Sitting of 26 August 1880

MINUTES.
SuprLY—considered in Committee —CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES — Class III.— LAW AND JUSTICE, Vote 33; Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Corn Returns [277] [House adjourned].
Considered as amended —Third Reading —Savings Banks (No. 1)٭ [273], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE PUBLIC OFFICES IN WESTMINSTER—THE DRAINAGE AND SANITARY CONDITION.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE (for Mr. J. G. TALBOT)asked the First Commissioner of Works and Public Buildings, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the "Builder," to the effect that the drainage of that part of Westminster in which the Public Offices are situate is in an unsatisfactory state;
  88
  and, whether he will cause a searching investigation to be made in the Recess, in order to ascertain the truth of the statement and to remedy any defects which may be discovered?
  MR. ADAM,in reply, said, that the main drainage system of the locality in question was entirely under the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the Government had nothing to do with it.

  LAW AND JUSTICE—THE COURT OF BANKRUPTCY—THE REGISTRAR.
  MR. GREGORYasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether it is intended to fill up the office of Registrar in Bankruptcy which has recently become vacant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, the death of Mr. Spring-Rice had caused no vacancy in the office of Registrar in Bankruptcy, he having retired on a pension since March, 1879. By the Bankruptcy Act of 1869 the number of Registrarships in Bankruptcy was to be reduced to four. That was the number of the existing Registrars, and, consequently, there was no vacancy to be filled up.

  THE MAGISTRACY—NOMINATION OF SHERIFFS—MR.LARNACH.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Mr. Donald Larnach of Brambletye, Sussex, having been pricked to serve as High Sheriff for Sussex, did not excuse himself from so doing on the ground of important business in Australia, preventing his serving the office in the year 1880 and 1881; whether he did not offer to pay the sum of £500 if excused; and, whether he has ever paid such fine, or has since his statement proceeded to Australia?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the list of Sheriffs for this year was settled under the late Government, and was pricked by Her Majesty on February 26. Mr. Larnach was not pricked as Sheriff for Sussex. That gentleman's name had been first on the list; but he applied to be excused from serving during this year on the ground of ill-health, his application being supported by a medical certificate. His excuse was allowed, and his name was placed second on the list. Since the Sheriffs were pricked for this year Mr. Larnach has made a fresh

  89
  application to be excused from serving next year also, on the ground that he has been recommended to proceed to Australia in October, in order that he may pass the winter in a warmer climate. This application will be considered in November, when the Lords of the Council meet to nominate the Sheriff's for the ensuing year. In these circumstances, it is unnecessary to say that there has been no question of a fine of £500.

  ENDOWED INSTITUTIONS (SCOTLAND) ACT.
  MR. ANDERSON (for Mr. C. S. PARKER)asked the Vice President of the Council, If he can inform the House whether Her Majesty in Council will be advised to continue in force the powers of the Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act beyond the thirty-first day of December 1880; and, whether the Education Endowments (Scotland) Bill will be reintroduced next Session at such a time as not to expose it to the risk of being again withdrawn without discussion in this House?
  MR. MIDDLETONasked the Vice President of the Council, If the Government is prepared to recommend Her Majesty in Council to extend the powers of the Commissioners under "The Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act, 1878," until the 31st day of July 1881, as permitted under the Act?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, under the Endowed Institutions (Scotland) Act of 1878, neither the Commissioners nor the Secretary of State have power to institute any reforms except such as are proposed by the Governing Bodies. For that reason, it has not been thought desirable to extend the sittings of the Commissioners beyond the 31st of December of the present year. Power will be taken by Order in Council to extend the application of the Act to all schemes which may have been reported on by the Commissioners during the present year, or which may be legalized by the Secretary of State after being laid before Parliament for approval. In answer to the second part of the first Question, I am authorized to say that it is with much regret the Government found itself compelled to abandon the Educational Endowments (Scotland) Bill this Session; and although they are unwilling at this
  90
  moment to give a pledge as to the measure of next Session, they feel that a debt is owing to the Scotch Members as to the special measures affecting Scotland, and that, with this view, they will, in the consideration of the Business of next Session, endeavour to give this measure an early place.

  THE MAGISTRACY—COMMISSION OF THE PEACE—ROCHESTER.
  MR. ROGER LEIGHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is true that Her Majesty's Government contemplate an increase in the Commission of the Peace of the City of Rochester; whether it is true that there is at present no vacancy in the number of eighteen Magistrates which has existed for many years, and that the Bench has reported that no increase is necessary; and, whether all the additional Justices will be of Liberal politics?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the appointments to the borough magistracy are vested in the Lord Chancellor, and not in the Home Department, and I am in no way responsible for these appointments. However, I have inquired into such of the facts as seem to be material; and I am informed that four new Justices were appointed by the Lord Chancellor on the 19th of August pursuant to an unanimous Petition of the Town Council of Rochester. The Bench previously consisted of 15 magistrates, one of whom was incapable from age. It is true, I believe, that the Bench reported against the increase of the Bench of Magistrates, desiring to keep the monopoly to themselves—a consideration which the Lord Chancellor was not bound to bear in view. As to the political opinions of the gentlemen in question, as I have never had the honour of canvassing Rochester, I have no knowledge of them.

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACT, 1871—TRAMWAYS.
  MR. WHITWORTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether that Board have laid a Case before the Law Officers of the Crown as to whether Tramways do or do not come within the scope of "The Regulation of Railways Act, 1871,"(34 and 35 Vic. c. 78) which says, in section 2, that the term Railway

  91
  in this Act means the whole or any part of a Railway or Tramway; and, if so, whether there is any objection to lay that Case and Opinion upon the Table of the House?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, the Board of Trade have laid the case referred to before the Law Officers of the Crown; but the information is a privileged communication, and I am informed it is contrary to practice to produce it.

  AFFGHANISTAN (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—GANDAHAE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, at the time orders to advance were given to General Burrows, the Government of India had received information of the force in men and guns under the command of Ayoub Khan; whether the Government of India was at that time aware that the only force that could reinforce the garrison of Candahar, viz., that of General Phayre, could not undertake the march to Candahar, a distance of about 150 miles, without a month's previous preparation; and, whether any Papers can be laid upon the Table on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the information as to the approximate force under Ayoub Khan was communicated by Mr. Thompson, from Teheran, to the Governor General of India. No despatches have as yet been received in relation to the events which have occurred in the neighbourhood of Candahar; and we have in our possession up to the present time nothing but extremely meagre telegrams, the purport of which has already been communicated to Parliament. In the absence of these despatches, and of further information, it is impossible for me to state what was the exact state of the knowledge of the Indian Government at the time the orders were issued to General Burrows to advance. All that I do know is that the despatch of reinforcements to General Phayre was interrupted by the breaking of the railway at Sibi; and it was impossible, from the disturbed state of the country and the rising of the Tribes, for General Phayre to advance until he was in a position to do so in strength. No information has been received today from Candahar.
  Subsequently,
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in view of the telegram which has appeared in the "Western Morning News," to the effect that Ayoub Khan has been largely reinforced, and that General Roberts is being greatly impeded on his forward march, the Government still adhere to their intention of withdrawing the British troops from Northern Afghanistan?
  MR. ONSLOWinquired, Whether the noble Lord or the Viceroy of India have any idea as to the number of the forces with which Ayoub Khan is besieging Candahar; whether they have heard that he might be reinforced and, whether it is intended to reinforce General Phayre, now proceeding to Candahar?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, he had already intimated that the Government had received no news confirming the telegram referred to. The retirement of the forces from Northern Afghanistan was in progress, and he believed there was no reason to alter the determination which had initiated that course. Almost all the information from India had been laid before the House, or communicated to the public Press—all the information, at any rate, which the Government thought it would be of advantage to the Public Service to communicate. He had, therefore, nothing to add to what had been stated by the Government as to their knowledge of Ayoub Khan's forces, or as to the steps taken to reinforce the garrison of Candahar.

  REPORT OF THE ROYAL COMMISSION OF THE PATRIOTIC FUND.
  EARL PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he has yet had time to read the Report of the Royal Commission of the Patriotic Fund; and whether he has come to the conclusion that any steps should be taken as to the management of the Fund?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the noble and gallant Lord, I have to state that when the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron de Worms) asked me, some days ago, a Question about the last Report of the Patriotic Fund Commissioners, it had only just been received, and I had not read it; but I undertook to do so at

  93
  once, and, if necessary, to consult my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty as to any steps which should be taken in the matter. I have since had time to peruse the Report carefully, and it is not satisfactory. I have, in consequence, conferred with Lord North-brook, and we have addressed to the Royal Commission a letter, which we have requested may be sent to each Commissioner, and to which we have asked for a reply informing us what remedy the Commissioners will apply to the unsatisfactory state of things which we have pointed out. It will not be possible for me to make any further statement, or to lay any Papers on the Table, during the present Session.

  BRIDGES (IRELAND)—THE CUNNIGAR BRIDGE.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he can state when the Board of Works will send an engineer to make an estimate of the cost of the Cunnigar Bridge and Causeway, the public utility of which has been so strongly urged in the Report of the Fishery Inspector in the recent inquiry at Dungarvan?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, as the work referred to by the hon. Member appeared to be of a nature to be undertaken under the Act of 9 Vict. c. 3, the Treasury referred the case to the Fishery Piers Committee appointed to select the objects on which the Parliamentary grants might be best expended. The Committee, however, have lately answered that they do not feel justified in appropriating any of the funds at their disposal to the work in question. As there are no other funds that can be applied to the work, I can only suggest that possibly the work might be presented for by the extraordinary baronial sessions, if it lies in a district for which such sessions have been convened by the Lord Lieutenant.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT — HIGHER EDUCATION (WALES)—THE DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, having regard to the fact that South Wales is fully represented in the Departmental Committee appointed to in-
  94
  quire into the state of higher education in Wales, and North Wales is wholly unrepresented, he will add to that Committee one or more Members having special knowledge of the educational requirements of North Wales?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, in reply to my hon. and learned Friend, I beg to assure him that the gentlemen selected to serve on this Committee were chosen solely for their knowledge of, and fitness to deal with, the question of higher education in Wales. Five out of six are natives of the Principality, and Professor Rhys has a special acquaintance with the educational requirements of North Wales, he having been for several years Inspector of Schools in that locality. After full consideration of all the circumstances of the case, we are of opinion that it is desirable to adhere to the Committee as it stands.

  AUDIT OF PUBLIC ACCOUNTS—CIVIL EXPENDITURE.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If, during the Recess, the Treasury will issue a Minute directing accounting officers of civil expenditure to attend to all requisitions of the Comptroller and Auditor General, so to state the account of their respective disbursements that all moneys spent be so detailed that Parliament may see the specific purposes to which grants have been applied; also that all lump sums voted by Parliament without details shall be explained by accounting officers in so clear and distinct a manner as will show the purposes for which used, and the individuals to whom paid; also, that where sums have been voted for one purpose, but used wholly or in part for other purposes, be also stated, in such detail as will expose the various payments?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, I am not aware of the requisitions of the Comptroller and Auditor General to which my hon. and gallant Friend alludes. I doubt whether it is desirable to increase the size of the volumes now presented to Parliament. The Comptroller and Auditor General, as the officer of Parliament, satisfies himself that money has been disbursed consistently with the intentions of Parliament, and he has the power of reporting variations, and of calling attention to any case in

  95
  which he may consider that sufficient information has not been furnished to him. The Reports of the Comptroller and Auditor General, and any recommendations or suggestions which he may make, are, as my hon. and gallant Friend is well aware, referred annually to the Committee of Public Accounts, and are carefully considered by them.

  THE DIPLOMATIC SERVICE—SIR AUSTEN HENRY LAYARD.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Secretary of State for India, For what further period Her Majesty's Government propose to continue to Sir Austen Layard the full salary of Ambassador to the Porte, now that he has been relieved from the duties and expenses of the office; and, should the main object be to exhaust the time necessary to qualify him for a pension, whether the course that is being followed is not repugnant to the spirit of the statute regulating such pensions?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir Austen Henry Layard is entitled, under the regulations of the Diplomatic Service, to an accumulated leave of 120 days, which will expire on the 11th of October. The question of his future position will then come under the consideration of my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. The object in view is not to expend the time necessary to enable Sir Austen Henry Layard to qualify for a pension, which, I believe, would not be attained for some considerable period.

  TRADE UNION ACTS, 1871–6.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether his attention has been called to the report in the "Times," of July 16th, of the case of Duke v. Littleboy, an action brought by a trade union against one of its branches, seeking to restrain the defendants from dividing among the members the funds of the society; and, whether, as this decision tends to nullify the Trade Union Acts of 1871–76, and to revive the notion that contracts by and with such societies were in restraint of trade and therefore unlawful, and not to be enforced in courts of Law, he will consider the propriety of amending the Acts by further legislation?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, his attention had not been called to this case, except by the Question of his hon. Friend. He had referred to the Report, and, as far as he could gather, it did not nullify the Trade Union Acts, but was in accordance with them. He was not aware that the Government intended to make any alteration.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any instructions are issued to the Irish Constabulary directing them, under what circumstances, and at whose command, they shall fire upon the people or use the bayonet; and, if so, whether he will lay such instructions upon the Table of the House?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the only instructions which have been issued to the Constabulary as to firing or using the bayonet have been already presented to the House. If the hon. Member will refer to Parliamentary Paper No. 388, of 1869, he will find a copy of them there.

  AFGHANISTAN — ABDUR RAHMAN KHAN—THE FORTIFICATIONS, &c. AT SHERPUR.
  MR. GIBSON (for Mr. E. STANHOPE)asked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the forts and fortifications erected at Sherpur by General Roberts have been demolished, or whether they have been handed over intact to Abdur Rahman; and, whether any guns or rifles have been given to him; and, if so, of what description? He also asked the noble Lord a Question with reference to a statement which had appeared in the "Western Morning News."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I received a telegram some time ago from the Viceroy, stating that General Stewart had determined to leave the forts and fortifications erected round Cabul and not to destroy them when Cabul was occupied by Abdur Rahman Khan. A certain number of guns have been handed over to him. They consist of smooth-bore iron guns and some breech-loading field guns, of Afghan manufacture. No rifles or small arms

  97
  have been made over to Abdurrahman Khan. I have received private Notice from the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) of the Question which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has just put to me. I have just seen the report in reference to the statement in The Western Morning News; but we have received from India no confirmation whatever of the statement contained in that report.

  IRELAND —THE ROYAL CONSTABULARY AND THE DUNMANWAY LAND LEAGUE MEETING.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Times" of the 25th instant, which states—
  "The police on Sunday, at the meeting of the Dunmanway Land League, stationed themselves at the door of the meeting house, and took down the names of the members who attended;"
  whether such a proceeding forms part of the duties of the police; whether the Government will state by whom this course has been ordered; and, whether the Government intends to put a stop to it?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member's Question was only put on the Paper last night; but he has also given me private Notice of it. I could not, however, give him the information he asks for without sending to Ireland for it, and I have sent for it accordingly.

