the second incident, and justified the conduct of Lord Rossmore in regard to it. But these thousands had been massed on the road, and had passed the point of divergence, and the point of danger when Captain M'Ternan first interfered with Lord Rossmore. Captain M'Ternan says that he allowed Lord Rossmore to proceed, because turning back then would have been impossible; but is it suggested that Lord Rossmore would have turned back? It is plain that he would not. He says himself that—
  "It was perfectly true that Captain M'Ternan heard expressions of determined opposition and of a violent nature from those in close proximity to him when this step was proposed."
  but when Lord Rossmore had refused Inspector Trescott at the point of divergence, would he have obeyed Captain M'Ternan afterwards? Whether Captain M'Ternan or Lord Rossmore is right is wholly immaterial. The dangerous route had been chosen, in spite of the law; the danger of collision had already become imminent, and all the harm was done. A complaint is made by my right hon. and learned Friend that Lord Rossmore was not given a copy of Captain M'Ternan's Report. But the Report was wholly immaterial. The Lords Commissioners had given Lord Rossmore the benefit of the doubt. They took it that Captain M'Ternan was wrong, and that Lord Rossmore was right, and they did not dismiss him for anything that occurred there. It is quite plain, however, what Lord Rossmore's view was. It was this—
  "I was leading a body of 5,000 Orangemen. We were able and if necessary, willing to take at a run the hill on which the Nationalists were assembled; and we would not turn from the direct path of our own meeting, whatever might be the consequence, nor at the interference of any peace officer, because that would look like retreating before our enemies."
  That is obviously what Lord Rossmore did; but my right hon. and learned Friend says—"Put yourselves in Lord Rossmore's place." We are not, however,
  1654
  all of us Grand Masters of Orangemen. If there is any Grand Master here, he might do, perhaps, as Lord Rossmore did; but if any magistrate is appealed to, who is not influenced by Party feelings, he would say at once that he would have acted as a magistrate with loyalty, and would have obeyed the law. It is not sufficient to have loyalty on one's lips; it is not sufficient for any subject, much less a magistrate, to obey the law only when he likes to do so; and Lord Rossmore, in command of 5,000 men, most of them armed, set an example which, in a magistrate, was of most evil consequence. A painful duty was forced upon the Lords Commissioners. They exercised a wise discrimination in distinguishing between the man in command and those whom he led—the man who set the example and those who followed it. And as regards the action of those who have, I think, most inconsiderately expressed approval of Lord Rossmore's conduct, the Lord Chancellor rightly distinguishes between overt acts and general expressions of opinion, being quite prepared to deal with any magistrate who does as Lord Rossmore did. And now I will say a few words as to the Dromore meeting on the 1st of January, and the death which happened after it. I do so because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) said that it lay on the Government to do everything they could to satisfy the relations of the poor man whose life was lost; and because, further, in his speech he said it appeared to him that the death was caused by a policeman acting for himself without orders. I shall speak from official documents as to Dromore. The Orangemen there numbered from 5,000 to 7,000 men, and they were accompanied by bands and banners. They were sashes, and were armed with sticks and revolvers. The National meeting was composed, to a large extent, of women and children, and the two meetings were to take place outside the village. There was a force of 1,200 men to preserve order, and they were under the charge of three of the most experienced Resident Magistrates which Ireland possesses—Major Blair, Mr. Thomas Hamilton, and Mr. Thynne. Two roads led from the village. They were nearly parallel, but at a certain point they

  1655
  intersected each other. The object of those who were charged with the preservation of the peace on that day was to prevent the two bodies from meeting at the point of junction, because if they did meet a fatal collision would undoubtedly take place. The Nationalist meeting being over first, the Nationalists reached this point half-a-mile in advance. They would thus have got clear away if the Orangemen had not been determined to prevent them. What happened? At a place called the Rectory the disturbance first commenced. The noble Lord the Member for Fermanagh (Viscount Crichton) alluded to it as some trifling stone-throwing; but, as a matter of fact, some 2,000 Orangemen rushed across from their own position through planted grounds, and at once attacked their opponents. They were intercepted by the police and Cavalry, and with difficulty repelled. It was not necessary then to read the Riot Act. I may here read the Report of one of the three Resident Magistrates, who says—
  "The Orange Party at this time were very violent and defiant, and necessitated the police to use their bâtons and the butts of their rifles freely to repel them."
  The Nationalists passed on towards the junction, the passing of which would make them safe; but the Orangemen rushed across from their position, and, running parallel, retarded their advance. When the Nationalists had just reached the junction, the Orangemen broke over the fields to bead them; the Nationalists retreated to a hill a little off the road, and stone-throwing commenced. The consequences might have been fearful; and it was of the utmost importance, in order to save human life, that the Orangemen should not be allowed to reach the critical point of junction. The main body were yelling, throwing stones, and firing pistol-shots. Mr. T. Hamilton read the Riot Act, and ordered the Cavalry to charge up the road, and to drive the Orangemen back on to their own road. But then the Orangemen broke into the fields right and left, and attempted to reach the Nationalists. Major Blair saw the danger, and, seeing that a collision was inevitable, and having remonstrated with the rioters to no purpose, he read the Riot Act a second time, and then ordered the police to advance with fixed swords and clear the fields. They did advance in single
  1656
  rank and carried out the order, and in its execution a wound was inflicted which cost the life of this unfortunate man. I may here read the Report of Mr. T. Hamilton upon the subject, which was presented on the 24th of January last—
  "The whole time occupied by this riot during which Giffen was stabbed did not exceed 15 or 20 minutes; but a riot more dangerous or threatening during the time it lasted I never witnessed, during a very large experience, or an occasion which more fully justified and called for very strong measures for its repression, on every occasion that offered during the day as well as that time. The Orangemen seemed most blood - thirsty, and seemed determined to attack the Nationalists, and but for the large force at our disposal, they would undoubtedly have come into deadly conflict, and, armed as both parties were with sticks, stones, and revolvers, very much more calamitious results than Giffen's death would assuredly have taken place."
  That is the Report of the Resident Magistrate.
  MR. MACARTNEY: What is the name of the gentleman?
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Mr. Thomas Hamilton, but there is a Report in almost the same terms from the two other Resident Magistrates. An inquest was held. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) has already referred to the inquest, and the facilities afforded by the Executive for the examination of the officials; but the lawyer who appeared for the next-of-kin and friends of the deceased man, refused to examine them. A mixed jury returned a verdict by a large majority, which simply stated the cause of death, but imputed no blame to anyone. A demand is now made upon the Government that there should be a further inquiry, and if the policeman who inflicted the wound can be found, he should be prosecuted and punished. It was said by the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) that there was no precedent for this not being done.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: I said there was no precedent, so far as I knew, of an inquest being hold on the death of a man caused by the interference of the military, and no official evidence being called.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): In the case of each of the similar events which unfortunately took place at Dungarvan,

  1657
  Ballyragget, Ballina, and Bellmullet, an inquest was held with a different result from the open verdict of which I am now speaking. There was no inquiry in those cases, and therefore there is no precedent for inquiry in this instance.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON: There was no official evidence given; there was no counsel in attendance to examine the witnesses, as in a case of murder, and the Government took no evidence.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WALKER): Sir, the Crown were not conducting that inquiry. It was an ordinary Coroner's Inquest, and it was left open to the witnesses referred to, to give evidence if they were asked to do so. I think the House will say it would be in the last degree unfair to such a body of men as the Royal Irish Constabulary, who in trying times have had to discharge their difficult duties, and for the last five years, through insult, temptation, and danger, have discharged them so loyally and well, if for one moment it were to go forth that their acts were to be impeached, and a man, say, tried for his life, if an injury is inflicted when carrying out the orders of their responsible officers after the Riot Act has been twice read. Sir, I think on the Dromore meeting I have responded to the call of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin. We can hardly hope, in his words, to mitigate the bitterness of the grief of that young man's relations. I read in the public Press that, when his father first saw him, he broke out into passionate regret that his son had stolen away so far from Portadown, without his parent's knowledge, to such a meeting. Sir, I would suggest it for the calm consideration of hon. Members opposite, who were the players who there gambled with human life? I ask them to reflect whether any purpose can be served by such action of the Orangemen, and whether it may not tend to produce a passing sympathy with their opponents. In testing the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), I look back to the period when Lord Spencer took Office, and contrast it with the present; and I ask the House to say that the satisfactory results are due to his wise, just, and firm administration. I think the House will give the Irish Executive credit for this—that, as before the
  1658
  Recess so during it, under difficult circumstances and assailed by two parties from opposite quarters, they have been actuated by an honest desire to secure public peace and protect property and life, and that their honest efforts have not been without success in securing the objects to which this Amendment refers—"tranquillity and contentment in Ireland."