  COURT OF RAILWAY COMMISSIONERS.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in the preparation of any measure for giving increased powers or duties to the Railway Commissioners, he will consider the expediency of enabling them to deal effectually with proved instances of defective station accommodation?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, that the point referred to in the Question was one of considerable importance, and the attention of the Board of Trade had been directed to it in connection with recent inquiries before the Railway Commissioners, as to which the decision of the Commissioners had been pronounced to be ultra vires by the Court of Law to which the matter was referred. It was not, however, certain that the decision of that Court was to be regarded
  98
  as final, and there was some question whether an appeal might not be taken to a higher tribunal. If, however, it were found that the Railway Commissioners had not the power mentioned in the Question, the matter would then receive his (Mr. Chamberlain's) careful consideration during the Recess.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT —IMPORTATION OF CATTLE PROM THE UNITED STATES.
  MR. GURDONasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether he is able to communicate to the House Mr. Duiguid's Report on the diseased cattle "ex Iona;" and, whether he has received any further communications from America on the subject of cattle disease?
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked, with reference to that important communication from America—he meant the Report of Messrs. Read and Pell—Whether the attention of the Privy Council has been directed to the opinion of these distinguished Commissioners that it was questionable whether Texan fever was contagious; to their statement that there were no traces of pleuro-pneumonia, or of foot-and-mouth disease in the Middle and Western States; and to their recommendation of "some reasonable quarantine?" He wished to know, whether the Privy Council will consider in the Recess the best means of giving effect to the recommendation of "some reasonable quarantine" in place of the existing restrictions?
  MR. MUNDELLA,in reply, said, he should answer the Question of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Gurdon) first. He should be very happy indeed to communicate the Report referred to to the House. He had received further communications with respect to that question, and, among others, one from Mr. Victor Drummond, who was acting, for Sir Edward Thornton, as the Representative of England at Washington. He would read the letter—
  "Rye Beach, Aug. 10.
  "My Lord,—With reference to Questions asked lately in the House of Commons respecting the desired modifications of cattle quarantine regulations, I have the honour to inclose herewith an extract from The Boston Herald, giving a very succinct account of what has been gathered respecting pleuro-pneumonia in this country, and of the remarks made by Dr. Lyman, sent specially by the United States Department of Agriculture to the United Kingdom, to

  99
  examine cattle imported from America reported to be infected with pleuro-pneumonia, and to endeavour to obtain some modifications of the restrictions imposed by England on the importation of cattle. He was, it appears, also instructed to represent to the Privy Council and to persons of influence that cattle embarked at Boston were entirely free from infection, and to show that a modification of restrictions in favour of Boston would work no injury to English herds. On Saturday last, the 7th inst., however, the Agricultural Department at Washington received a letter from Dr. Lyman, declaring that he could ask no more for Boston than for other ports, as he found that three-fourths of the cases of pleuro-pneumonia among cattle landed in England from America came from Western cattle exported from Boston. Thus Dr. Lyman corroborates a danger which Mr. Mundella showed still to exist from the infection of imported American cattle without the present restrictions.
  "I have the honour to be, my Lord, with the highest respect, &c.
  "VICTOR DRUMMOND."
  He also received a telegram yesterday from Mr. Moore, the Inspector at Liverpool, stating that a cargo of cattle landed from Baltimore consisted of 99 animals, and 9 undressed carcases. Twenty-six animals had been thrown overboard on the voyage, and a post-mortem examination of those which had been killed showed the existence of splenic fever in six cases. Indeed, without any wish to alarm the House, this case appeared to him to be much worse than former cases. In this instance prompt measures had been taken to destroy everything connected with the cattle. He was glad to find that the Americans recognized that they were doing right in this country in providing that American cattle at present should be slaughtered on board.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the approaching termination of the Session, he can now name a day when the Addresses for the appointment of the Commissions to inquire into Corrupt Practices will be moved?
  MR. DODDSasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, having regard to the fact that so many Members are desirous of leaving town, he will fix the day for moving Addresses to the Crown for Royal Commissioners to inquire into the alleged corrupt practices in certain Parliamentary Boroughs?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I am afraid I can only give the
  100
  right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) the answer which I have given so often—namely, that it is impossible, until we see our way to the termination of Supply, to make any arrangement as to the day on which we shall propose to move for the Addresses for the appointment of the Commissions to inquire into Corrupt Practices. We still hope that Supply may be completed on Monday night. If so, my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will, on an early day next week, move for the appointment of these Commissions. In the present state of uncertainty it would be impossible for me to give any more definite answer than this. It may be, perhaps, convenient that I should take this opportunity to mention that I understand it would be very generally for the convenience of the House that we should sit on Saturday at 12 o'clock, for the Committee on the Burials Bill. We shall propose also, if there is time, to proceed with the second reading of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and, if it should be convenient for the House, with any other Government Business on the Paper. To-night I will also just mention the hope that we may be allowed to enter upon Supply without any delay this evening. I observe that there are on the Paper a large number of Notices on going into Committee of Supply, which, of course, hon. Members have a right to move; but, as I stated on Tuesday night, the Business of Supply is assuming really a very urgent character, and as it is probable there will be considerable discussion on the Irish Votes, I trust the House will go into Committee without any unnecessary delay.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I presume it is only intended to take Government Business on Saturday; in fact, that the Sitting is to be given for the purpose of enabling the Government Business to be proceeded with.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Certainly, that is our intention.
  MR. PARNELLasked the Government, before they gave their irrevocable assent, to consider whether they could not pass one solitary Bill for Ireland this year, the Bill of the hon. and learned Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) with reference to the registration of voters in Ireland. The Bill now stood for the stage of

  101
  Report; and he would only urge upon the noble Marquess the propriety of making some exception in favour of a Bill which had the unanimous assent of the House in all its stages up to this time, and so permit the Irish Members to return to Ireland and say that they had, at all events, obtained one measure.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he had a Notice on the Paper with reference to the Navy; but, in compliance with the appeal of the noble Marquess, he did not intend to proceed with it. He proposed to take it to-morrow, when he understood there would be Supply put down for the Evening Sitting.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the noble Marquess to give an undertaking that the House should not sit beyond 6 o'clock on Saturday.
  MR. J. COWENhoped that, before the Session terminated, a statement would be made respecting Eastern Affairs, and that there would be a discussion on the subject. He would like to know from the noble Marquess when that statement would be made; and, whether it would be convenient to take the discussion on the Appropriation Bill, or in any other form?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), I think, if a debate on foreign affairs is desired, it will probably be most convenient to raise the discussion on the Appropriation Bill. In reply to the hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Walter B. Barttelot), I think it would be very inconvenient if I were to lay down any hard-and-fast rule as to the hour at which we shall rise on Saturday. I think, also, it would not be conducive to the despatch of Business if it was understood that we are to rise at 6 o'clock on Saturday night. I wish very much that I could respond to the appeal of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). The Bill he refers to has met with considerable support from all parts of the House; but on the next page of the Notice Paper I see a great many Amendments to it, and I do not think it would be fair to the House generally, when we ask the House to give way for the convenience of the Government, that we should make an exception in favour of a Bill brought in by a private Member. If the hon. Member could induce some of those hon. Members who have Notices of Amend-
  102
  ment down to the Bill to withdraw them, perhaps the House might not be indisposed to agree to his request.

  IRELAND—THE CONSTABLE AND GATEKEEPER OF THE PHOENIX PARK.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will, before the Vote for Public Buildings (Ireland) is taken, furnish a Return showing the appointments made during the last six years to the posts of Park Constable and Park Gatekeeper in the Phoenix Park, and the names and religious persuasion of each man so appointed?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will allow me to reply to his Question. I have every reason to hope that the Vote for Public Buildings (Ireland) will be taken this evening; and there will, consequently, be no possibility of furnishing any Return with respect to the appointments referred to by the hon. Member. As, however, the religious persuasion is not taken into consideration in making these appointments, there would be no means of obtaining the information suggested in the Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—RIOTS AT DUNGANNON.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Is it true that Mr. Whelan, R.M. has reported that Sub-Inspector Webb, now stationed at Dungannon, is totally inefficient; and, if so, whether he intends to act on this representation by superseding him; and, whether he has yet instructed the police authorities to arrest the publican, Simpson, who was sworn by John M'Cann to have fired the shot which killed O'Rorke?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In reference to the first part of the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that I am not aware, nor ever heard, of Mr. Whelan's Report relative to Sub-Inspector Webb. When I was in Dublin last week I saw Mr. Ryan, the resident magistrate, who had the direction of the police at Dungannon; and he informed me that, in his opinion, Sub-Inspector Webb exercised great forbearance and judgment during the riots, and showed great courage. With respect to the second

  103
  part of the Question, I must refer the hon. Member to my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, as it does not come within the province of the Chief Secretary.
  THE ATTORNET GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): With respect to the hon. Member's further Question, I may say that I have called on the Sessional Crown Solicitor to give me a full Report of the proceedings with respect to the Dungannon riots, and to state what steps have been taken against the rioters. When I receive his Report I shall be able to give the hon. Member the information he asks.

  THE CENSUS BILL.
  MR. J. G. HUBBARDasked, Whether the Government could fix a day for the Census Bill, which was one of those measures which must be passed this Session?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that he hoped the Bill might be taken on Saturday. If it could not be taken on that day, then it would come on early next week.
  MR. NEWDEGATEwished to ask the noble Marquess, Whether the House was to meet to-morrow; and, if so, would Business then be proceeded with?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, the Ground Game Bill would be put down for third reading to-morrow at 2, and Supply must necessarily be the first Order to-morrow night.

  THE EXCISE—DISMISSAL OF MR. JAMES WALSH.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If his attention has been called to a leading article in the "Civil Service Gazette," for April 25th, relating to the dismissal of Mr. James Walsh, an officer of Excise; and if it is true, as therein stated, that the inquiry asked for by that officer has been refused him; if it is usual when officers of Excise deny, or offer such explanations as to modify the charges made against them, to dismiss such officers without an independent inquiry by superior and disinterested officials; and, if such an independent inquiry was not held in Mr. Walsh's case, whether he will now grant facilities for holding it?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: I have not seen the article in The Civil Service Gazette; but I have ascertained the facts of the case to which the hon. and learned Member alludes. I find that Mr. Walsh was dismissed in 1878 after several serious offences. His case was fully investigated by his immediate superior officers, and his explanations twice considered by the Board of Inland Revenue. It was also reported to the Treasury, and there appears to be no ground for any further inquiry into the case.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE COLONIES.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, that he had intended to call attention to the present financial position of the Colonies generally, and he believed such a subject would have been of considerable practical importance at the present moment, both as bearing on the finances in India and also the condition of those territories in South Africa which as yet was undetermined. However, he knew at that period of the Session such an important question could not receive the attention it deserved; and after the appeal made by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington) he should not proceed with the subject.

  SCIENCE AND ART—THE NATIONAL GALLERY—ADMISSION OF VISITORS.
  MR. COOPEappealed to those hon. Members who had Notices on the Paper of Business to withdraw them, in order to facilitate Supply. He himself happened to have a Notice with reference to granting the public increased facilities for admission to the National Gallery, and with reference to placing also greater facilities in the way of students. He was not desirous of interposing between the House and Supply, and should not press the matter, if the Government could give him an assurance that they

  105
  would not be likely to let the matter slip during the Recess.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in reply, said, he was glad to be able to give not only the assurance asked for, but something more. Not only would steps be taken hereafter, but steps had already been taken to secure the object of the hon. Member. A slight increase in the cost of the necessary Staff had been sanctioned by the Treasury, and the Gallery would be opened every week in the year. A small fee would be charged to the students, not with any idea of making money out of the admission, but simply to limit the numbers who would go to the Gallery on the students' days.
  MR. COOPEhoped the number of days on which students were admitted would be increased. At present they were only two days per week.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he could not give any undertaking on this point. If fees were to be charged on students' days, and the latter were to be increased, the number of free days would be very seriously limited.

  STATE OF IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLregretted that he was not altogether in a position to accede to the appeal of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) with regard to private Members giving way with their Motions to facilitate the progress of Government Business. That appeal would probably have been accepted by everybody but for a very unforeseen and surprising occurrence which took place on Tuesday, respecting the course the Government announced it to be their intention to pursue; and, under the circumstances of that occurrence, he felt it his duty to ask them for an explanation of their intentions with respect to the policy to be followed towards Ireland, more particularly with reference to the new development of that policy foreshadowed by the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Government had recently been asked by Members of both Houses of Parliament whether, in their opinion, they could, with any safety, prorogue Parliament without first asking that some additional and exceptional powers should be conferred
    106
    upon the Irish Executive for the preservation of peace in that country. The Government had replied that, in their opinion, the state of Ireland did not call for any departure from their original purpose. If, however, the state of Ireland did not improve, and further disturbances and outrages should take place, they would undoubtedly consider it their duty to call Parliament together and submit measures for the preservation of peace. That was the reply he (Lord Randolph Churchill) received to a Question he put to the right hon. Gentleman on Monday last, and practically the same answer was given in the other House to a Question put by Lord Oranmore and Browne; and with it he and others, who were interested in the state of Ireland, had to be satisfied. On Tuesday, however, in reply to the speech of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), the Chief Secretary for Ireland announced a totally different version of the policy previously proclaimed. The right hon. Gentleman reiterated his determination, if occasion should arise, to ask Parliament for additional powers; but accompanied that reiteration with a statement, by way of threat, that if the Government were forced, by the exercise of the rights of property, to ask Parliament for additional powers, any measure for the preservation of peace he might think it necessary to submit would be accompanied by a measure which would relieve them from having to enforce the law as far as those rights of property were concerned. That was a very important announcement; and he thought the House ought to consider in connection with it what was the real cause of the disturbed state of Ireland at the present time, and what was the cause likely to lead the Chief Secretary for Ireland to ask Parliament for additional powers. That cause was the land. The distress had almost entirely passed away, and the only disturbing cause in Ireland at the present time was the land; and it arose, without doubt, from the claims of one class—the landlords—to retain the land, conflicting with the claims of another class—the tenants—to obtain the land. Although the Chief Secretary for Ireland had reluctantly, and against his will, been compelled, after careful and detailed consideration of the circumstances of Ireland —although, after trying the Irish land-

    107
    lords under the most comprehensive indictment, he had been obliged to come to the conclusion that he could not with justice hold the landlords responsible for the disturbances, he, nevertheless, thought proper to add that if he should be compelled, by the recurrence of scenes of violence arising out of the conflicting claims between landlords and their opponents, to come to Parliament for powers to enforce the law, he should accompany his request for those powers with a measure which would deprive landlords of all or some of their rights.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the noble Lord that reference to a past debate of the present Session was irregular.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he had been careful not to quote the exact words of the right hon. Gentleman; but, undoubtedly, the House was given to understand that it was the intention of the Government, in certain circumstances, to accompany any measure for giving the Irish Executive exceptional powers to deal with disturbance with one that would deprive the landlord class of a portion, if not the whole, of the rights which they wished to exercise. He did not wish to contemplate that serious eventuality; but he desired to call the attention of the House to the prospect before them on the eve of the Prorogation. They knew that the landlords in Ireland, during the coming autumn and winter, would continue to exercise their just and lawful rights with the justice and moderation which the right hon. Gentleman admitted, against his will, had hitherto characterized them; but they also knew that those rights would be resisted more violently than ever by the people, who had been officially informed, if he (Lord Randolph Churchill) rightly understood the words of the right hon. Gentleman, that if their resistance should lead to sufficient violence and disturbance the Chief Secretary would accompany a demand for powers to repress that violence and disturbance with a measure which would enrich the promoters of disorder with a portion of the property belonging to the class against whom they had been so long fighting. In a word, the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman's Irish policy amounted to this. He said to the landlords—"It is perfectly true that by the exercise of your rights you may force
    108
    me to ask Parliament for powers to restrict the natural liberties of the Irish people, and by so doing you will undoubtedly falsify my predictions and discredit my policy; but I warn you that if it becomes necessary for me to do this, you will get, in addition, something which you will not like and which you will not have bargained for." The tenants were, in effect, promised that, in that case, any measure for the preservation of the peace would be accompanied by another Compensation for Disturbance Bill. This was the natural and only construction which could be put upon the right hon. Gentleman's words and upon the policy of the Government; and it was proved to be the right construction from the fact that the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), in frank and candid language, on being made acquainted with this new policy of the Government, declared that he was in a measure satisfied.
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Lord is again transgressing. He has no right to quote the language of the hon. Member for Tipperary.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,apologizing, said, it was difficult altogether to avoid referring to what had been said on former occasions. The House, however, would see, from facts which must be in the recollection of hon. Members, that the construction he had placed upon the words of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was the right one. He had no doubt that the object of the right hon. Gentleman—namely, that of smoothing the way for the Irish Votes —had been gained. But if the hon. Member for Cork City and his Colleagues were conciliated by the new policy which had been foreshadowed by the Government, what, he asked, was the position of other hon. Members who felt that if the hon. Member for Cork City took such a favourable view of this new policy that he intended not to offer the Government any protracted opposition, the intentions of Her Majesty's Ministers must, of necessity, be violently opposed to those principles which were successfully maintained in the debates on the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill? The reason why he had brought this matter before the House was that, all through the Session, the policy of the Government on Irish questions had been to use one kind of lan-