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, as a prelude to the very few observations with which he proposed to trouble the House, he might be permitted to take the opportunity of congratulating the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down and the House at large upon the fact that he had been added to its councils. He should not attempt to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the old story of Lord Rossmore, nor should he trouble the House by repeating observations which he entirely agreed with, and which had been addressed to the House from that side, on the subject he had referred to; but he would like to point out what appeared to him to be a very serious feature in the language of Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne with reference to Ireland. In the language of that Speech, he regretted to say, there were undoubted signs of that ineradicable self-sufficient optimism which had characterized those documents for some time past. He must own to feeling not a little surprise at the way in which the terms were selected with regard to this matter of Ireland. Her Majesty was made to refer to the last two occasions on which Her Majesty addressed the House upon this subject. He did not quite understand whether that reference extended to the Royal Speeches delivered at the opening of the two last Sessions, when the same optimist language was as usual employed; but he need hardly remind the Prime Minister that upon one of the occasions referred to—namely, two years ago, when he (Mr. J. Lowther) had protested against the use of such misleading expressions, very few weeks elapsed before a tragedy took place which all but a very small number of Members of that House had always united in deploring; and he should have thought that recent history would have convinced Her Majesty's Government that, in using language of the kind he was referring to, they deceived nobody, although, unfortunately,

  1659
  there was too good a reason for thinking that they deceived themselves. Now, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, following the example set him, spoke of the improvement which had taken place in the state of Ireland. He (Mr. J. Lowther) said that that improvement was essentially unreal. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted statistics, and, before he resumed his seat, he asked hon. Gentlemen on those Benches to consider what was the state of Ireland at a certain time, and to compare it with the present condition of the country. And what was the time to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred as the period when the state of Ireland was indescribably bad? It was when Lord Spencer went to Ireland in the capacity of Viceroy; but the hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that for two years before Lord Spencer had been a Member of the present Cabinet, and was, together with his Colleagues, responsible for having brought Ireland to a state worse than that of any civilized country on the face of the Globe. Without pursuing with minute criticism the subject to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, he would point out that, although the Prime Minister, who, on all previous occasions similar to the present, had distinctly taken exception to the statement he made, that the large majority of the people of Ireland were bitterly and intensely hostile to the British rule, the right hon. Gentleman no longer interrupted him with a contradiction.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It is no part of my business to contradict the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: The right hon. Gentleman said it was not his business to contradict him. In that he fully concurred; but he would ask why it was his business to do so on former occasions? He would not invite the right hon. Gentleman to be guilty of what he himself described as a breach of Order; but he reminded him that on various previous occasions he lost no time in contradicting him when making a similar statement. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) made yesterday a most able speech, and one of the most interesting that he had heard addressed to that House; but what did the hon. Member for Mayo
  1660
  represent? He represented his own undoubted ability, and nothing more. It was perfectly well known, as he had stated on a former occasion, that Whiggery outside Ulster was as dead as Julius Cæsar. The Prime Minister used to appeal to his hon. Friends behind him as representatives of the feeling of the people of Ireland; but the right hon. Gentleman now knew that they represented no Party at all in Ireland. It might be a matter of regret to some that it was so; but he confessed it was not to him, because he knew that those hon. Gentlemen, while professing to hold comparatively moderate views, were at the same time ready to co-operate in subversive attacks upon property—that was to say, they were prepared to go in for sheer robbery, and fur schemes which the right hon. Gentleman described as partaking largely of the character of public plunder. They found that hon. Members representing what was called the National Party in Ireland had invariably, and with few exceptions, succeeded in obtaining the favourable ear of the electorate; and it was perfectly notorious, that, with insignificant exceptions, throughout the North, the South, and the West of Ireland, those gentlemen who represented the Government policy had no chance of obtaining a seat in that House. In fact, the condemnation of Her Majesty's Government now extended to all the Provinces of Ireland. He had said the North, South, and West—nobody ever talked about the East of Ireland—so, perhaps, Her Majesty's Government might think there was a corner in the country in which their policy was not generally condemned; but he was himself at a loss to find where that corner was. The Government having during the last four years administered all affairs of State with one object mainly—that of catching the Irish vote, must now have discovered that they had signally failed. And he did not speak of that vote in the limited sense in which at the moment it commended itself to the Prime Minister; he was speaking of the insidious and. pernicious appeals which had been made to that most sinister element of the political body—what was called the Irish vote in the English constituencies. The policy of the Government had been almost entirely devoted to that sinister object, and they now had the consolation

  1661
  of finding that in Ireland all classes of the community were arrayed against them. They had separated themselves for ever from the sympathy of the propertied and intelligent classes in Ireland, and they had made a bid for what the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) tersely described in an earlier portion of their proceedings that evening, but which he (Mr. J. Lowther) would only refer to as the classes who were certainly not at the top of the social tree. But the fact remained that the policy of Her Majesty's Government had not succeeded in attaining the object for which it was ostensibly framed. One word as to what the policy of the Government had been; the House need not be alarmed that he would go into the subject in any detail. The policy of the Government had been mainly the transferring of the principal portion of proprietary rights in Ireland from classes which were, speaking generally, well affected to the British connection to those who were determinedly hostile to British rule. That might be statesmanship—but they lived and learned. He had been surprised to find that an amount of virtuous indignation had been aroused in the breast of no less a person than the right hon. Gentleman the senior Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright), and he thought also the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Shaw Lefevre), at certain doctrines which had been freely propounded in this country by Mr. Henry George. Now, the difference between the policy of Mr. George and that of the Government was simply that Her Majesty's Government took away, speaking roughly, 25 per cent of property from persons to whom it did belong, and gave it to those persons who happened to have hired the land for a twelvemonth, and who had entered into solemn contracts to give it up at six months' notice. Mr. George took a larger portion of that property, say 100 per cent—he believed he was willing to take 150 per cent of it, if it were possible to do so—and handed it over to the community at large, who, as far as he could see, had neither more nor less claim to it than the favoured few to whom the Government handed it. The Prime Minister had reminded him that Parliament was responsible for the measures of the Government. He
  1662
  (Mr. J. Lowther) deeply deplored that the Government, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman, had succeeded in making Parliament an accomplice with them in the perpetration of the proceedings to which he was referring. Now, what was likely to be the result of that legislation? When the next pinch of poverty came upon Ireland, would the people of that country be the better off for the measures which the Government had passed? He was now speaking of the subversive land legislation of the Government, and he asked, what security had they that rents under the new system would be better paid than they had been before? What reserve of capital would there be on which the occupiers of land could draw? That he entirely failed to see. Various remedies had been suggested for the state of affairs in Ireland; but he must say with regret that he could not share the confidence with which some of his hon. Friends on that side of the House approached the subject of what was called peasant proprietorship. He confessed he did not believe in it one bit. Although in his judgment it might be quite right to enable those persons who were prepared to incur some self-sacrifice in order to become owners of land; to facilitate their ridding other people of property—which was not certainly an enjoyable possession—he failed to see that any good was likely to accrue from artificial attempts to create a state of society which had not been naturally called into existence, and he regretted much that he could not agree in the opinions of his hon. Friends on that side of the House, who appeared to think peasant proprietorship a panacea for all the ills of Ireland. But throughout the long discussion which had taken place, embracing as it did almost all the real and imaginary ills of Ireland, and suggesting almost every possible remedy, he regretted that not one word had been said about that which was the only available remedy for the distressed state of the country. He need hardly observe that he referred to the question of emigration. He was aware that a large amount of prejudice existed in some quarters upon that subject. It was well known that the Government had had great pressure put upon them to deter them from carrying out projects which had

  1663
  been submitted from infiuenential quarters. He trusted, however, that Ministers would not imagine that they were justified by the silence of Parliament in considering that the public interest on this subject was one whit diminished. Time would not permit him to go into the question fully; but he reminded the House that proposals had been made to the Government, not by doctrinaires or crotchet-mongers, but by representatives of combinations which were perfectly well able to make good their opportunity to carry out the projects they suggested, projects which, if carried out, would prove a substantial relief to the over crowded and congested districts in Ireland. They had heard a good deal about the work of Mr. Tuke. No one could approach the work of Mr. Tuke from a more impartial standpoint than he did. Mr. Tuke belonged to a politico-religious community with which he (Mr. J. Lowther) had absolutely no sympathy, therefore, he was not likely to be prejudiced in any shape or form in favour of any work projected by Mr. Tuke; a work, however, which he must express his opinion had been the means of achieving most valuable results within the far too limited compass in which it had unfortunately been confined. He thought the Government were incurring a very grave responsibility in declining to avail themselves of the most valuable suggestions which had been made to them by the Hudson's Bay Company, and the North-West Land Company, and the other combinations on the other side of the Atlantic.
  MR. PARNELLrose to Order. He wished to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in introducing the question of emigration upon the present Amendment to the Address?
  MR. SPEAKER: I hardly think the right hon. Gentleman is out of Order. The Address is before the House as well as the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not wonder that the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) desired to burke any reference to the subject of emigration. They were told yesterday that there were persons who were most desirous of perpetuating the sources of agitation, and he was afraid the hon. Gentleman had shown that he was not altogether to be excluded from that category. He would
  1664
  not say more on the subject of emigration. He had said enough, he hoped, to convince the Government that they would not be justified in any longer declining to avail themselves of the invaluable opportunities which had been presented to them. And if he might, in conclusion, offer one word of advice to some of the Irish Members associated with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, it would be this, that those who could not conscientiously approve of the remedies to which he had referred, should remember that there was one remedy for the state of affairs in Ireland which had not been mentioned during this debate, and which, indeed, had never been mentioned seriously by any person in the House. A demand might most reasonably and fairly be made upon the English Parliament to redress that grossest of all the acts of injustice which England had been guilty of towards Ireland—namely, the stamping out of the Native Irish manufacturing industries by the then British Parliament. It had always occurred to him that the destruction of the manufacturing industries in Ireland was a great wrong and injury, which Parliament might be very fairly called upon to repair. He might be asked how he proposed to redress that great injustice? Why, Ireland at the present moment possessed within its limits the means of acclimatizing the most valuable manufacturing industries; and he need not remind the House that the water-power and other agencies there pre-eminently fitted the country for some of the most important manufacturing industries. If he were asked how he would enable such industries to be called into existence, he would at once say that he himself would not approach the subject in any way handicapped by any prepossessions in favour of a one-sided commercial system—a system which, he might say, in passing, had been scouted throughout the length and breadth of every country in the world except this, and which was rapidly losing the great bulk of its believers, even within the comparatively limited area covered by these Isles. He ventured to say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, instead of robbing Peter for the purpose of adding temporarily to the contents of the pockets of Paul, were to propose some means whereby capital could be directed to Ireland, and order could be preserved

  1665
  until that capital could obtain a footing in that country, he would be conferring upon the Sister Isle what he had never done yet, and what he (Mr. J. Lowther) feared the right hon. Gentleman was never likely to succeed in doing—namely, some permanent good. He should suggest the establishment of manufacturing industries under a system of State aid by means of bounties. ["Oh, oh!"] He reminded the House that without some assistance from the State—and he could not conceive any other way in which State assistance could be given—without such assistance it was absolutely impossible for manufacturing industries to be established at the present time in Ireland. Agriculture was the sole industry of Ireland, and it would do no permanent good to take a portion of the available agricultural capital from one man's pocket and put it in another man's pocket. He would not re-argue the question whether such legislation as the various Land Acts was a wise step or not—he would content himself with simply pointing out that it would not succeed in bringing fresh capital and fresh wealth into Ireland. By a judicious development of the resources of Ireland, and by a prudent encouragement of the manufacturing industries, some permanent good towards the promotion of the prosperity of that country would be secured. So long, however, as Free Trade doctrinaire opinions were paramount in the English Parliament he warned those who wished to obtain an increase of Ireland's wealth and prosperty—prosperity not merely in a political sense—that they would never succeed in attaining their ends. He thanked the House for its kindness in allowing him to make those observations; and, in conclusion, he would only say that while he did not intend to take any part in the Division upon the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork—he could not see he should do any good by so doing—he must enter his most emphatic protest against the unaccountable levity with which the subject of Ireland had been treated in Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech from the Throne.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, so much new matter had been introduced in the discussion that he begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Colonel Nolan.)