    109
    guage to the Home Rule Party; and then, by implication or ambiguous expressions, to convey to other hon. Members that the language used to that Party did not bear the construction that would be naturally put upon it, and that, consequently, no one need be alarmed. This course, whether the English Members or the Irish Members were being deceived as to the intentions of the Government, could not be satisfactory; and he did not think the Government could complain if hon. Members were disinclined to turn to the consideration of Supply for the Crown in Ireland, without first calling upon Her Majesty's Ministers to say frankly and clearly how far they intended to go in the direction of concession to the Party of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It was of the utmost importance that the Government should make a clear declaration on the subject, in order that it might be seen whether that was really their policy or not. One of the gravest charges brought against the late Government was that they had kept Parliament in the dark as to their intentions; and he thought the present Government were running the risk of making themselves liable to the same accusation. They knew that the right hon. Gentleman wanted to treat the disturbances in Ulster by appealing to the magistracy; but what they wanted to know was, how long the state of Ireland was to continue disturbed, and the law to be violated, and the enforcement of the law to be defied? How many landlords, he asked, or agents were to be shot; how many sheriffs' officers and bailiffs were to be successfully resisted by the people; how many head of cattle and flocks of sheep were to be mutilated, before Ireland should be in that condition which would lead the Chief Secretary for Ireland to the conclusion that the ordinary law was insufficient to cope with the emergency? The right hon. Gentleman kept saying—"We are determined to enforce the law and maintain it," when all the time the law was not being enforced, nor order being maintained. He would give the House a practical proof of the state of Ireland as compared with its state some years ago. When the Zulu War broke out, the demand for troops was so great that the Military Forces in Ireland were reduced to 10,000 men. Such was the
    110
    state of things two years ago. Now there were 21,000 effective troops in Ireland, while the Constabulary was recruited up to its full strength. Yet, if a war chanced to break out to-morrow, or things were to go wrong in Afghanistan, he challenged the Chief Secretary for Ireland to say whether he would be able to reduce the military force in Ireland by a single man. Such was the condition of the country. The fact was the Government were attempting to do in Ireland, by means of military display, what they ought to be doing by Acts of Parliament, and they were endeavouring to impress on the minds of the Irish people that their country was verging on a state of martial law. That statement could be proved by a reference to the speeches of the Chief Secretary for Ireland—not, indeed, by those made in reply to Conservative Members; for when they endeavoured to impress upon the Government that the state of distress in Ireland was so bad that a grant for its relief ought to be made from the Imperial Treasury, they were told that they exaggerated, and when they referred to paragraphs in the newspapers describing the very serious condition of affairs, the answer was that they were unnecessarily frightened. But when the Chief Secretary for Ireland came to reply to the hon. Member for Cork City, or the hon. Member for Tipperary, he had no hesitation in enumerating a series of the most frightful outrages— enough to make one's blood run cold— to show that the Irish Government were scarcely in a position to protect life and property as matters stood. Now, he wanted to know—and he thought they had aright to ask—what,when the time arrived at which even the Government would think it necessary to take some extra step to vindicate the law, would be the nature of those measures which the right hon. Gentleman foreshadowed the other night? Was he going to re-introduce the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, or some measure of a still larger kind? Was the measure to be a temporary one, or one of a permanent character? Would it apply to all Ireland, or only parts of it? The right hon. Gentleman, a few evenings ago, made a pathetic appeal to hon. Members from Ireland to have confidence in the Government, to give them a year or six months to see whether

    111
    their reasonable desires could not be complied with. But he (Lord Randolph Churchill) and his Friends did not repose implicit confidence in the Government. It was a new fashion, he might add, although it appeared not to be out of Order, seeing that the Speaker had not called it in question, to apply the epithets "wicked and cowardly" in that House to the speech of a Member delivered outside it. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) could not himself see the wisdom or propriety of that course. It appeared to him that if the Chief Secretary for Ireland was justified in the use of those words, he ought to be justified in taking steps to obviate the mischief which might arise from the speech to which they related, and to prevent similar speeches from being delivered in future. If the epithets were in Order, and were properly applied to the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), he knew of other speeches to which similar epithets might with equal justice be applied. It would apply, among others, to a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), in which he told the Irish people that Irish questions would be dealt with by the Liberal Party with more desperate determination than hitherto. Those words, he had no hesitation in saying, conveyed more to the Irish ear than anything which had been said by the hon. Member for Tipperary; and the same observation applied to the celebrated Mid Lothian speech, in which the explosion at Clerkenwell Prison, and the events which occurred at Manchester, were spoken of as having brought the Irish Church and Land Questions within the range of practical politics. But if the use of the word "wicked" was allowable as applied to such speeches as that of the hon. Member for Tipperary, then he must say that of all the speeches he had ever listened to or read that made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself on Tuesday night was the most wicked and cowardly. It was an incendiary speech, delivered by a Minister of the Crown, and it was of that speech that he now asked for an explanation before the House went into Committee of Supply.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not be tempted or provoked by the remarks of the noble Lord opposite (Lord
    112
    Randolph Churchill) to make any reply whatever to his personal attack. If the noble Lord and those who agreed with him really held the sentiments to which he gave expression at the end of his speech, he was content to leave them to do so. Until the noble Lord came to the close of his observations, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was quite in the dark as to the object which he had in view. He hoped, however, that the House would not, on the present occasion, allow itself to be dragged into a great Irish debate, for there was Business before it which was likely to lead to considerable discussion. The noble Lord might have made his remarks about the hon. Member for Tipperary on Monday evening and the rest of his speech last evening. The noble Lord wished for an explanation of a speech which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had made on Tuesday evening, and he did not know whether he would be quite in Order in complying with the request; but he felt obliged, to some extent to do so. [Cries of "No, no !"] He would only do it to this extent— that he was quite content to rest on what he then said. He desired neither to add to, nor to take anything from, the speech which the noble Lord had brought before the House; and he would further say he had had the satisfaction of seeing that that speech was fairly reported in most of the organs of public opinion. The noble Lord said he heard it; but if so, he either paid no attention to it, or, he (Mr. W. E. Forster) was sorry to say, must have intentionally misrepresented it.
    EARL PERCYrose to Order. He wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in charging another Member of the House with having intentionally misrepresented him?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought the noble Lord would have done well to have risen at the end of his noble Friend's speech.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLrose to Order. He wished to know if the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in referring to him (Lord Randolph Churchill) as he had done, when he merely repeated the right hon. Gentleman's words. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman, whether he was in Order or not, that he was completely mistaken if he supposed that he had any intention of misrepresenting him.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in that case, the noble Lord had omitted a very important sentence in the speech of his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) to which he had objected, and of which he asked for an explanation. What he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said was that, in looking forward to the possibility, certainly not the probability—for he most earnestly hoped and believed the Government would not be driven to the necessity—of having to ask for further measures to preserve the peace in Ireland, if, at the same time, they found, what they did not expect to find, that the landlords in Ireland were, to a great extent, making use of their powers—
    MR. ONSLOWrose to Order. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had been informed that it was not in Order to make quotations from the speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on Tuesday; and he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman was in Order in quoting from the same speech?
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Rule was that no quotations could be made from speeches in the current Session, and could only be allowed by permission of the House. The statement made by the right hon. Gentleman had been impugned by the noble Lord; and the House was aware that it was usual, when a Member rose in such circumstances to make a personal explanation, to extend to him considerable indulgence.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it was not quite in accordance with the hon. Member's (Mr. Onslow's) usual courtesy to allow a man to be attacked and not to allow him to defend himself. He thought the hon. Gentleman must be somewhat excited in the matter, otherwise he would scarcely wish the House to depart from its usual practice, which was that a charge should not be made by a Member on a fellow Member, and that the latter should be prevented from replying. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) should be very short in what he had to say. The words he wished to repeat, when he was interrupted, and what he had said on Tuesday was, if the landlords were to any great extent making use of their powers so as to force the Government to support them "in the exercise of injustice;" but those words, which made a material difference in the sentence referred to, the noble Lord had altogether left out. What he
    114
    had stated was simply that the Government, if they found, as they did not expect to find, that the landlords were making use of their legal powers for the purpose of injustice, and, at the same time, they found that in order to carry out the law it was necessary to ask for still greater powers than existed at present, they would not ask for such additional powers without asking, at the same time, for safeguards against the injustice. If the noble Lord, even at the present period of the Session, thought that the Government ought to apply for greater powers, it was his duty to bring the matter by a definite Resolution before the House.
    MR. GIBSONdesired to offer a few remarks in reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The other evening he (Mr. Gibson) spoke immediately after the right hon. Gentleman, and he believed—and he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman himself would readily admit—that he had not then used any words to which the right hon. Gentleman could take exception. On that occasion he had, unfortunately, not heard the whole of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, and he then understood the right hon. Gentleman to have spoken not ungenerously and not unreasonably of the Irish landlords. When, however, he came the next morning to read quietly' and calmly the sentences of the right hon. Gentleman which he had not heard the previous night, but to which his attention had been called by some hon. Members, he regretted extremely that those sentences should have been uttered by the right hon. Gentleman; not that he thought for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman intended by those sentences to convey the meaning which might possibly be put upon them by an excited Irish people. Not only were those sentences unfortunate, but they were uncalled for; because the right hon. Gentleman, in the earlier part of his speech, had in reasonable, moderate, and not ungenerous language, paid a tribute to the conduct of the Irish landlords by stating that, as far as he knew, they were not at present abusing their position, and had not given occasion for the outrages that had recently occurred in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman said, in the first place, that he must honestly say, as far as he was able to learn, that the danger to be guarded

    115
    against was not caused by the action of the landlords; in the second place, that the cases which had been brought before him were not those in which the individual landlords had been to blame; in the third place, that for many of the things to which he had referred the landlords were not to blame. These were the three tributes which the right hon. Gentleman had paid to the conduct of the Irish landlords, and which he (Mr. Gibson) himself had thought were not unreasonable and were not ungenerous. In these circumstances, he thought it unfortunate that the right hon. Gentleman should have gratuitously and unnecessarily suggested the possibility that these blameless and trustworthy landlords might, in the course of the next few months, conduct themselves so unjustly and so tyrannically that it would be necessary, in bringing in a Peace Preservation Bill, to accompany it with a Bill dealing with civil rights. He was satisfied that nothing could be further from the right hon. Gentleman's intention than to intend a meaning so injurious as that by the language he had used; but they had to deal, not with the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman attached to his language, but with that which would be put upon ambiguous and suggestive words when they were read by the Irish population. Therefore it was that he understood that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), in making the observations he had done upon the language of the right hon. Gentleman, intended to give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of giving some explanation of the meaning he attached to his words, and to state that meaning in a clear and precise way, so as to preclude any injurious interpretation being placed upon his language. He (Mr. Gibson) had listened to-night with regret to the words of the right, hon. Gentleman, which he was afraid had not made his meaning more satisfactory or less unfortunate, because they were the practical adoption, without qualification, of the words he had used on Tuesday. Indeed, the words which the right hon. Gentleman now used went beyond those he had used on the former occasion; because he now stated that the Government would not be justified in asking for increased powers without, at the same time, taking safeguards against the landlords.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERremarked that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that he had stated that he should only ask for such safeguards against the landlords in case there was reason to believe that they were abusing their powers.
    MR. GIBSON,speaking for himself in the utmost sincerity, was satisfied in his own mind that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend his words to bear the injurious meaning of which they were susceptible; but he regretted to say that they were susceptible of that injurious meaning. Did not what the right hon. Gentleman said amount, in plain English, to this—that no Peace Preservation Act was to be introduced unconnected with another measure dealing with civil rights? They were dealing, not with the meaning attached to his words by the right hon. Gentleman, but with that which would be attached to them by a keen and intelligent population. The right hon. Gentleman had said on Tuesday that if the Government found that the landlords of Ireland were, to any great extent, making use of their powers so as to force the Government to support them in the exercise of injustice, a Peace Preservation Bill would be accompanied by a Bill releasing the Government from the obligation of supporting them in such injustice. Was that the real meaning which the right hon. Gentleman intended to attach to his statement? What would be thought if a responsible Minister of the Crown, after stating that it was his unfortunate and painful duty, after having satisfied himself that it was the only way to maintain law and order in Ireland, to ask Parliament to pass a Peace Preservation Act, were to say that, having arrived at that supreme decision after adequate deliberation, the Government would be unwilling to exercise their essential function unless Parliament would also give its assent to a Bill dealing with civil rights?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that he had said nothing of the kind. What he did say was, that if the Government had reason to believe that the landlords were making use of their powers for the purpose of injustice, then it might be necessary to bring in a Bill dealing with civil rights, in order to have a safeguard against the abuse of them.
    MR. GIBSONwished to know what the right hon. Gentleman meant by the word "injustice?" If the landlords were to commit a crime, or were to break the law, they would be amenable to justice. Therefore, what the right hon. Gentleman must mean was, that if he found that the landlords were legally enforcing their legal rights in a way that did not commend itself to him and to the Government, he would bring in a Bill dealing with civil rights. If that was his meaning, his statement was a very dangerous, a very mischievous, and a very misleading one to go forth in Ireland. It was hard enough to get respect for the law and its administration in Ireland at present; but when a responsible Minister of the Crown spoke of the enforcement by legal means of legal rights in that country as injustice that difficulty would be largely increased The mode of speaking of the right hon. Gentleman was one to be deprecated. Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that there was a justice superior to the justice of the law? Was the right hon. Gentleman prepared to draw a distinction between the justice administered by the Queen's Courts and that which might be laid down by some irresponsible person at an agitation meeting, and who might incite people to revile, repudiate, and resist the law of the land? How was that distinction to be taken? Some action of the Irish landlords might be just and reasonable. Who was to discriminate between the decisions in favour of landlords that might be upheld, and those which were to be cast aside into the category of those that were to be stigmatized as open to the charge of injustice and tyranny? Were the decisions of the Queen's Courts in Ireland to be submitted to the review of the Irish Executive, or what was the meaning which might be gathered or derived from these unfortunate, ambiguous, and loose words in the two sentences of the right hon. Gentleman the other evening? The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had no difficulty in saying that they held out a distinct premium to disturbance and agitation; and he suggested that it might be worth while to take the pill for the sake of the gilding. Irish landlords in the past had been forbearing; and he (Mr. Gibson) hoped equally with the right hon. Gentleman that, in future, they would be just as forbearing, and
    118
    that they would not allow any angry words that were used in that House or elsewhere, or anything else, to turn them from their line of charity and forbearance, as far as was consistent with the support of their families and the discharge of their necessary obligations. He hoped sincerely that no Peace Preservation Act would be necessary. He ventured to say every loyal subject of the Queen, whether he was English or Irish, hoped the very same thing; but if, unfortunately, it should become necessary to pass a Peace Preservation Act, the Government were bound to make up their minds on that question by considering what was necessary to maintain law and order. There were no conceivable circumstances which could justify an Executive Government, once they had deliberately made up their minds that law and order could not be maintained without a Peace Preservation Act, in suggesting in the same breath that that duty would be made dependent on any conditions. The very moment the Executive Government said the performance of that supreme duty would be dependent on conditions, government ceased and anarchy began. If the right hon. Gentleman would read quietly to himself the two sentences referred to he would see that very dangerous meanings might be taken from them.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I rise to Order. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland in Order in alluding to a speech in a past debate of the present Session?
    MR. SPEAKER: No doubt a reference to a past debate of the present Session is out of Order; but I am bound to say that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, having made a personal explanation as to one of his speeches, that speech is now before the House.
    MR. GIBSON: The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "He would go further, and say, under any circumstances, if it was found that injustice and tyranny were largely committed—though he did not believe such would be the case—it would then be their serious duty to consider what their action should be, and he did not think that any man in the House would expect him to remain any longer the instrument of that injustice."— [3 Hansard, cclv. 2023.]
    What was the meaning of the sentence that he had just read? He (Mr. Gibson)

    119
    did not speak of the meaning which the right hon. Gentleman might have had in his mind; but the meaning which might be at once attached to those words by those who would read them in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had already pointed to the possibility of further legislation; but might not the meaning of the sentence he (Mr. Gibson) had just quoted be that if he found —there was not the slightest reason to anticipate it—that the landlords were guilty of what he might think amounted to injustice in the enforcement of legal process, he would withhold the protection of the law in the enforcement of that process?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not entitled to take a solitary quotation from a remark and give that quotation an interpretation different from the English language, and to omit entirely all the other statements in the speech. He was not going to be either annoyed or disturbed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had read the entire sentence in its integrity. It might mean that the Executive Government would not lend its assistance to the enforcement of the law. If that conversation did no other good than to elicit a distinct disclaimer from the right hon. Gentleman that that was his meaning, it would not have been useless. He had understood the right hon. Gentleman to mean that in no circumstances would the enforcement of the processes of the law be omitted without fresh legislation.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, it seemed to him impossible for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to have heard his speech without knowing that what he had then stated over and over again was that it was their duty to carry out the law as it stood.
    MR. GIBSONwas extremely glad that the right hon. Gentleman had made that statement. He was glad to have elicited some explanation of an unfortunate sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech; and he sincerely hoped when next the right hon. Gentleman addressed the House on such a subject as that he would speak in the same moderate way as he did in the earlier part of his speech, and would remember that it was not enough to have clear views in his own mind, but that it was necessary to
    120
    avoid ambiguous and doubtful language, which was open to decidedly mischievous misconceptions, and which might do a great deal of harm, although the right hon. Gentleman himself might never for a moment have anticipated when he used the words that any injurious interpretation could have been put upon them.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that the debate showed the wisdom of the Rules of the House, which provided that speeches in previous debates should not be referred to. They had now for an hour and more been considering critically the language used by his right hon. Friend several nights ago, although the speech in question was made in the presence both of the noble Lord who had introduced this discussion (Lord Randolph Churchill), and also of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Gibson). It was unfortunate that such an irregular course should have been taken; and, being permitted now, he (Mr. Law) did not see how it might not be equally followed on other occasions in regard to any speech which an hon. or right hon. Gentleman might make. And were they thus to call upon hon. Members, perhaps a month or more after they had spoken, to answer for and justify not only what was the natural and plain meaning of their words, but what, by some possible and perverted ingenuity, those words might be interpreted to mean? Such a course might be interesting to some hon. Gentlemen; but at that period of a laborious Session, and that hour of the evening, he thought it was hardly a profitable way of occupying the time of the House. They were engaged in an inquiry whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland was justified in making a statement—not of what he was going to do, but of something which might possibly happen at a future day, but which both he and everybody else believed would not happen. This was the remote and hypothetical contingency which they were asked to set about considering. Well, in the course of the debate referred to statements were made as to the conduct of the landlords of Ireland; and his right hon. Friend, speaking generally of the conduct of landlords in Ireland in terms of praise, said that the cases of actual injustice on their part which had come under his notice were few, and that he had no