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped that the House would not agree to the Motion now that the debate had very nearly reached its close. The full expectation of the House had been that the debate would terminate to-night, and that they would be able to take the Report of the Address to-morrow evening. Unless that were done, the three first weeks of the Session would have passed before the preliminary proceeding of voting the Address had been concluded. That, he thought, was a state of facts which showed that if the House was really in earnest in the desire to confront the important legislative Business it had to transact, and which had been commended to it from the Throne and by many independent Members of the House, it was necessary some limit should be placed upon the debate—not that he wished to stop discussion, but he meant some limit in point of days. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would continue the debate this evening until it should reach its natural close. He remembered well the words in which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork first referred to his own Amendment. When, on the first night of the Session, the Government were appealed to to allow the proceedings to close at 10 o'clock, and not to force on any debate prematurely, they at once acceded to the appeal; and the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Parnell) assured them that though he and his hon. Friends were anxious for a full and fair opportunity of discussing the matter of his Amendment it was in no obstructive spirit that the Amendment was proposed. The hon. Gentleman gave the House reason to believe that the discussion would be confined within reasonable limits. He (Mr. Gladstone) hoped hon. Gentlemen would act in the spirit of those expectations which they justified the House in entertaining. He thought the House would feel that they had a day's work before them to-morrow on the Report of the Address, and that if at the close of the third week they completed their preliminary proceedings there was no indication of haste.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he should support the Motion for the adjournment of

  1667
  the debate. Seeing that he was refused on two different occasions during the Recess an opportunity of addressing his constituents, and seeing that the reasons which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had given for suppressing the meetings he (Mr. Biggar) had hoped to address were of a most incorrect nature, he desired to state the real facts of the case at a reasonable hour of the night. It was unreasonable to require him and his hon. Friends, who were peculiarly interested in the recent action of the Irish Executive, to address the House at this time of the night (12.50). He therefore trusted the Government would assent to the proposition of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan).
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was quite correct in saying they were now approaching the end of the third week of the Session; but it must be borne in mind that very little time had been occupied in the discussion of Irish affairs. When the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) moved his Amendment to the Address he rose at an hour not much later than that at which Business was ordinarily commenced; but on the three occasions since then on which they had discussed the large and important questions affecting Ireland they had only had fragments of Sittings at their disposal. Only one full Sitting had been occupied in the consideration of the Amendment now before the House. On the second night of the debate he (Mr. Sexton) was not able to rise to resume the discussion until half-past 9 o'clock, so that on that occasion there were only three hours occupied in the consideration of this question. After that the debate was not resumed until yesterday—there was an interval of nine days—and yesterday they only occupied five hours. To-night the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Molloy) did not rise, owing to certain interruption, until 8 o'clock. They had only had one full Sitting, one Wednesday and two fragments of Sittings; in other words, the whole discussion relating to the policy and government of Ireland had, up to the present time, at the end of the third week of the Session, only occupied time equal to two full Sittings of the House.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he himself had been alluded to in a most pointed manner by some hon. Gentlemen who had spoken to-night, and he was most anxious to have a fitting opportunity of replying to their remarks. It would be useless to give any contradiction at this hour (12.55) to the allegations which had been made, besides which the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. Walker) and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) had failed to answer satisfactorily the different points which had been raised in the course of the debate. He relied upon the fairness of the House to afford him and his hon. Friends an ample opportunity of meeting the personal attacks which had been made upon them.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that, as the Prime Minister had ceased to be Chancellor of the Exchequer, they could not be surprised that he had forgotten his arithmetic. They had not yet arrived at the end of the third week. The end of the third week would be next Monday, and the Prime Minister forgot that in addition to the Vote of Censure which occupied five nights, a day had been devoted to the consideration of one of his hobbies—the Grand Committees. Making allowance for those two interruptions, it could not be said they had spent three weeks in the consideration of Her Majesty's Gracious Speech.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it was, of course, the desire of the Government to get rid of the discussion on the policy of the Government of Ireland as soon as possible, with the object of getting to the Business which awaited the consideration of the House. He, of course, sympathized to a considerable extent with that desire; but he was bound to say that he did not think the conduct of the Government in attempting to close this debate prematurely was calculated to further the particular object in view. A great number of his hon. Friends desired to speak upon this Amendment—many hon. Gentlemen representing Irish constituencies had not spoken yet, while those who had spoken felt very much dissatisfied with the entire absence of any reply on the part of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary (Mr. Trevelyan) to the case which had been presented. Undoubtedly, they would be very strongly tempted, if the debate was closed to-night, to re-open the dis-

  1669