    121
    reason to expect they would become so numerous as to drive the Government into any course other than that which they had already determined upon. In answer to some observations of preceding speakers, his right hon. Friend went on to say that if, contrary to his belief and expectations, the conduct of Irish landlords should be such as to effect a great amount of injustice, causing such general discontent and disorder as to require the interposition of the State, he would probably accompany any application to Parliament which he might so be forced to make for measures of coercion with an attempt to curb that injustice. That was to say, in the very improbable event of the action of the landlords driving the people into general lawlessness and crime, so that it would be necessary to apply for coercive powers, the Government being thus, on the one hand, obliged to enforce what it considered, and what the House also would consider a large amount of injustice, would, on the other hand, at the same time, probably ask the House, while strengthening their hands by coercive legislation, to accompany that by some measure to enable the law itself to discriminate between justice and injustice. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) listened to the whole of that statement, and got up afterwards and complimented the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on the moderation of his speech.
    MR. GIBSONexplained that he had stated distinctly that he had not heard those sentences.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)thought it was unfortunate, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not hear those words, that he did not resolve to remain silent and leave those who did hear them to comment upon them. The noble Lord opposite (Lord Randolph Churchill) had heard the words; and if he then thought them objectionable, which he (Mr. Law) ventured to doubt, he should have delivered his attack at the time. If hon. Gentlemen did not listen to the debates going on they should not afterwards contribute towards making other debates. It would have been much more reasonable for the noble Lord to have at once got up and objected, or asked for an explanation, instead of waiting in silence for some days, and then assailing his (Mr.
    122
    Law's) right hon. Friend, because the noble Lord had at last discovered, or thought he had discovered, that the language of his right hon Friend might be misinterpreted by some possible or impossible set of people. It was, however, a curious circumstance that the portion of the speech to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gibson) had, in such strong language, called attention was the part in which the noble Lord saw no harm at all. He ventured, however, to say, with all respect, that when the right hon. and learned Gentleman came coolly to consider the speech of his right hon. Friend, he would admit that it did not bear the interpretation which he had put upon it. But he (Mr. Law) submitted that the House should not continue any longer this speculative and unprofitable discussion. If the course which had been now pursued were to become the rule, he was not sure that even the ordinarily well-considered and measured language of the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself (Mr. Gibson) would always stand the severe ordeal to which that of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been subjected; but it was obvious that there would be no end to the debates of the House, if this irregular course were to be permitted of interminably discussing previous discussions.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he entirely agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) that, as to the general Rule, it was very inconvenient to go back to discussions which had occurred on previous nights. And if, on the present occasion, an exception might fairly be made to that Rule, it arose from the very great importance of not running the risk of any language going out to the public in this country, and still more in Ireland, on which unfortunate misinterpretations might be placed. He thought what was stated to-night would remove a misapprehension which appeared to have been put on the language of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, not only by Members of that House, but by persons out-of-doors and by the organs of public opinion. ["No, no!"] Well, then, in some places. His noble Friend the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) had given an opportunity for the removal of that false impression, and what had

    123
    taken place was his justification for calling attention to the matter, and not leaving the whole of the intentions of the Government in a state of possibly mischievous uncertainty for, perhaps, the whole of the Recess. They had been told, on the high authority of their great national poet, that there was great virtue in an "if," and that "if" was a great peacemaker. It seemed on this occasion to have been the "if" with which the right hon. Gentleman had accompanied what he had said as to the possibility of his having to ask for further powers that had made all the mischief. The right hon. Gentleman said if something or other, which he did not expect would happen, should happen, then something or other would be done. He thought it would have been wiser to have left that unsaid. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman would not shrink from the duty of maintaining law and order in Ireland—the right hon. Gentleman had said several times that was his determination; but he was sorry the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary or desirable to add the words to which exception was taken by his noble Friend. He rejoiced that the right hon. Gentleman had had an opportunity of explaining and disavowing the inference drawn from his statement. If it had been left unexplained or disavowed, the statement might have led to mischief. It was now clearly understood that the right hon. Gentleman did not mean to convey the impression which some persons had received from it. It was also understood that the right hon. Gentleman was determined, on the part of the Government, to maintain law and order in Ireland; and he trusted they should find the Government acting up to their undoubted and primary duty. He (Sir Stafford Northcote) hoped that after what had already been said the matter should drop, and the House be allowed to proceed to Business.
    THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, there was an impression abroad—in which he did not share—that the right hon. Gentleman and some other Members of the Government were ready to unsay one day what they said the day before. He clearly understood the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other night to say that if the landlords, in the exercise of their legal rights, proceeded to wholesale evictions, inflicting what the Government con-
    124
    sidered injustice, then Ministers should appeal to Parliament for powers to prevent that being done. He took that to be an intimation to the landlords not to proceed with evictions—an intimation which he hoped they would dutifully attend to.
    MR. DILLONsaid, for himself, he was not satisfied with the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland the other night, although his Leader, the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) appeared to be; for, after hearing it, he stated that it would probably influence the action of the Irish Members during the remainder of the Session. He differed from his hon. Friend when he used those words.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was clearly out of Order in quoting words from the speech of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. DILLONsaid, he wished to draw particular attention to the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, who said that the meaning to be attached to the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, that if the Government found that the landlords were exercising a considerable quantity of injustice, then the Government probably would apply to the House for some means to protect the tenants from injustice. That was an extraordinary qualification of the statement of the Chief Secretary for Ireland: "a considerable quantity of injustice," and, "probably" some remedy. It rendered the statement of the right hon. Gentleman perfectly valueless. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman was, that if the Government was obliged to ask for extra powers then they would afford protection to the Irish tenants, but not before then.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that was not the statement. The statement was, that if they found the landlords using their power to inflict injustice, then steps would be taken.
    MR. DILLONsaid, from his point of view, that bore out what he said. If the Government was compelled to ask for extra powers, then they would take steps to protect the tenants. What did that come to? Was he to go home to Ireland and tell the tenantry that if they submitted to injustice peacefully they would get no protection; that the condition on which protection would be

    125
    given was that they should bring about disorder? That was the clear inference from the right hon. Gentleman's statement. He found himself in accord with the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) who had called attention to the matter.
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, there still appeared to be some doubt as to the precise meaning of the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and he would appeal to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to set all doubt at rest by the favour of a few words. The House had a right to ask, after the right hon. Gentleman's statement, whether the Government proposals to secure protection for law and order, should further powers be deemed necessary, would be made dependent upon the passing by Parliament of another Compensation for Disturbance Bill?
    MR. GORSTthought some answer ought to be given by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) to the question of his hon. Friend (Mr. Chaplin). He (Mr. Gorst) wished to ask whether the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on Tuesday night was made for the purpose of announcing a new policy in Ireland or not? He desired a definite statement. He would be sorry to attach too much meaning to words uttered from the Treasury Bench. But he spoke more with reference to the effect which those words had produced upon a certain Party in that House than to the words themselves. Why had the Irish Party in that House so suddenly withdrawn from opposition to the Estimates? Why had the right hon. Gentleman thought it necessary to threaten Irish landlords? It could only be for the purpose of conciliating the Irish Party in the House. ["Oh, oh!"] The right hon. Gentleman appeared to be trying to purchase the forbearance of that Party at the price of another Compensation for Disturbance Bill. He had a right to ask the noble Lord if that was the correct interpretation or not. At all events, that was the interpretation put on the speech by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). He thought they were entitled to know whether that interpretation was right or wrong.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I will only say, in reply to the hon. and
    126
    learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst), that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland appears to me to have been almost as much misrepresented by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) as it has been by himself, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson).
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.
  (1.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £564,461, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, for the Constabulary Force in Ireland."
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the newspapers had, of late, been filled with paragraphs with regard to the action that the Irish Party intended to take with reference to the Estimates then before the Committee. All sorts of instructions had been given them by kind individuals, who took upon themselves to instruct that Party in Parliamentary tactics. In all those statements he had found a total misapprehension as to the nature of the opposition to those Estimates and to the question they were then about to discuss. That question was nothing more nor less than this— whether Ireland should or should not be governed as a Constitutional country or by force of arms; and if by the latter, whether that kind of government should be carried on openly and above-board, or by the aid of subterfuge of all kinds. In discussing that question he wished it to be distinctly understood that they were engaged in something far more important than a mere squabble about Estimates. They believed that the police system, which was kept up by the Estimate then before the Committee, ought to be subjected to searching scrutiny and investigation; and, above all, they had to consider the very much larger and broader question, whether or not the people of Ireland were to be kept

  127
  down by force of arms, or be governed in accordance with their desire as a free people. In their discussion of that question, they had the great advantage of having the views of his hon. Friends with regard to it expressed with an eloquence, lucidity, and force, which had not been equalled, by some of the distinguished orators who had adorned the Liberal Party in England. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) in his place because he wished to draw somewhat largely from some speeches, generous, high-minded as well as sagacious, which the right hon. Gentleman had uttered with regard to the real way of governing the Irish people. His first quotation would be from a speech delivered on April 2nd, 1849, because it went to the root of that question. The right hon. Gentleman then said—
  "What have we been doing all the Session? With the exception of the Jewish Oaths Bill and the Navigation Laws, our attention has been solely taken up with Irish matters. From the incessant recurrence of the Irish debate, it would seem that the wrongs and evils endured by the Irish people are incurable, or else that we lack statesmen. I always find that, whoever happens to sit on the other side of the Table, always has some scheme to propose for the regeneration of Ireland…But the treatment of this Irish malady remains ever the same. We have nothing for it still but force and alms. You have an armed force there of 50,000 men to keep the people quiet, and large Votes are annually required to keep the people alive. I presume the government by troops is easy and that the
  'Civil power may snore at ease
  While soldiers fire—to keep the peace!'"
  —[3 Hansard, civ. 166.]
  He remembered another speech, which would ever remain on his memory, for the reason that it was the first speech he had had the pleasure of hearing from the right hon. Gentleman. That was a speech he made about 12 years ago, and that was the first time that he discovered that infinite power dwelt in the voice of a genuine orator, besides the great ability and manly heart of the right hon. Gentleman in dealing with that great national question. The occasion, he had no doubt, dwelt in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman as it did in his own. It was an occasion when there was an interchange of sympathy and good feeling between the Irish people and an English statesman, which, to his mind, afforded the best earnest
  128
  for the further good relations between the two countries. It was on the occasion when an address was presented by the Corporation of Limerick to the right hon. Gentleman. He then spoke of the—
  "Connecting link between the working men of England and the aspirations, wrongs, and claims of a nation that appealed to the same working men of England for redress."
  He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) could not quite agree with that sentiment. He thought that the hopes of Irishmen were more auspicious than those of Englishmen. In a certain degree there was, no doubt, a connecting link; but, at any rate, words of sympathy such as those did far more to bring the two countries together and to make Ireland governable than 100,000 soldiers or police. In the course of that speech the right hon. Gentleman made some remarks which, curiously enough, impressed him so much that, although he had not looked at them since, he found that his memory was almost as accurate as if he had taken the words down at the time. He said—
  "I called the other day upon a gentleman in the City, and he had unrolled before him the map of the Shannon. There were a number of little red circles on the map; and I asked what they meant, and he said that they represented the police stations. I do not know how many there were; but on the banks of the Shannon, as far as the map extended, there were probably 200; and these are police not armed with the truncheon as we are accustomed to see police in England, but they are armed police, which ought not to exist, and ought not to be necessary in any free country."
  The next quotation, which would be the last with which he would trouble the Committee, was from a speech made a little time before, when the country was involved in a great agitation on account of the Irish Church Question. The right hon. Gentleman, alluding, he believed, to a speech made by the present Lord Derby, a few days before at Bristol, said—
  "In that speech this Cabinet Minister spoke vaguely about compensation to tenants. He could hardly believe that they wished to become the possessors of the land without paying for it; that was not a complimentary suggestion. He appealed to them to consider what had taken place during the last Session. They had had nothing but noise and menace, and their only satisfaction was this, which he emphatically declared—namely, that they would not allow the British Empire to be pulled to pieces by any

  129
  such theories. England and Ireland were inseparable now and for ever."
  ["Hear, hear!"] An hon. Member cheers that sentiment of a Tory Cabinet Minister. Perhaps he would listen to what the right hon. Gentleman went on to say.
  "Let me ask you," said the right hon. Gentleman, "to look at some matters of detail, and see how that Cabinet Minister, the son of the Prime Minister, was justified in the statement he made. For three years we have had a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. That means that any man could be taken up and put in prison by a warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, and kept there as long as he thought proper. I do not say that there may not arise an emergency where it may be necessary to suspend the law for the sake of the preservation of peace. But this is a matter of frequent occurrence in Ireland. We have had during the last two years, and for a much longer period as you know, a condition of agricultural insurrection. More than that, there has been, if not open war in some parts of Ireland, at any rate, conspiracy and other secret movements of an apparently reckless character, and, as the result, violent outrages such as this country is a stranger to. You have had, as you know, also great alarms; the chief magistrates of towns and others much occupied, and some places in a state of panic. You have had troops moved from one part of the Kingdom to the other, and armed ships patrolling around the Coast of Ireland, almost as if the Kingdom were in a state of war. Your police, and your soldiers, and even the gallows, brought into an unusual and unhappy activity. The Home Secretary himself admitted that he had become little more of late than a Commissioner of Police, so much was the disturbances brought continually before him. And, more than all this, in Ireland and in Canada—in Ireland to keep the peace, and in Canada to resist threatened invasion from Irishmen in the United States— we are maintaining at least 50,000 armed men, paid for out of the taxes of the United Kingdom."
  It was reported that at that point of the speech, which was delivered to the right hon. Gentleman's constituents at Birmingham, those who were listening cried out "Shame !" The right hon. Gentleman went on to say—
  "What I think I might complain of is this—that the Cabinet Minister of whom I have spoken had no remedy whatever to offer to the people at this great Bristol banquet; all he says is this—that he will not allow the Empire to be pulled in pieces; but I think, that if any man is determined to take that course, he should at least be able to point out upon what principle the Empire can be kept united. Another Member of Parliament, not a general supporter of the Government, but sitting on the Opposition side of the House, making a speech the other day at Sheffield, declared, in the most emphatic manner, that while there was breath in his body and blood in his veins he would oppose the separation of the two countries."
  130
  He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) waited for a cheer again from the hon. Member opposite.
  "Bear in mind that this Gentleman, four or five years ago was the most determined supporter of the slaveholders, that he went so far as to offer himself as an Envoy between the Emperor of the French and the Parliament of England with the object of bringing about the recognition as a distinct State of the slave holding Confederacy."
  The right hon. Gentleman, who was then referring, he believed, to the late Mr. Roebuck, went on to say—
  "There was every kind of slander of the most offensive description uttered by him against the people of the Northern States, who determined that their Republic should not be pulled in pieces; and now he says that as long as there is breath in his body and blood in his veins there shall he no separation between Great Britain and Ireland. I need not tell you that I am not here to-night to argue that question of separation, for it is quite unnecessary; but I will venture to say this—that the Cabinet Ministers who have no remedy to offer but merely passages of a speech of defiance like this, and the parties and supporters of a Government who can speak such passages as I have just quoted, they are not true friends of union, but, in my opinion, they are the promoters of dissatisfaction and separation."
  These were only a few of the quotations he might make from the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman, in which he denounced, in eloquent terms, that maintenance of an enormous police force, which was really a military force in disguise, in order to keep the people down by coercion, while refusing to remedy their grievances. It might be said that, if the right hon. Gentleman had denounced the employment of such a force, still they were necessary, because the Irish people were so unruly, and so addicted to atrocity or outrage, that they could not otherwise be kept quiet. He would appeal to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and also, especially, to the right hon. Gentleman, whose absence they all so deeply regretted—he meant the Prime Minister— as to whether there were not passage after passage in their speeches, in which the vile calumnies against the Irish race were entirely refuted by a force of argument that neither he nor his hon. Friends could command? During the Irish Church debates in the last Liberal Administration, that was the constant cry from the occupants of the Conserva-

  131
  tive Benches. When the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues pointed to the enormous increase in outrage and crime and the number of soldiers and police required, the stock argument on the Conservative side was that that state of things was habitual to the people of that country. The answer of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, replying, he believed, to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman now in the Upper House (Lord Cranbrook), said that such a statement as that amounted to nothing more nor less than, in the words of Burke, "an indictment of the nation." But if that armed police force must be kept up, and they were not required to keep the people down because they were particularly vicious, what argument was there in favour of such a force? The only reason must be that the people were not in sympathy with the laws, because the laws were not just, nor were they suitable to the condition of the country. If that were so, the opposition of the Irish people to the law would be a righteous one. Having abandoned the position that the people were vicious, the alternative explanation for the maintenance of such a force must be admitted. Another objection to that force was, that it was a military force in disguise. If they were going to govern Ireland by force of arms, let it be declared; but let them not take refuge behind the black coats of the police. If it were the case that a military force was required to keep the people down, let that military force wear the red coat. Let not Europe, or even the public opinion of this country —which he believed to be sound on the Irish Question, the unsoundness, where-ever it existed, only arising from ignorance—be deceived as to the facts; but let them see, by the red coats, that it was a force of soldiers alone that could keep the people in a state of obedience. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He had no sympathy with the painful and unjust attack which had recently been made upon the right hon. Gentleman by the Tory Obstructionists, who prevented measures being passed for the improvement of the condition, not only of the Irish, but also of the English people. He would put this point to the right hon. Gentleman. The
  132
  landlords could only carry out the unjust law by sending a large force to support the officers of the law. Would it not enormously strengthen the hands of the right hon. Gentleman in vindicating the cause of humanity and justice if that force, sent to carry out those unjust decrees, were to appear in the red coat of the soldier and not in the black coat of the policeman? Because the public opinion of this country and the whole Liberal Party would then see the full meaning and significance of those terrible evictions carried out by the strong arm of the law. If a bad landlord was going to turn out a helpless tenant, let him do so with the aid of the soldier with his bayonet and rifle beside him. Then the actual meaning would be realized; whereas, at present, people imagined that the policeman was such an one as they were accustomed to see here, whose most deadly weapon was a truncheon, instead of one who was as fully equipped as the soldier who went into battle. They had had a long discussion as to which was the most fatal ammunition with which to shoot down the peasantry, if necessary—buckshot or bullets. There could be no doubt that the force employed to carry out those evictions was as military in its character as that which went into the field to fight against the enemies of the country. He believed that it would assist the right hon. Gentleman to rouse a feeling about the Irish Question in this country if that force were clothed as the regular troops. Another point to which he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman was this. What would be the effect upon the morale of the police themselves? He knew several cases which had come under his notice, where the police had been so shocked at the sight of the misery which confronted them in the execution of their duty, that their consciences smote them, and out of their small wages they had raised a subscription to relieve, in some slight degree, that terrible misery. He was sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were both anxious to govern Ireland according to the highest dictates of political morality. He believed that nothing would shock them more than to know that the effect of their rule in Ireland was to degrade the moral condition of the country. But if they made those

  133
  policemen the unwilling instruments of that unjust law, and agents for carrying out evictions on their sons and brothers, and that class to which they themselves belonged, would it not have the effect of making them bad men and bad Irishmen? He would appeal to Englishmen, if the English law were unjust, would that be carried out at the expense of the degradation of the national character? In their hearts, no doubt, these men rebelled. They would say to themselves—"Is it right for us to be agents of this kind? Are we true men in making ourselves slaves of these unjust evictions? Have we not duties to our country, as Irishmen, as well as to the other classes in the country?" If the men reasoned in that way, would it not have the effect of implanting in their bosoms a hatred to the English law, and of preparing an armed force, which would afford the best material to rise against the laws of the country? He must apologize for detaining the Committee; but he had only one point more to which he wished to direct their attention. During the last few days, they had received intelligence from Russia to the effect that measures were being taken in order to meet a conspiracy which was supposed to be going on. They saw, moreover, from the telegrams, that what was called "the odious Third Section" was about to be abolished. What was that "Third Section?" It was a police force that did the dirty work, similar to that which was done by the Talbots in Ireland some time since. During the French Empire, one of the best epigrams uttered against that most wicked despotism—and when he said that, he expressed the opinion of most men now-a-days—was made by M. Thiers, who said—"Give us freedom of the Press as they have it in Austria." Austria, it was well known over Europe, was a synonym for everything that was despotic. [Mr. WARTON: No, no !] He was afraid that the historical knowledge of his hon. and learned Friend was a little short in that respect. He would change the phrase of M. Thiers to meet the present case, and say—"Give to Ireland the freedom from police espionage that they have in Russia."
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he would ask the right hon. Gentleman how Ireland was to be governed? That was the real question before the Committee. A former Chief Secretary for Ireland, upon
  134
  being once asked how was Ireland governed, replied—"Oh, by Larcombe and the police." The responsible position of Under Secretary was then held by Sir Thomas Larcombe. He did not know who held that responsible position now; but he would like to ask whether the plan of governing Ireland was still the same, and whether, still, Ireland was not to be governed by law, but by "Larcombe and the police?" A slang phrase came from the other side of the House, which they were constantly hearing—namely, that "law and order" must be maintained in Ireland. He would like to ask hon. Gentlemen who used that slang phrase, whether what existed in Ireland, instead of being "law and order," was not really complete disorder? Law was worth being maintained only if it were just law; mere anarchy was often better than certain states of law. They spent a good deal of each Session in pointing out that certain laws were worse than none, and, instead of being established for the purpose of carrying out justice, they enabled one man to be unjust to another. Conservative Governments had never given their attention to the state of the law in Ireland; and he observed then that that—the Opposition—side of the House was most characteristically empty. He would say that not a single Member would stand up and say that at any time during the last 80 years had any one of the laws that should have been abolished been cleared off from the Statute Book by the spontaneous action of that Party; and he would defy any man to say that any law or legislation of any kind passed by that Party during that time had been anything but unsatisfactory. And yet, when the Irish Members called attention to the state of Ireland, nobody was on the Opposition side to listen to them. He thought that was an appropriate occasion to call attention to that matter, when Supplies for the principal implements of what was called "law and order" were being voted. He had already called attention to the empty state of the Conservative Benches; but he observed also that there were not more than a dozen hon. Members on the other side listening to what was being said upon that question. Eighty years ago Ireland, with a population little less than it had now, was in an unsatisfactory state, with the embers of recent

  135
  rebellion still smouldering, and then it took only 11,000 troops to govern it. Those troops were an open military force, and not disguised in invisible green coats, like those employed now to carry out evictions and shoot down the peasantry. They were clad in honest red, very emblematic of the blood they were called upon to shed. In 1802–3, with the country again in actual rebellion, only the same number of about 11,000 troops were required to keep what was called "law and order" in Ireland. The population was then as great as now. Things had gone on pretty much the same ever since; the evils of the system had been clearly pointed out by a much more eloquent voice than his-— namely, that of the right hon. Gentleman to whom the last speaker had alluded. The Government were still willing to recognize the fact that there were very great evils in the system; but nothing was done to remedy them, and so the force now required to be kept up was nearly four times as great as was required to suppress actual insurrection. It had been already pointed out that there were 12,000 police and 22,000 soldiers. That was, 34,000 soldiers, where there were 11,000 in 1802. At last, the Government seemed to feel ashamed of ruling by open, undisguised military force. It was found more convenient to carry on the Government by disguising the bayonet; and, accordingly, the present system of police was established in 1825. He believed that the introduction of that system could not be justified. Up to that time England stood before the world as ruling by brute force, and they then resorted to hypocrisy, and clothed the troops in invisible green, and called them Constabulary. Since that time they had been the most unpopular and the least satisfactory branch of the British Military Establishment in Ireland. The soldier was subject to military discipline; but what was the case with this dark-coated soldier? He was, no doubt, put through military drill; but neither he nor his officers were subject to military discipline. What wonder, every now and then, when they came into collision with excited mobs or crowds, that they did not act with that forbearance, that they did not act with that temper, that they did not show that amenability to discipline which soldiers would show? Upon every one of these
  136
  points they were found deficient, and they were so by virtue of their organization. He repeated, these constables went through drill as soldiers; they were armed as soldiers—they were armed with a more deadly weapon than the red-coated soldier—but they were not subject to military discipline; they were not subject to the Articles of War; and they had officers who did not know how to command or to rule them as a military force was ruled in every civilized country. He did not know whether any hon. Gentleman who did him the honour to listen to him was aware of how wide a difference there was between the police force in Ireland and the police in England. In Ireland they were a centralized force under one common head. Everyone listening to him knew that no such thing existed in England. In this country every borough had command of its own police—it chose them, it paid them, it clothed them, it drilled them, it looked after their discipline; and any Member of that House who was a member of any municipal corporation in England or in Scotland would know that what he said was true. In every case the police in this country and in Scotland were under the direct management, control, and order of the municipal and local authorities. Every man of them was directly amenable to the people, who, through their local authorities, could dismiss them or suspend them, or remove them, or punish them, for every breach of discipline, or for the slightest case of misuse of power. No such thing as that existed in Ireland. The police were not paid by the people, and the people of the particular locality where they were stationed had no more control over them or influence with them than a man in this country had over the soldiers in the nearest garrison. They were raised in different parts of the country, and they were never stationed in the towns where they were recruited, but were sent to a different part of Ireland, lest their little local regard for the people there might influence them and might affect their minds when they were called upon to discharge the disgraceful functions that they had heard of, and might show compassion or mercy. To prevent that, they were sent away to the furthest place possible from where their local connections were. Next, they were governed by a class of officers

  137
  of whom they had already heard, officers to whom the attention of the Chief Secretary had already been called, and as to whom he had promised that he would furnish a Return — a Return, which he hoped the Chief Secretary would consent to show, and which would prove that this practical Government, this far-seeing Government, notwithstanding its opposition in other respects, was content that its force should be comprised of about two-thirds or more Catholics, while it was substantially officered by Protestant gentlemen. The exceptions were so few that, in reality, the mongrel military powers exercised by these officers were almost entirely in the hands of Protestants. That, again, was an entire anomaly. They sometimes saw or heard of disturbances breaking out in the North. When those unfortunate outbursts of feeling, which they knew existed between rival sects, brought about colisions between those sects—collisions which no one regretted more than he did—it was the unfortunate Papists who always got into trouble. Whoever originated the riot or disturbance, they were the only persons who ever were shot down. The right hon. and learned Attorney General, who was paying attention to what he said, would not be able to contradict. He (Dr. Commins) pointed to the reason of that in the simple fact that this police force was officered by Protestants. There could be no doubt whatever that their sympathy was with their own co-religionists. He did not blame them for that, it was only natural that they should make this distinction. But the difference between the police themselves in Ireland and in England was not the only difference affecting that force. Another strange anomaly was to be found in the magistrates who were employed. In England they had local magistrates acquainted with the people; while, in Ireland, the man who administered the law, and who could read the Riot Act over them, was not a local magistrate at all, not a man who was known to the people, not a man who understood their feeling and temper, not a man from whom a word might be sufficient to cool those angry passions. No; the man who let this police loose upon the people was a resident magistrate, as he was called in Ireland, or a stipendiary magistrate, as he would be called in
  138
  England. But why was he called a resident magistrate in Ireland? Because he did not reside among the people. Another most extraordinary thing was the character of the men who got these appointments as resident magistrates. In England, to become a stipendiary magistrate, a man required to have had some practice at the Bar, and to have been a barrister of several years standing. In Ireland, a policeman of some years standing—it need not be seven years—and who had no knowledge of legal matters at all, was promoted from the police to be resident magistrate. He might be without experience; he was sometimes without temper; he certainly had not any knowledge of law; and, in some cases, the man who had been the most domineering and readiest to show his authority when a policeman, was the man who afterwards, as resident magistrate, gave directions to fire to the police, and let them loose on the crowd when there was a row. That was the way in which Ireland was governed; but even that was not all. This police force was under a centralized authority, under a Commissioner in Dublin, who shifted them like pawns upon a chess-board, so that a man in Donegal to-day might be sent to-morrow to Galway. Another anomalous thing was, that the rules by which this force was governed had never been published. They had been asked for time after time; but they had never been made known, He believed one of these rules was that the policemen should form no local connection wherever they were. That was a standing order with them that they should live, in barracks in Ireland. It was also, he understood, a rule that no policeman should go outside of the barrack without carrying his side-arms. He understood also—and the Attorney General could correct him if he was wrong; but he had it on high official authority— that no policeman, whilst on duty, was allowed to have the least communication with a "civilian." That was the word used in the police orders; that was the favourite expression in the police vocabulary. He never heard them use any other. These constables always looked upon the people as civilians, though he did not know what name he could apply to them. They were not the military; perhaps they were "militarians," to use a mongrel expression to suit their character.

  139
  The Irish constables, then, were to hold no intercourse with civilians while they were on duty. He should like to know what any Englishman, in any borough or county, would say, if he found that there was a rule prohibiting him from speaking to a policeman whilst he was on duty? What would Englishmen say if, when they wished to make inquiries from a constable, they found that the man was liable to be reduced or punished for interchanging any civility with him? Again, those policemen were drilled every day in Ireland in the most offensive manner; not in a quiet or unobtrusive manner, but in some place where everybody could see them, and see that they were armed with the most deadly arms of precision, upon the latest principle, and with the most recent improvements. He asked hon. Members, whether any country in the world would, or could, be content with having the administration of the law in the hands of a body such as this? If the law were in accord with the feelings of the people, it would not need this disguised military force, with all its apings of a military power, with all the vices of a military force, without a single one of its virtues, to carry out the administration of that law. It was for these reasons that he called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the constitution of this force, to the condition of it, and to the inherent mischiefs which it must produce. There was one other matter to which he should wish to call attention— namely, the fact that when a crime was committed in Ireland, they always heard that the police were utterly powerless and useless either to protect the persons who suffered from it, or to detect the authors of it. When a crime was committed in Ireland, it was observed that the whole people must be in conspiracy with the persons who committed it and against the police, for they could not detect the criminal, or catch him, or get any information which would enable them to convict him. He would like to point out how the rules of the constables themselves, prohibiting their intercourse with the people, worked against the men in getting information after a crime had been committed. How were they to ascertain who was the criminal, or what had been done, from a number of people with whom they had had no communication? Bearing all these facts in mind,
  140
  he would ask whether they were not justified in calling attention to their effects, and in inquiring of the Government whether it was not time that this pseudo police force, which was in reality a military force, should be superseded by a real police force? It was a question for Her Majesty's Government to decide how this should be done. He, and his hon. Friends, could only point out the objection to the present system. They had not the opportunity, nor the power, nor the machinery that the Government had, and therefore they could not make any change in the law; but, on the other hand, he did not see any objection to what they asked being done at once. Why should they not get rid of this semi-military force, and allow their place to be taken by a police force organized upon a proper principle? He was sure there was not a corporation in Ireland but would be able to relieve the Government of the maintenance of this police force, and would gladly take upon themselves all the management of its share of it, and would willing constitute a borough police force, in order to get rid of this military force, which was useless for the purpose of preventing crime or of protecting the people, but was terribly mischievous whenever the people became excited. He did not know that it was necessary for him to go further in pointing out what they considered the inherent vices of this system. They were vices which could not be cured. The only way to remove them was by improving the force out of existence—turning it into a military force, and allowing it to go for military purposes—and substituting, in its stead, a bond fide police force, which would help to carry out the laws, and would be as popular with the people as the present police force was odius.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it would facilitate discussion if the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was called to some particulars, with regard to the force, about which they must arrive at some understanding. They were told that a very important change had been made in the regulations of the force, and they required to know what the nature of that change was? In regard to all these matters some explanation was necessary. It appeared that buckshot was to be used on some occasions, instead