  cussion on Report; whereas if the debate were allowed to follow its natural course they would not feel themselves justified in again going into Irish matters on the Report stage of the Address. He put it to the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether, under the circumstances, he really thought that any time would be practically saved? To-morrow night most likely it would be possible for the Government, after the present debate was closed, to take by the consent of the House, which was usually given under such circumstances, the Report of the Address; but if, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman persisted in closing the present debate to-night, which he had the power to do owing to the large majority at his back, it might be necessary that the Irish Representatives would feel themselves obliged to re-open the question on Report. Looking at the matter from the most disinterested point of view, and feeling with the Prime Minister that it was desirable to get to the important Business which awaited them after the disposal of the Address, he thought it would lead to the economy of the time of the House, and to the furthering of Public Business, if the Government gave an ear to the foreible arguments of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had pointed out that they had only had one whole Sitting and three bits of nights since the Session opened for the discussion of Irish matters.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) says we have only had one day and parts of three days for this debate. Well, considering that we are still in the debate on the Address, it seems to me that that is a very large and a very unusual amount of time to devote to what, after all, is only one part of the Address. If hon. Members will refer to what has occurred in previous years they will see that the debate on the Address seldom used to exceed three days; and to give three days, or one whole day and a portion of three others, to one portion of the Address only, is surely a very ample allowance of time. If all sections of hon. Members occupied part of four days in discussing those parts of the Address in which they are interested, the Address would, practically, exhaust a large part of the Session. Under these
  1670
  circumstances, if there is anything more to be said on the subject which has been before the House to-night I cannot do better than to recommend to the consideration of the Irish Members a couple of lines of their poet Moore, to the effect that—
  "The best of all ways,
  To lengthen our days,"
  is to take it out of the night. I should be inclined to agree with the Irish poet, and would advise hon. Members, if the debate they wish to continue is shortened at the commencement, to lengthen it at the end of the Sitting. That the debate on the Address should finish this week, for the convenience of the House, and the proper transaction of Parliamentary Business, everyone, I think, will admit. I do trust that hon. Members will be disposed to take this view of the matter.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 40; Noes 113: Majority 73.—(Div. List, No. 18.) Question again proposed.
  MR. MAYNE: I beg, Sir, to move that this House do now adjourn.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mayne.)
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had had some experience of Motions for Adjournment and of the small means by which Her Majesty's Ministers endeavoured to save time, and he must say he had observed that there was no method less favourable to their project than an attempt to stifle free discussion in the House. The present Ministry was especially fond of trying to stifle free discussion in and out of the House, but they had hitherto lamentably failed, and he had no doubt that on this occasion they would be no more successful than they had been on former occasions. If the House would agree to the adjournment the debate would be finished at a moderate hour to-morrow evening; but if they did not agree to the adjournment the result would be, as suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, that this question would have to be raised at the next stage of the Address, with the probability of speeches which had been already spoken being repeated. If the proposal made to the Government were agreed to, only a limited number of Members could take part in it. His

  1671
  hon. Friend and Leader (Mr. Parnell) said he had no intention of recommending an Amendment on the next stage of the Address if an opportunity was given to finish this debate to-morrow morning. If, on the other hand, the Government held out firmly, and refused to allow au opportunity for discussing this Irish question to-morrow afternoon, the result would be a debate which would not last only part of one evening, but perhaps the whole of two evenings, on the Report of the Address. He did not by any means hold this out as a threat, but as a possibility, and as his experience of what had taken place on former occasions. There could be no harm in the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister taking into consideration the possible circumstances which might arise if he pursued a course not calculated to conciliate his opponents.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must say I am greatly disappointed at what has occurred—the disposition shown to force a prolongation of this debate, seeing that we have been sitting here for three weeks, but have not yet commenced legislative Business. I have gone over the facts of the case, and I find that not two, but parts of five Sittings have been devoted to Irish Business on the Address, the fifth being that on which the hon. Gentleman the late Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson) drew attention to certain occurrences in Londonderry. That is a scale of discussion which is fatal to the transaction of Business, and to which I wish to record my protest on behalf of the large majority of this House. It really should be understood by the country that a small minority of Members—["No, no!"]—yes; that a small minority of Members—not composed of one Party exclusively, I admit, but assisted by some Members of position above the Gangway opposite—are determined to carry on a system under which the proceedings on the Address before the Report are made of themselves to occupy a tenth of the Session. Practically, there is a tax of one-tenth of the Session laid on the overburdened time of the House and deducted from its power. I must say that, after what fell from the hon. Member for the City of Cork on a former occasion, I am extremely surprised, and greatly disappointed, at what he has just said. It is not in our power to bind the House to
  1672
  take the Report of the Address tomorrow evening. He has given us an expectation that what remains to be said in this debate may only occupy a small portion of the evening. I hope—I can only express a hope, for I cannot bind those who are absent at the present moment in respect of the proceedings of to-morrow—that the House, on consideration of the circumstances, will consent to take the Report after the reply to the Address to-morrow evening. It is stated that only a portion of the evening will be occupied with the Address; and with these prospects before us, and depending in some measure upon those not now present, I would propose that the Motion for the adjournment of the House be withdrawn, with a view to assenting to the adjournment of the debate.