  141
  of rifle bullets, by the police. In the first place, they would like to know very much who it was that was to have the choice of which particular weapon was to be used, and of determing whether buckshot or ordinary rifle bullets were to be employed? It was a very dangerous thing to give the choice in a matter of that kind to a particular sub-inspector. There was very good evidence given of that in the statement which the right hon. Gentleman had read, and which had been sent him by sub-inspector Webb, who had charge of the military on the day of the Dungannon riot. It was plain that he intended that rifle bullet shot should not be used, but buckshot. Yet the rifles were fired with bullets in them. It was perfectly plain that that occurred from the want of proper orders being given; and he thought they were entitled to know under what circumstances each particular kind of ammunition was to be used. He wanted to know, also, how many men Sub-Inspector Webb ordered to fire; how many fired; and he wanted to know whether the man that died was killed with rifle bullets or buckshot, because that would throw some light on the question? He should like to know, also, how many were wounded, and how they were wounded? There was another matter he should like to bring under the notice of the Chief Secretary who had already told them, in a tone of warning, if not of threat, that he would enforce the law by all the means which the Constitution placed in his power. That meant, that as things at present stood, in case of any collision between the population and the police, the population were to have no choice, and that they were to be fired upon whether by buckshot or rifle bullets. He thought, in the name of humanity, and of justice, and of law, they were entitled to protest against the use of both rifle bullets and buckshot. The object of the police ought to be to scatter mobs and to prevent trouble. They ought to do with as little bloodshed as possible. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) had asked why the police did not first use sand, and next use a smaller quantity of shot, and then buckshot? It was a very dreadful thing to discuss; but this was not a mere matter of sentimentalism. He wanted to know in this matter, however, what
  142
  concessions the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to make? If firearms were used, their object was to disperse the crowds, not to take away life; and, accordingly, the Government should be satisfied with that which best accomplished their object. That, everyone surely knew, would be better accomplished by a charge of small shot, than by using buckshot or bullets. He noticed that a gentleman writing to The Times, who did not at all sympathize with Irish agitation or the Irish people, writing from his professional experience as a military sergeant, related that the small shot used in a discharge would be capable of doing great harm. He protested altogether against the use of either buckshot or rifle bullets by the police. He thought the Irish Members were entitled to protest in the name of humanity and justice against the use of either. It was a mistake, in his opinion, to arm the police with weapons of warfare. Their duty merely was to maintain public order; and if men could not be restrained from violence by anything less than the taking of human life, it was, in his opinion, a crime for the police to take away human life.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the one great objection that the Irish Party took to this Vote was that the force of the police had been increased to a larger number than was necessary for the prevention of crime. He maintained that the Constabulary had been increased for purposes for which that force ought not to be used. Two years ago, the force was much smaller than at present; but it had been increased, and, as he maintained, had been used for purposes of vindictiveness, and men had been sent down to localities, where their presence was not actually necessary, in order to inflict a charge on the district, and thus create a hardship on the inhabitants, most of whom were very poor. He found amongst the Estimates an item of £2,000, in reference to extra police, and he should like to know further as to that particular item. He knew one instance where police had been sent down into a particular locality, and, as a result, that place was charged with £100 for the cost of their maintenance. Another objection to this force was, that Ireland was the only civilized country in which the distinction between the civilian and military force was not well recog-

  143
  nized. He knew no other country where they were blended into one. For this reason, therefore, he thought it was most desirable that this force should be turned into a purely civilian body. Another reason was that it was drawn almost entirely from farmers, the constables being, in almost every case, sons of small tenants; and it did happen, and often had happened, that they had to execute decrees which resulted in the ejectment of the very class from which they themselves had come, with the result that these men were made, in accordance with their orders, to turn against their own flesh and blood—to eject persons who were almost members of their household. Very many of these constables, also, were called upon to discharge military duty, which did not really belong to them. He had heard, more than once, that the officers, when executing the evictions that they had been sent down to carry out, had paid the money out of their own pockets, and had, in that way, endeavoured to satisfy the insatiable landlord. In an Irish publication, which reached his hands this week, it was stated that a force of police, sent to evict a man for £11, started a subscription among themselves, and subscribed £3; the sub-sheriff added some more, and the result was that the man was left in his holding, and the eviction was not carried out. In the second place, he protested that it was cruel to the Irish themselves, to have the force used in this manner against them. The Irish people were used to the constabulary. They were in the habit of seeing the police with their rifles and sword-bayonets upon every occasion when they assembled together in public for any purpose, and they could, of course, scarcely believe that they would resort to extreme measures against them. The people, thus accustomed to see them when their presence was not really needed, were apt to be kept from comprehending that, upon other occasions, they were in danger of the weapons of these police being used. Imagine, for instance, a case where the peace had been broken, and it became necessary for the police to fire. His contention was, that if a military force were to be used, the people would apprehend more quickly the danger they were undergoing, would act with prudence and more judicious-
  144
  ness; whereas, when they were in the presence of a familiar force, whom they could scarcely believe would go to extreme lengths, they often were careless of the results. What usually happened at a meeting? The police, first of all, mixed with the crowd, and endeavoured, by force and by rough and rude measures, to induce them to depart. He did not say that that intention was not good; but he did mean to assert, and he deliberately said it, that those very measures very often made the more extreme course necessary. The police came hastily against many people, they pushed them about, they struck them with their batons, and with the butt end of their rifles, and sometimes with the flat sides of their swords; and the result was that tempers rose on both sides, blows were exchanged, the people became blinded with passion, and, when prudence was most necessary, they were apt to do the very things which brought danger upon them, induced the magistrates to read the Riot Act, and then caused the police to fire. How, again, could these unfortunate creatures know exactly what was being done at that moment? At the best, they were aware that a man was taking out a piece of paper and mumbling out a few sentences, of which they had no knowledge whatever; and then, being in a bad temper, they were fired upon, and many of them were killed and wounded. He maintained that that state of things in Ireland very often would not happen if the police acted judiciously in the preliminary proceedings; and that it would be far better, if deadly measures should absolutely become necessary, that they should be confided to a military force, so that when the preliminary measures were over, and the real danger was begun, the excited people might have some warning, and might know that it was necessary for them to disperse in order to save their lives. These considerations, he thought, were of themselves sufficient to show that the police should not be used for deadly purposes, but the military. But the chief reason why he asked for the dismemberment of this force, and for the substitution of a military force for it, was to be found in the case of the agitation which was now going on. He believed that public opinion was kept in the dark, and that the public intelligence of

  145
  England and Scotland was blinded by the fact that the police were used against the people on occasions when life was to be taken. The public of this country, accustomed to the ordinary and quiet idea of a public meeting, when they read of a riot or a collison between the police and the people, did not comprehend that Ireland, under limited circumstances and a confined area, was in a state of war. He, for his part, wished most thoroughly that the people of England and Scotland could be made to understand what was the real state of affairs in Ireland. If once they clearly understood that, the time would be very nearly passed when any energetic and anxious Minister, such as the Chief Secretary, would have a difficulty in reconciling this conflict of classes; and the time, he should hope, would be very little distant when the police would be lowered to their proper ranks as a police force. He might add that he had himself been present at several large meetings held last year in Ireland on the Land Question; and he declared that it would be difficult to find any where meetings which were conducted with more absolute peace and good order, in a time of the greatest suffering to those who were present. In his opinion, the only element of provocation was the presence of the police with their deadly weapons. He would again repeat the hope that the day was not far distant when the police would become a civil force, and the military would be used to support these measures. Then, and not till then, the public mind of England and Scotland would be awakened to the iniquity of the Irish rule, and to the horrors that were inflicted on the lives and liberties of the Irish people.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member for Galway Borough (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in a speech of great eloquence, with a great deal of which he (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed, had said that Ireland was in such a condition that there were several thousand policeman who might, under circumstances, be used as an armed force, besides many thousands of soldiers. It ought not, however, to be taken for granted that all the soldiers in Ireland were sent out there to keep Ireland down. They must keep their Army somewhere. They had to have soldiers in England and Scotland, and they must be spread over the Three
  146
  Kingdoms. He could not deny, however, that there were more soldiers kept, proportionally, in Ireland than in England and Scotland. But, still, matters were not so bad as they had been. His right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), speaking in 1849, spoke of there being 50,000 soldiers in Ireland. Matters were, therefore, much improved since then, as there were certainly less than 35,000, adding constabulary to soldiers, now. It was a mere truism, of course, to say that this was one of many reasons why, at any expense of time, or of cost, or trouble, Parliament ought not to allow the condition of Ireland to remain as it was. But he felt perfectly certain that, at the present moment, they could not do without the police in Ireland. If they did attempt to dispense with them, there would be great danger both to life and property. Nor could he agree with the observations which had been made that it would be better to replace them by soldiers. He should be in a very anxious state, indeed, if they were obliged to rely on the soldiers for the police of Ireland. It was only fair to the constabulary to say that they performed their difficult duties with great forbearance. They were not so young as the soldiers. They felt, also, that it was their duty not to use force before they could possibly help it; and he was perfectly sure, and he believed he should be supported in that belief by a very large predominance of opinion in Ireland, that they were more likely to have the peace kept, without loss of life and without violence, by the police, than if they relied upon soldiers. There was an exaggerated idea of the extent to which the police were used in Ireland as an armed force. It must be remembered that they did not generally go about armed; but it was only in special cases that that became necessary. He was sorry that there was also a mistaken idea as to the extent to which their weapons had been used. The hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), some days ago, had asked him for a Return of the number of persons killed or wounded during the past year by the firing of the police. He was sorry that, owing to his unexpected absence from town, he was unable to answer the question at the time; and though he came down on Tuesday for the purpose, he

  147
  found, when he arrived, that the Questions were all over. He would, therefore, like now to give that Return, and to read the facts with regard to it. There had been four cases in which the police had fired on the people, and only four. One at Carraroe, in Galway—a case of eviction or of serving processes, he was not quite sure which, but he thought of serving processes—early in the year, before he was responsible for the government of Ireland. No injury was caused by the firing; but it had a deterrent effect. The next case was in County Meath, also in January. There was firing from a house, and the police fired back; but no one was hurt. The other two cases were both of them not agrarian disturbances, but arising out of Party feeling in the North, in consequence of processions. One was at Coal Island, in March last, when two men were wounded, who had since recovered. The other was the recent case at Dungannon. He was glad to say that there had been no loss of life from any agrarian riot, or from putting down any agrarian outbreak. As regarded his own conduct, he must say that he had felt that the only course he could adopt in the interests of humanity was that, if he had, on any occasion, to direct the police to attend where there was likely to be trouble, he was bound to send such an overpowering force as would make resistance practically impossible. Questions had been asked with regard to the sad case at Dungannon. First, with regard to the use of buckshot. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had seemed to suppose that he was unacquainted with what had happened at Lurgan, and had said that the result of the inquiry there ought to be laid before Parliament. He begged to remind him that there was a Parliamentary Paper already published containing the facts, and that Parliamentary Paper contained a very strong argument for the change from rifle bullets to buckshot. The hon. Gentleman could hardly have read through that Paper carefully, and must merely have looked at one page without turning over. He seemed to suppose that the man killed was so close to the firing party, that it could make no difference between buckshot and bullets. That was the case with one man who was killed—a man named Smith—who stood on a heap of stones within 25 yards of the police, and
  148
  was badly wounded in the leg, and died in a few days. But that was not the case to which he alluded. He was speaking of a boy, who was merely looking on at a distance of 150 yards, who was killed, and whose sister, a girl of 13, was wounded, but had since recovered. Had the police had orders to fire with buckshot, and not with rifle bullets, he was quite certain that boy would not have been killed, and he commended that to hon. Members as a fact that they ought to bear in mind. The change had been made to prevent such a sorrowful occurrence, and it was made after very careful consideration, and after consultation with many experts. He should certainly, however, require that the decision should be re-considered; and if there should be reason for reverting to the old practice, he could assure them he would do so. It had been suggested that the police should use snipe shot first; but he did not think that could be carried out. If they had to put down a riot by use of firearms, they must use arms which would strike alarm into the people, and he did not believe that would be the result from the use of snipe shot. Snipe shot struck at a short distance, like a bullet; but, after a short distance, the shot scattered and would merely irritate. The reports proved that the mobs were often very desperate, and a mere peppering of them with snipe shot would only increase the irritation, and would probably result in their being very much more turbulent, and, as a consequence, more dangerous. Firing would have to be used before the outbreak was quelled. In this case of Dungannon, the police were stoned to an extent and in a manner which he believed no soldiers would have stood. The police charged three times with their bayonets, without being able to produce any effect, showing how furious the mob was. The riot could not have been quelled without the use of firearms; and the town would have been at the mercy of the rioters if that order for firing had not been given. It had been said that, generally speaking, the men in the Constabulary were Catholics, while the officers were Protestants; and that was a point on which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) had dwelt very much a day or two ago. His noble Friend and himself

  149
  would think it a great disgrace to them if they, in any way, allowed the slightest sectarian considerations to operate in their minds when they were arranging for the officering of the police; but it must be remembered—and he was sorry that it was so, for it had increased the difficulties of the Government very much—that the Protestants were better educated, and were more generally in possession of property, than the Catholics, and did possess both education and property in a very different proportion to their numbers. There were, of course, strong arguments for the officers of the Constabulary being men of education. If, however, the merits of two men were the same, considering that the large majority of the Irish people were Catholics, he should be inclined to prefer a Catholic to a Protestant. It must be remembered, however, that men could not be appointed as officers simply because they were Catholics. An hon. Member, speaking of the ill-effects of firing upon these processions in the North and at Dungannon, had said how much better it would be that the order for firing should be given by the local magistrate, and not by the resident magistrate. Well, it so happened that the magistrate who gave the order to fire on that occasion, and gave it, as he knew, with the greatest possible reluctance—for he had seen that gentleman a day or two ago—was a Roman Catholic; while, if a local magistrate had given the order, it was almost certain that he would have been a Protestant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that, perhaps, the right hon. Gentleman would inform the Committee how many buckshot went to make up a cartridge?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, from 11 to 13. In his opinion, an inquiry ought to be made as to what happened at Dungannon; and, if necessary, the Report should be made into a Parliamentary Paper. He thought there always ought to be the greatest care exercised in these cases, and that a mob should not be fired upon except when it was absolutely necessary. It was always extremely unpleasant to police officers to have to fire upon a crowd; but when it had to be done it was no good to play at firing, as that would only irritate the mob and prevent the riot being quelled, which must be done effectually. In the Book of Instructions given out to the
  150
  police, it was stated that the police were not to fire unless required to do so by the magistrate or by the sub-coroner; but in ease no magistrate or sub-coroner was present, then the police were not to fire except by the orders of the officer or other person in command. In every case they were to exercise the utmost forbearance, and the officer in command must exercise a humane discretion with regard to the firing. Not a single shot was to be fired by any man except under direct order from his superior officer, whether the sheriff or the magistrate ordered it or not. Further, the Instructions stated that it could not be too strongly impressed upon every member of the force not only to guard against a wanton use of his arms, but to remember the moral and legal responsibility which he incurred by firing upon the people. It was also stated that however justifiable the occasion might be on which the firing took place, as it must result in loss of life it would be an occasion for legal inquiry. It had been said that these Estimates were brought forward by the late Government. That was true, and he might further state that the change from bullets to buckshot was by their orders, though he could not say that he disagreed with them in it. It was very distressing that there were some districts in Ireland in which life was very unsafe, and other districts in which they had to keep up the most constant patrols. Outrages had been committed upon individuals, to say nothing about cruelty to animals, and it was most distressing that such a state of things should exist. No Government, however, could allow such a state of things to pass unchecked, and he did not believe that they could diminish the police force without great danger. There had been so many debates in that House upon the subject of Ireland that he did not think there was any use in entering further into the subject then. What had happened that evening would make him exceedingly careful in future with regard to making any statements respecting Ireland. He had not only to consider how he was understood at the time by hon. Members, but he must also consider how the utmost ingenuity of professional gentlemen could be directed to twisting what he said. If any further questions were put to him, he should be most glad to