  MR. MAYNEsaid, he should be happy to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Debate be now adjourned," put, and agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.
  (Sir Hardinge Giffard, Mr. Gregory, Mr. Hopwood.)
  MIDDLESEX LAND REGISTRY BILL.

    [BILL 91.] COMMITTEE.
    Order for Committee read.
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARD: I beg to move that the House go into Committee on this Bill—that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir Hardinge Giffard.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sorry to be obliged to oppose the Motion. He could not agree to it for the reason—as he had stated on the second reading—that the Government themselves proposed to bring forward a measure on the subject, and they could not allow the Bill of the hon. and learned Gentleman to proceed until the House had had an opportunity of considering that scheme. The question of Land Registry had been carefully inquired into by both Commissioners and a Committee, and it had been decided that the system in

    1673
    existence was injurious, and ought not to be extended. It had been his desire not to block the Bill of his hon. and learned Friend; but it had certainly never been expected that an attempt would be made to proceed with it at such an hour as this. He wished to treat the hon. and learned Gentleman with every courtesy in the matter, and to leave him at liberty to bring his Bill on at any hour, but he trusted that the debate would be now adjourned.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
    SIR HARDINGE GIFFARDsaid, he should be content to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) by putting the Committee stage down for any day he thought proper. What he desired to do now was to get the Speaker out of the Chair on the measure, so that it would not be in anyone's power to block it. When the Bill was last before the House the Attorney General had quelled the discussion by saying he was going to assent to the second reading; and it appeared to him (Sir Hardinge Giffard) that the hon. and learned Gentleman's course to-night was an example of Obstruction which could not do good. The Bill did not come from one side of the House only, for the names of hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial Benches had been on the back of it. It had been brought forward, but abandoned some time ago, because the Attorney General had undertaken to deal with it. He had not dealt with the subject, however, and he now sought to prevent the Speaker leaving the Chair, although the only reason it was desired to get the Bill into Committee was that it might be discussed. If it were discussed, and the Attorney General were able to show that it should not be passed, well and good; but what he (Sir Hardinge Giffard) objected to was that at this hour of the evening (1.20 A.M.), the hon. and learned Gentleman was endeavouring to block the Bill, and giving an example of Obstruction which was much to be deprecated.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FAHRER HERSCHELL)said, his hon. and learned Friend (the Attorney General) could have blocked this Bill any day; but he had not done so because he wished to show more courtesy than that
    1674
    to hon. Gentlemen opposite. Hon. Gentlemen opposite did not seem to believe in the possibility of such a thing as courtesy, perhaps because that was a commodity of which they did not possess very much; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir Hardinge Giffard) spoke of this being an example of Obstruction, unless he was very much mistaken the hon. and learned Gentleman had himself displayed Obstruction a short time ago by voting against further proceeding with the debate on the Address. The hon. and learned Gentleman thought it too late to go on with that matter; but now it was, in his opinion, not too late to go on with this important Bill, although he must know that this was no time at which a measure of this kind could be conveniently discussed. What had the hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) asked? He had already stated his objections to this Bill; and the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite must surely have realized that, but for the courtesy shown in not opposing this Bill, it would now have not existed. His hon. and learned Friend had taken a different course. What he stated was that, inasmuch as the Government were themselves intending to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject of this Registry Bill, he would not oppose the second reading; but he could not permit the Bill to go through the further stage until the Government had introduced their Bill, in order that the matter might be considered as a whole; and, surely, when the Government had a Bill dealing with the same subject, it was not unreasonable that they should ask that this Bill should be postponed to a later day. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite urged that the Speaker should be got out of the Chair. Did he, then, wish to bring Members down every night by putting this Bill on the Paper, although he knew that the Government were not prepared to accept the Bill in its present form, and were prepared to deal with it? The Government desired to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman as far as possible by not opposing or blocking this Bill; but he did not think they had received much encouragement to pursue that course.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would not discuss the question of courtesy; but it appeared to him that the

    1675
    hon. and learned Solicitor General had rather forgotten his own character for that commodity, and also that he had failed in a quality for which he was generally remarkable—namely, fairness. He must have known that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not propose to proceed with this Bill further to-night than to secure the stage of Committee. It would be in the recollection of the House that the hon. and learned Attorney General gave them to understand that upon this stage he would be prepared to make a statement to the House with regard to the intentions of the Government respecting this matter, or, at any rate, in connection with the general question of the registration of deeds relating to land. If the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman was not now adopted the hon. and learned Attorney General would not be able to make that statement at this stage, because he had already spoken; and, therefore, in the interest of the House, and to meet the desire of the Attorney General, it would be better that his Motion should be withdrawn, so that the House might get into the stage of Committee, and then be in a position to discuss this most important question, and arrive at some notion of what the Government proposed to do. This was one of the most important questions the Government could take up; but there was no assurance that the Government Bill would be brought forward. The House had had, in past Sessions, some experience of what they might expect of Government promises with regard to matters of this kind. The Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill was brought in, but it was not proceeded with——