  151
  answer them to the utmost of his power. He should be extremely glad if the police force of Ireland could be conducted on the same principles as those of England; personally, nothing would give him so much pleasure as that. But in the present state of things he felt it was impossible.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that he could quite understand that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had a very difficult task before him in dealing with this subject. He could understand also the necessity for his saying nothing which could be misconstrued by the enemies of Ireland, or by those who were not only the enemies of Ireland, but also the enemies of the Liberal Government. He did not rise to ask for any definite pledges from the Government, but for the purpose of asking the Government really to consider this Police Vote from an English, and not from an Irish, point of view. He looked upon this Police Vote as one most capable of continuing the bad relations between the two countries. This £1,250,000 represented some of the equivalent of the taxation upon the Irish people in the shape of an Irish Army Act. The police force of Ireland was formed upon a military basis, and had none of the characteristics which marked the existence of a civil police. A civil police could only exist for the purpose of protecting the law, so long as that law was a just law; but a civil police could not exist for the purpose of doing what an army might be commanded to do—that was, to cause an unjust law to be enforced. If these troops were to be military, as they ought to be considered, then this Vote ought to be borne upon the Army Estimates, and not upon the Civil Service Estimates. If the police of Ireland were a proper civil police, then they would not be year after year discussing this Vote, which was founded upon an unjust principle, and was totally un-English in its character. They required police in Ireland just as they required police in England; but he was convinced that they did not require in Ireland an organization that was a police with all the military paraphernalia and functions of an army. Sterne had said—
  "Disguise thyself as thou wilt,
  Still slavery thou art a bitter draught."
  152
  And the Irish people were made to feel themselves as slaves on every possible occasion by the presence of an alien army. One could not travel anywhere in Ireland, by steamboat or by rail, without having a constable's nose stuck into one's face as if one was a pickpocket. He himself had often felt a very strong inclination to do what an Englishman would do in this country, if a policeman came near him—namely, to tell him to mind his own business and look after the peace. But they could not move anywhere in Ireland without having these ruffians looking after them. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] He must call them ruffians; but to please the hon. and learned Member for Bridport he would call them technical ruffians. From the English police force he had met with courtesy; but if anyone walked through the streets in an Irish town and asked a policeman a question, they could not get a civil answer. If they went by rail, on every platform they found an armed man come and measure them from top to toe. These Irish policemen not only acted as military, but they also acted as spies. The result of this was that these police, organized as an army, provoked throughout Ireland a very bad feeling towards England. Police marched about everywhere by night and by day with arms by their sides. He was very glad to hear, that in the town of Drogheda, there were no armed police, and he would congratulate the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitbread) upon that fact. But, from his own observation, he could say that all the rest of Ireland suffered from what he had mentioned. These police in Ireland acted not only as military, but were also spies over every man's conduct. They were the cause of mistrust, and sowed the seeds of discord between one district and another. They also caused other misfortunes which it would not be delicate on his part even to mention. Therefore, he said to Englishmen, and particularly to hon. Members sitting on the opposite side of the House professing really Liberal principles, that if they were anxious to place Ireland on an equal footing with England, they must remember that the chief thing was to place it on an equal footing with England with regard to the police force. Until they placed the people of Ireland on the same footing as the people of England,

  153
  as they professed themselves anxious to do, with regard to police, they would never give them that respect for law which they desired to see. So long as they made unjust laws, and bad laws, and inimical laws, and enforced them by bayonets, it was impossible for the Irish people to have that respect for the laws which ought to be inherent. So long as unjust, and bad, and inimical laws were enforced by the power of the bayonet and by the power of the musket, the Irish people could never be loyally contented or prosperous. He believed that there were Englishmen on the opposite Benches, who were really anxious that the people of Ireland should live in a state of peace and prosperity; but he would ask them how could they expect the Irish people, who were unusually intelligent and argued every question out, to consider that they were on an equal footing with England when they compared the English police with the police in Ireland? They found the one country had a civil police, and the other a military police; and they could not expect the people of Ireland to think that the law was the same for them as for England, when they found it enforced in Ireland by bayonets and rifles. The law was carried out and observed in England without the use of bayonets or muskets, because the laws of England represented the feelings of the people of England, and was in perfect harmony with the sentiments of the people; but in Ireland it was a law to keep people down and to crush them, and that was signified by the presence of a military force called the police, with which Ireland had been so long afflicted. With reference to the riots which had been mentioned, he would read a few extracts from an English paper stating what had taken place. A correspondent of an English journal said about 50 or 60 police, under the command of a sub-inspector, accompanied the process-server from house to house. At the first house, women surrounded the process-server and tore the process from his hand. The police then charged with their sword bayonets and wounded some of them very severely. He would ask what would be said in England, if the civil police assisted in carrying out the service of a civil process? He remembered, some years ago, that a process was served upon a small tenant in Lancashire, who owed a large amount
  154
  of rent, and who had no title to his holding. The police were sent to assist in serving the process upon him. Because the man had had his holding and land without a title for some years, a large number of people who sympathised with him assembled and attempted to obstruct the civil police in the discharge of their duty. That man shot at and wounded one of the police, and he was tried in an English Court of Justice for the offence. An English jury, however, acquitted the man on the ground of mitigating circumstances; and, on the acquittal, there was a general rejoicing, because the people thought that the enforcement of the law in his case was unjust. The correspondent of the English journal to which he had alluded went on to say that, at the next place, when the police attempted to serve the process, women again interfered, and the police charged the people, and again wounded them. If this had been in England, the police would not have charged a mob of women and children with bayonets, but would simply have drawn their staffs and interfered. But, in Ireland, the police, headed by the sub-inspector, rushed into the midst of these women, and used their swords indiscriminately upon them. He thought that this showed every honest-minded Englishmen that the manner in which laws were carried out in Ireland was more after the manner in which they were enforced in Bulgaria under the rule of the Turk. When a law had to be carried out by the military upon women, they might depend upon it that that law was unjust. What they asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to consider was, not an alteration in the Votes, but an alteration of the system upon which those Votes were founded. They did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to issue an order, tomorrow, to disband the force of 11,000 constables. They asked him to say that the Liberal Government governed England, and to say that the Constabulary should be placed upon an equal footing with the police in England. If that was done, they would take away one of the greatest grievances of the Irish people. They would tell them that they were not in future to be governed by bayonet and musket, but were to be governed as Englishmen were governed. He would read a short extract from a speech of

  155
  the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) delivered some time ago upon the state of Ireland. He said that— The first thing that called his attention to the state of Ireland was reading an account of one of these outrages. He thought of it, and the truth struck him at once; and it seemed to him that the evil arose from the fact that there was so little land in Ireland upon which the people were allowed to live, and that they were scrambling for existence, and being driven back from a state of law and civilization to barbarism. The people of Ireland, he said, believed that it was only by these acts of vengeance, periodically committed, that they could hold in suspense the arm of the proprietor and the agent. The war by the landlords against the people of Ireland was carried on by the Irish Constabulary. If the Government wished the people of Ireland really to respect and revere the law, they could do nothing more calculated to bring about this end than by establishing a civil police, instead of continuing a barbaric force in the shape of an army called a police. The question of the Irish police was not merely of political and social importance. It required also to be considered in its financial aspect, which was of the highest moment in the case of a poor country like Ireland. By the present system both England and Ireland were taxed, because, in a constitutional state of things, part of the taxation raised in Ireland would go to the Imperial Exchequer; whereas it had to go back again. Now, the police, who were scattered throughout Ireland in such numbers, were an unproductive population. The Committee should also remember the incubus which was furnished by the pension list. Ireland had to pay annually £19,799; and since the pension list had been established, they had paid the sum of £2,000,000. If they looked through that pension list, they would find that there was one person who had received as much as £3,278 since he retired, 11 years ago, through ill-health. Another person had received £5,120, who had retired 14 years ago through the same cause. But there was one man who had retired through ill-health, 20 years ago, and he received the colossal sum of £30,000. That was a person called Sir Duncan Macgregor. If the
  156
  Committee looked through this pension list, they would see a great many good Scotch names amongst it. He did not blame the Government for putting foreign masters over them; but they ought to do their best to give Ireland peace and justice. He would not say anything with reference to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, who had told them that soldiers were spread over the counties of Ireland. If he thought fit to make a garrison out of Ireland, he could only say that he was afraid he was not travelling in that Liberal path which was said to lead to civilization and progress. When he sent to a country, that had been misgoverned so long, the emblems of a foreign rule, he was not conciliating the people, but was only maintaining injustice, and retarding wealth and expansion. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary simply to study this question of the police in Ireland, as he or any other Englishman would study this question in England. If he did so, he would find that, although it was the duty of the Irish Members to criticize and oppose these Estimates now, and probably next year also, to the utmost of their power and capacity, still, if they received pledges that the Vote should be altered and placed upon a basis of Liberalism and real justice, they would one day, if not in that House, in some other House, cheerfully agree to the expenditure of money intended to preserve law and order in Ireland.
  MR. FOLEYsaid, that when the public of England had before them a report of that night's debate, they would be struck with some surprise that a good portion of the time of the House had been spent in discussing the relative merits of buckshot, snipe shot, or rifle bullets, as the most deadly weapon to use against a people who had just been rescued from the very jaws of famine. He was convinced that, if the matter rested with some of the hon. Members of the present Government, they could soon find a better solution for the difficult position in which the country was placed. He thought that they ought to have an assurance that measures would be passed which would render the assistance of the police or the military on various public occasions unnecessary. There were three occasions on which military

  157
  forces were habitually employed. They were used on the occasions of party processions. He thought that the civil police force of a country was the first body that should be employed, and that the military should not be called out unless actual riot occurred. The second occasion on which the police were now employed was that of attending public meetings. It was an unhappy thing that Irish Members could not address their constituents, except in the presence of an armed force, detailed for the duty, and of policemen reporting every word that they said. He thought that such a practice as that ought, under no circumstances, to be resorted to. The third occasion on which the police were now used was in the execution of the ordinary processes of the law. In England the processes of the law were effected nearly always without the aid of the police, and always without the aid of the military. He did not think the police force of Ireland ought to be placed upon a different footing from that of England. In the case of the Rebecca Riots in Wales, he had never heard of the military being called out; but the rural police were considered quite sufficient to protect the peace of the country. Another instance was that of a lady who called herself the Countess of Derwent water, who, with about 50 men, made a raid upon the property of Greenwich Hospital, and remained in possession of that property for a fortnight. In that case, it was not thought that there was any necessity for calling out the military. In the first case, which might be termed periodical riots, the military might be, perhaps, more effectual in quelling such disturbances than the police. The object which the Irish Members had was to force upon English opinion a recognition of the difference which existed between the system of employing the police in England and that which prevailed in Ireland. With that purpose they opposed the Estimates, and they hoped to be able to show that it was necessary to make immediate alterations in the course pursued.
  MR. BARRYsaid, that he fully agreed with the sentiment expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, when he remarked that he hoped the day would come when the police system of Ireland would be organized on the same basis as that of England. He would
  158
  venture to tell the right hon. Gentleman that he would live to see the happy consummation come to pass when an Irish Parliament was re-opened upon College Green. It would be generally admitted that the system of military police in Ireland was one of the chief results of English rule. By the operation of the present police system amongst the people of Ireland, instead of producing a feeling of security and confidence, just the opposite result was produced. The police were regarded by the people in Ireland not as a civil organization for the protection of property, but a purely military body whose business it was to coerce and keep down the people. How strangely the English county police contrasted with the Irish Constabulary. In any English village of 200 or 300 inhabitants, they would find two or three constables moving amongst the people, with no other arms in their hands than truncheons. But in a corresponding village in Ireland, they would find a force of 10 or 12 or 15 policemen living in barracks. The barracks were prepared for offensive and defensive purposes, and its inmates were furnished with arms of deadly precision. Instead of the feeling of confidence and security experienced in the English village, there was, in the Irish village, a sense of insecurity. They had in England, behind the police, that moral force which sprung from thorough and perfect agreement with the mass of the people; whereas, in Ireland, they had the very opposite feeling. The people of Ireland regarded the police as a standing menace against their liberty. And could it be wondered at, that the Irish people should have this feeling about the police, when that impression had taken hold of the Irishman? They formed a body of picked men, the flower of the country, living in barracks, armed with arms of precision, dressed in military clothes; and could it be a matter of surprise that the Irish people failed to see that such a semi-military body was a civil police? The officers were taken almost entirely from the ranks of the Army, and the men were put through almost all military evolutions. Could it, therefore, be a matter of surprise that the Irish people failed to regard such a body as the Constabulary was intended for the maintenance of their lives and property?

  159
  He had been very much struck with the extraordinary kind of duty imposed on the Irish Constabulary. He had seen manœuvres executed by them, like preparing to receive cavalry and throwing up entrenchments, as if Ireland was filled with Dick Turpins and Claude Duvals. He had frequently witnessed large numbers of them practising long-range firing, as if it could be necessary to deal with a pickpocket at 1,000 yards. He thought it was but a poor consolation for the Irish people, at a critical period like the present, to find that the only proposal of the Government with regard to the practice was to clear up some slight misunderstanding as to the particular kind of ammunition to be supplied. If it was deemed necessary to maintain their rule in Ireland by a strong military force, by all means let the Government send a force of Cavalry, Infantry, and Artillery; but he did not think it right to turn away from its legitimate object a purely civil body. He could not help being driven to the conclusion that, in view of the proposals made this Session on Irish affairs by Her Majesty's Government, the Irish Members would be justified in offering the most determined and lasting opposition to the Constabulary Estimates. The only Bill for the benefit of Ireland which appeared in the Queen's Speech—namely, the Franchise Bill— had been allowed to drop entirely; and he did not see that Her Majesty's Government were entitled to a very great degree of consideration from the Irish on that account with respect to the present Estimates. The feeling in Ireland, with reference to this military police force, was extremely strong; and, looking at the possible number of evictions and the possible trouble the Irish people would be in during the coming winter, it was desirable to have some express statement from the Government that the arms of precision placed in the hands of the Constabulary would not be used in the course of the coming winter in the same way as they had been. He joined his hon. Friend the Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) in pressing upon the Government the desirability of dealing with the Irish police system as soon as possible, and placing it on a civil basis.
  MR. WHITWORTHsaid, a finer and more respectable body of men was never known than the Irish Constabulary,
  160
  whom the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) had described as a parcel of ruffians. There was nothing ruffianly in the Irish Constabulary, who, though they might be unpopular with persons who broke the law, had made them selve very popular with those who wished to behave themselves and maintain it. The hon. Member for Ennis said he could not go to Ireland without being dogged by policemen; but he (Mr. Whitworth) had travelled there more than the hon. Member, having known Ireland before the hon. Member was born, and had never seen anything in the conduct of the Constabulary that could give offence to anybody. It was true they maintained the law; but he had never heard one word stated either against the force itself, or against an individual member of it. He denied, therefore, that the character which had been given to the force that evening was correct.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he protested against the Irish people being saddled with this charge in a Civil Estimate, for the purpose of throwing dust in the eyes of the English people, and leading them to the belief that the Irish Constabulary was really a civil force and not a standing army in disguise, always to menace the liberties, and occasionally to assail the lives of the Irish people. And as there was already a large Army in Ireland, and it had lately been increased by fresh troops, and this force was, in his opinion, large enough to protect his unfortunate country from either foreign or domestic enemies, he saw no reason why the public money should be voted for the maintenance and equipment of a second army, which the Government would disguise under the name of a police. It was true that this second army of Constabulary discharged the duties of a police; but the people of Ireland were of opinion that they should be compelled to confine themselves altogether to those duties. That they did not do so, would be evident to anyone who looked through the newspapers of the last three or four months; for the accounts published from time to time of the manœuvres of the Royal Irish Constabulary, read more like a record of the manœuvres of the British Army in Afghanistan, than of the doings of the posse comitatus in an Irish county. It was well known that, in former years, the feudal landowners

  161
  had the privilege of waging private wars; but they had themselves to arm and pay the troops raised for the purpose. Of this privilege they had long ago been deprived in every other country in Europe; but the landlords in Ireland had now the right of waging war against the peasantry, who were called upon to pay for the troops and ammunition which the Government supplied. It appeared, however, that some change was about to be made, and that buckshot was to be substituted for bullets; and this change was to be introduced, so they were told, in the interests of humanity. It seemed that bullets had a trick of killing innocent people; but it was expected that this benevolent buckshot, as his hon. Friend had termed it, would be more nicely discriminating, and search out and punish the guilty only. A bullet, they were told, would pass through and kill three men; a discharge of buckshot would kill one man dead, fatally wound three, and probably seriously wound 20 or 30 others; and so law and order would, in this way, be vindicated in accordance with justice and humanity. It appeared to him strange that the Government had not considered this question of buckshot before, seeing that bullets had been so long in use. Was this to be accounted for on the ground that collisions between the police and the people had hitherto been infrequent, and that it was expected they would be more frequent in future?" Was it for this reason the matter had, at last, received the consideration of the Government? If there was military work to be done in Ireland, surely it was easy to find plenty of military men to do it. If the people of Ireland were to be shot down at all, let them be shot down by Englishmen in red coats, and not by Irishmen in green coats. It was surely cruel to ask the sons of Irish peasants to wage war against the peasantry of Ireland. The Irish Party did not wish to say a single word against the character of the Irish Constabulary. They knew they were a respectable body of men, and taken from the ranks of the Irish people, and it was to be regretted that they should be employed in this miserable work of eviction. They wanted to unite more closely the police and the Irish people. If a single regiment came in contact with the people, and killed some of them, that regiment would be detested
  162
  by them, as happened in the case of the 12th Lancers; but it would not prevent the people receiving another regiment on friendly terms. But if the police came into fatal contact with the people, the angry feeling created thereby was directed against the whole body. It was the object of Irish Members to prevent this. If the police were forced to carry deadly weapons, and to use them in time to come, it would be very little consolation to the sons and mothers of those shot down to know that it was done by buckshot, instead of bullets. And it was, indeed, a miserable reflection that after 700 years connection between England and Ireland, and after 80 years of legislative union, a Liberal Cabinet should be discussing whether buckshot or bullets were the proper missiles to be directed against the people of Ireland.
  MR. BYRNEsaid, he objected to the Vote for the Irish Constabulary. He did not consider them to be police in the sense of the word known in London, Manchester, Glasgow, and other large towns in England. He believed the majority in Ireland thought the force was composed of two-thirds military men, and one-third detectives. They were grossly inefficient for the protection of life and property, and did little else than pry into the business of other people. At every railway station you would see two or three of them. For what purpose was this, if not for the purpose of spies? He had seen them, not merely standing on the platform, but peeping into the carriage. On one occasion, when he had to go to a small town for the purpose of purchasing an estate, a sergeant of police at the barracks, in a village on the way, was able to tell him not only where the estate was, but whether the tenants were peaceable, and how many they were in family, whether they were doing well or otherwise. He believed the sergeant could have informed him of the number of head of cattle, and even the number of cats in the house. He was astonished at the information this man possessed; but he could not think the system necessary for the preservation of peace. Hon. Members would be aware that crime committed in Ireland had often remained undetected. That was due to the fact that the force was composed of two-thirds military men, and one-third police. But