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question of Adjournment.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was sorry if he failed to make clear the connection in his own mind between his remarks and the Question of Adjournment. He wanted to show that if this debate was now adjourned the House would probably be deprived, for the rest of the Session, of an opportunity of discussing the subject-matter of this Bill. The Attorney General would not, of course, block this Bill; but the House had no assurance that hon. Members behind him would not do so. He was satisfied that if the debate was now
    1676
    adjourned and the Committee stage was not reached the Bill would not be proceeded with this Session. He was not speaking in favour of the Bill, but he thought it ought to be discussed, because it affected one of the most important questions that could be raised.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he rose with the Attorney General to make the Motion which the hon. and learned Gentleman had made; and if the request of the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) was complied with, he should himself move that the House be adjourned. The Attorney General had given a distinct pledge to introduce a Bill dealing with this subject on the part of the Government. That intention was very important for many reasons, and there were several objections to the Bill now under consideration. He was surprised to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who had proposed this Bill speak of blocking, because there was a distinguished supporter of the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting behind him who for two Sessions had blocked this Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to be unmindful of the history of this Bill, and he hoped the Motion of the Attorney General would be persevered in, and successfully.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, neither the hon. Member who had just spoken, nor the hon. and learned Attorney General, appeared to have been present when the Prime Minister, a short time ago, delivered some remarks upon the legislative enactments of this House. The Prime Minister pointed out, with his usual eloquence and force, that the House had been three weeks at work and had not yet got to legislative Business; and the right hon. Gentleman had not ceased those remarks more than four minutes, when up got the hon. and learned Gentleman on the Treasury Bench beside him, and suggested that the House should not enter on that legislative work which the Prime Minister was so anxious for. If the Prime Minister thought that a question exciting so much interest as the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) on the Address could be discussed with advantage at half past 1, he failed to understand why a measure, undoubtedly of great interest and importance, although it did not in-

    1677
    terest so large a number of Members, could not be discussed. If be might do so, be would point out to the Government that they could not again complain of any bon. Member getting up at 1 o'clock and saying it was too late to enter on the discussion of a Bill. If it was not Obstruction to take the course which the Government bad adopted he failed to see on what occasion there would be Obstruction. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir Henry James): It is a bad Bill.] A bad Bill in the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was a bad Bill in the opinion of the Government; but it was a good Bill in the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend (Sir Hardinge Giffard). In future, whenever hon. Members thought a Bill bad, they would be justified by the precedent set by the Attorney General in getting up at 1 o'clock to oppose the discussion of it.
    MR. MARJORIBANKSsaid, there was absolutely no parallel between the instances put forward by hon. Members opposite and this case. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite brought forward this Bill, and the Attorney General said he agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this subject ought to be dealt with, but in a different manner; and that he was ready to bring forward a Bill on behalf of the Government, and it would be fair that hon. Gentlemen opposite should wait and see what that Bill was He should most heartily support the Motion to adjourn the debate.
    MR. HORACE DAVEYsaid, he hoped the House would agree to the Motion of the Attorney General. He had strong objections to this Bill, and to going into Committee upon it. His objections were not to the mere details of the Bill, but went to the root of the Bill altogether. He was not at all averse to dealing with the question of the Middlesex Registry, but he thought this Bill dealt with it in the wrong way. At this time of the evening, notwithstanding the observations of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), he ventured to say that if the Attorney General withdrew his Motion, the House would still have to discuss the principle of this Bill, whether they went into Committee or not. It was true the Bill had been read a second time, but it was not unusual to discuss
    1678
    the principle of a Bill on the Motion to go into Committee upon it; and if the Attorney General withdrew his Motion he should still be disposed to oppose going into Committee on the Bill at this time of the evening, and he hoped the Motion would be persevered with.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, the worst of the matter was that, in the position in which the House now stood, it was impossible to draw from the Attorney General or the Solicitor General their reasons for objecting to this Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he had given his reasons on Wednesday.
    MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, unfortunately that was the occasion on which the hon. and learned Gentleman had given his consent to the second reading of the Bill. If the Attorney General considered this such a bad Bill, and was supported by such high authorities behind him, he should withdraw his Motion, and take the sense of the House on the Motion to go into Committee on the Bill, so that the real opinion of the House could be obtained. There was a suspicion that the Government objected to the removal of these abuses in order that a cry might be got up in favour of questions of a more Radical kind; and, unfortunately, by the Rules which compelled them to keep to the Motion for Adjournment, hon. Members were forbidden to discuss the merits of the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he thought that the Attorney General bad forgotten that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Sir Hardinge Giffard) bad mentioned a day for proceeding with the Bill in Committee, which would give the Attorney General ample time to bring forward his counter-scheme. He would suggest that the Speaker should now leave the Chair, and then, no doubt, the hon. and learned Gentleman would fix a day for further progress which would give the Attorney General abundant time to bring forward his Bill.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 29: Majority 49.—(Div. List, No. 19.)
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.