  163
  the English people did not lay the blame of this neglect upon the police; but regarded it as a blot upon the character of the Irish, so that the people got a name which they did not deserve, and the police were paid for what they did not perform. He had said that they were inefficient for the protection of life and property, and he would give an instance in point. On Easter Sunday, this year, a meeting was called in Wexford for the purpose of selecting candidates to represent the town in that House; and in addition to those present, who represented every class of society, there was a large number of police armed to the teeth. The police stood in front of a platform, the private property of the County Club. An assault was committed, and several persons were wounded; but the police, although they witnessed the assault, refused to interfere, saying it was not their duty to do so. He did not blame the police individually or collectively. He believed the majority of them were well-conducted men. But he objected to the system and instructions under which they acted, which were vile and shameful to be witnessed in the 19th century. The present system, he felt sure, would be swept away, like the Irish Church system, for it was one on which no Government could rely for the purpose of governing Ireland. He had often thought that the Government of England treated the Irish people as lunatics were treated—by putting a straight waistcoat upon them and locking them up. They had tried every system upon them, but a system of justice; but until there was a thorough reform in the Government of Ireland, he could assure them that there would be no peace. At the present moment the people of Ireland were very averse to English rule, and their hatred to the system of government was intensified by the presence of this force. If the people of England would make the Irish their friends and treat them fairly, the people of Ireland, he was sure, would not object to English rule.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, his only object in rising was in order to refer to a matter that came within his personal experience with regard to the Constabulary, and which he thought required to be altered. On three occasions he had been at Queenstown, coming from America. They were received by Constabulary,
  164
  who searched the steerage passengers by passing the hand over them. One constable handed his rifle to another while he searched the passenger. Their object was to see whether any arms were concealed. He observed one constable, after passing his rifle to his comrade, search the steerage passengers as they passed ashore, examining the pockets, inside the waistcoat, and even down to the boots. Every one of these steerage passengers was asked where he had come from, and where he was going. It was no wonder that the American had remarked to him—"Mr. Bradlaugh, is this your free country, that you treat people in this way?"
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he was sorry there were not more Liberal Members present when the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was pointing out the unconstitutional way in which the police were employed. He regretted to have to intrude any remarks upon the Committee; but he thought it was a duty he owed to his constituents to express his disapprobation of the proposal then before them. He doubted if ever there was a better opportunity, or one more strictly in conformity with the general policy of the Irish National Party, than the occasion of that Constabulary Vote. In selecting that Vote for attack, his hon. Friend the Leader had shown, if possible, more than his usual ability, and had fully realized the political situation. That police system rested on brute force, and they were asked to vote that large sum for the maintenance of an army of policemen. Every Irish Member was, he believed, opposed to that Vote. The question really was, were they prepared to place in the hands and at the disposal of the landlord party in Ireland the means of extorting excessive rent from the impoverished tenantry at the point of the bayonet? If they were, then let them go into the Lobby on that occasion with all those who were prepared to maintain that, although Ireland might have to be swept clear of inhabitants, the landlords must have all the rent they wanted. He was sorry to say that in that Lobby would be found Members of the Government, who, after admitting that the Irish Land Laws were oppressive and unjust in their operation, were yet prepared to vote for the maintenance of a body of policemen, who

  165
  might be required to go into the houses of the people, and, perhaps, to shoot the people if they opposed the injustice of which they were the victims. He believed that they would not be doing their duty if they did not assist his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), by making the most efficient protest they could against the maintenance of that system which rested solely upon brute force. By so doing they would, at all events, be freeing themselves from the obloquy of being actual parties to acts of oppression which, he believed, he might say were without parallel in the whole world. If, in the course of the autumn and winter, houses were wrecked and the people cast out upon the world by the landlords in attempting to recover unjust rent, they, at least, would have the consolation of knowing that they had not contributed to the misery of their countrymen, by placing at the disposal of the landlords a force which would enable them with impunity to work irreparable injury upon the Irish farmers. There could be no doubt that, in the present state of Ireland, to place such a force in the hands of the Irish landlords for the purpose of eviction, was a deliberate attempt at extermination; and they, therefore, ought to oppose that Vote for the sake of their countrymen. The course they were taking that night might be provoking, or might be disagreeable in its effects; but he was convinced that, at all events, it would be admitted that they were doing their duty to their country. It was unpleasant to be brought into collision with a large portion of the House, and to find themselves the object of false and malignant talk by a large section of the Press of Great Britain; but they were sustained by the confidence that the course they were taking met with approval from the vast majority of the Irish people. The matters in dispute between them and the rest of the House were well known. He thought that the whole case was well summed up in the remark of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who said—"The result of all the legislation is that everything was for the landlord, and nothing for the tenant." They wanted the police to be employed on legitimate duties. By employing them as instruments of eviction they weakened their efficiency, and made them obnoxious to the people. As had been already
  166
  pointed out, the police were the sons and brothers of the people; and he should be very much astonished if they did not soon revolt from the disagreeable task that was imposed upon them. Some remarks had been made, with regard to the police, with which he could not agree. He believed them to be morally, physically, and intellectually as fine a body of men as there were in the world; and he had the most ardent wish that the best possible relations should be cultivated between man and man in Ireland. He entirely objected to that body of police being employed upon duties which did not properly belong to them, and which simply destroyed their efficiency.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he objected strongly to the amount of money proposed to be voted for the Royal Irish Constabulary. The numbers of that body were, he believed, nearly as great as those of the standing Army of the United States. The men were not employed on the legitimate work of a Constabulary. How did they spend their time? A great portion was spent in learning battalion drill and other military manœuvres, such as the bayonet exercise, and learning how to fire rifles at long and short ranges. They also spent a good deal of time in idling about railway stations, eyeing everybody who passed, to see whether they corresponded with some photographs in the prison album, or some description given in The Hue and Cry. They watched people for political purposes, and in many other such ways; but they were not employed in the detection of crime and criminals. They had heard an objection raised again and again to the military character of the Irish police, and they had heard those charges brought against them, not only by one section of the Irish people, but from all quarters. To such an extent was that system of spying carried out upon the Irish people by the Constabulary that it was almost absolutely true that an Irishman could not go anywhere, or a number of people assemble to do anything, but they found the eye of the policeman upon them. A short time since a temperance excursion left Dublin for a day's outing in County Wicklow. It was composed of people of different creeds and classes, and of men, women, and children. They went down to some green spot and

  167
  prepared to enjoy themselves for the day; but no sooner had they arrived at their destination, than they saw among the trees a party of Constabulary watching them. Another portion of the time of the police was spent in tearing down placards of Irish meetings. As soon as a placard was posted some member of the Constabulary came with his bayonet and dug it off the wall. It was a comical sight to see one of the police at the top of an eight feet ladder trying to get those placards down. It might be said that those placards were of an inflammatory and seditious nature. Not at all; they simply advertised meetings of Irishmen for legitimate purposes. He had there some specimens of those placards, which had been torn down in various parts of the country. He would read one of them—
  "The land for the people. A monster meeting will be held at Kildare on Sunday, August 15th, for the purpose of furthering the interests of the national land movement, to denounce feudal landlordism and oppression, and to unite the tenant farmers and tillers of the soil in a legitimate combination against intimidation, rack-renting, and land-grabbing, and to revive among our countrymen the spirit of nationality. The following Members of Parliament are expected to attend: G. S. Parnell, L. Finigan, R. Lalor, T. P. O'Connor, C. H. Meldon, and J. Leahy. God save Ireland!"
  "Was that inflammatory? He contended that the police had no right to tear down a placard of that sort. He had several others there; but he would not detain the Committee by reading them; but if they had no objection he would lay them upon the Table as an unopposed Return. The Royal Irish Constabulary were employed on those high and mighty matters; and, no doubt, it was hard to get them to do any real work. They went to political meetings as an armed body, and went right up to the platform, and insisted on having the best places. During the winter months, when they would be under the necessity of holding meetings in-doors, they would probably have to allot the "numbered and reserved seats" for the Royal Irish Constabulary. In fact they constituted the Irish "upper crust" or "upper 12,000."That might be seen from the Irish newspapers. If a constable was removed from one station to another part of the country, an announcement of the fact regularly appeared in the morning papers. Those announcements read
  168
  more like the fashionable intelligence of The Morning Post than anything else. If those sub-constables were such great and important personages, he would leave it to the Committee to consider what sort of a creature a full sub-inspector was. He could only liken him to a Chinese Mandarin or a Bashaw of Three Tails. A gentleman once went down to a little quiet place for the benefit of his health, and, night after night, he was kept awake by the barking of a dog. After the third night, he complained of it, and said that it was too bad, and that it was impossible to sleep, because of the barking of the dog. He was told that it was quite true that the dog was a great nuisance; but then it was the inspector's dog, and everybody was afraid to make any complaint about it. As to the men, he did not agree with any of the hard words that had been applied to them. They were a well-conducted and respectable body of men. It was the system under which they were organized that he took exception to. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that during the recent trying times in Ireland those men had acted with considerable forbearance. There was no doubt as to the truth of that; most probably there were some bad members among the Constabulary; but, as a rule, they had shown great forbearance. He sincerely hoped that, during the trying times which would probably come, they would act with as much or even greater forbearance. He would call to their minds this fact, that in their hands rested largely the future not only of the Irish land movement, but the future of Ireland itself. He would ask them to remember what occurred during another troubled time of Irish history —that immediately preceding the Catholic Emancipation. That reform was not conceded until the Duke of Wellington had assured himself of the profound sympathy with the movement of the Irish soldiers serving in the English Army, and until he saw reason to doubt that the Irish soldiers, if called upon to do so, would shoot down their countrymen. He did hope that the Royal Irish Constabulary of the present day would prove themselves as good Irishmen as were those Irish soldiers of 1829, and that they, too, would win for themselves the glory of having powerfully contributed to bring about a great

  169
  and much-needed reform in their native land.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, that, although he was most unwilling to detain the Committee, he must say a few words with reference to the Vote. A great deal had been said by his hon. Friends on the other side with which he could not agree; but he was glad to hear the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) speak of the good conduct of the lower ranks of the Constabulary in Ireland. He thought that every Irish Member would agree that, taking the police as a body, a better conducted set of men did not exist. Indeed, of late, a severe test had been applied in the performance of many of the duties they had been directed to discharge by the authorities. His hon. Friend the Member for Westmeath had alluded to one of those duties, which he considered it most unwise and, indeed, improper to impose on the members of the Constabulary Force. The Chief Secretary had issued no proclamation to forbid the holding of these land meetings. It was, therefore, most unconstitutional, and calculated to lead to a breach in the good feeling that ought to exist between the people and the Constabulary, that members of the force should have been directed to tear down the announcements of these meetings, in which the people took so much interest. Duties of that character ought not to be imposed upon the members of the police by their superior officers. It was not calculated to lead to a respect for the law, or a belief in the impartiality of the force, to have placards torn down, which merely invited persons to a meeting which the law said might be convened. Another matter was that he did think that of late years there had been improper employment of those constables, with respect to carrying out those evictions. He thought it most unfair that large bodies of Constabulary should be drafted from different counties to aid in the service of ejectment processes in other districts. If it was necessary that such processes should have been served, he certainly did think that the military ought to have been employed. Other counties ought not, in that unconstitutional fashion, to be denuded of their police force. A grave and serious fault existed in the organization and management of the force. Catholics were most unfairly treated, and, he feared, in too many instances,
  170
  deprived of that promotion to which they were entitled. In the Constabulary it would be found that almost exclusively all the higher grades were filled by Protestants. He would not again lay before the Committee the figures which had been already given in detail by the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell). These figures and the recent official Returns conclusively proved that the inspectorships of the force were almost entirely filled by men of the Protestant persuasion, different from that of the bulk of the people of Ireland; so that, in a Catholic country, they had the magistrates, as well as the heads of that force, of a creed different from that of the people of the country. He did think that it was now time that the attention of Government should be turned to these matters. The permission given to men and officers to join the Masonic body he believed to be also a great blot in that Constabulary system. Whether it were right or wrong to be associated with such a society as Freemasonry, there could be no doubt that it was condemned by the heads of the Catholic Church. It was most essential to enlist the clergy on the side of Government in discouraging secret societies, yet the authorities allowed the police to be members of the secret society of Freemasons. That was both unreasonable and unfair. Eight or wrong, there was a suspicion among the force—and he thought there was reason in it, from the way in which promotions took place— that there was a preference given by the higher members to those who were brother masons. He trusted the present Government would have these grievances, which had been so frequently brought under their attention, of the people of Ireland examined into as soon as possible. In the Army the system of promotion from the ranks had been found to work successfully. Rightly it had been considered that service in the ranks was not considered to disqualify a person for a commission if a man was of good conduct, and possessed of intelligence and of sufficient education. In the same way, in the case of the Constabulary, he thought it would promote and stimulate the efficiency of the men if, from the general body of these Irish sub-constables, promotion was encouraged in case of good services from the ranks to the highest posts. If that was done, he believed the

  171
  people would have far greater confidence in the Constabulary Force than they had at present. In conclusion, he would observe that it appeared to him to be a mistake that the force should be, practically, under the guidance and control of a gentleman who, though he had, no doubt, served with the highest distinction in the Regular Army, had no previous experience in the regulation of what ought to be, in its character, a police force. All the regulations for the management, and all the rules for the employment of the body, should be under the control or guidance of Parliament. In regard to that point, he thought part of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was very apposite. Now that they had a Liberal Government, with a strong majority at their back, this should be looked to, and the defects in the working and constitution of this force should be remedied.
  MR. DILLONsaid, that he and his hon. Friends might very fairly be asked what their object was in opposing the grant of this sum to Her Majesty's Government. In the first place, speaking for himself alone, he might say he was convinced that, if the Irish landlords were deprived of the assistance of the Irish Constabulary, they would not dare to evict their tenants. The Government would not afford the tenantry the protection they desired, and which he and his hon. Friends declared was essential to keep peace and order in Ireland; and, it being impossible for any private person or any company of private individuals to offer the protection which the Government would not give, the only resort left open to them, in defence of the people who had sent them to defend their interests in that House, was to refuse to vote funds which were going afterwards to be used in a way which was both unconstitutional and oppressive. He thought they were justified in refusing to grant this money to the Crown for that reason. If it were asked as an Imperial grant for England, under similar circumstances, there could not be the slightest doubt it would be refused. If Parliament did not refuse it, the constituents would soon make them hear of it. Before he went further, in this somewhat lengthened discussion, he might say that, in his opinion, this granting of money
  172
  for the Irish Constabulary was radically inconsistent with the British Constitution. It was a disgrace to the Representatives of Ireland that this money had been granted year after year without a protest; for what was the effect of the Vote? It was nothing more nor less than placing at the disposal of the Government a military force, outside the control of the Mutiny Act and of this House. He was always under the impression that one of the safeguards of the liberty of England was, that the Crown would not maintain a standing Army without coming to the House every year to ask for a Supply; and year after year the Crown had similarly to ask for authority to maintain discipline in the Army. But, for upwards of 30 years, the Crown had maintained a standing Army in Ireland outside the Mutiny Act, and without coming to the House for authority to maintain discipline in the force. This force was really constituted in Ireland for one reason only; and in that reason was to be found the strong point of their case. The only necessity for the Constabulary Force lay in the fact that the landlords of Ireland were unjust. If they were fair and just to the tenantry, there would be required in Ireland no other police force than that which, at the present time, was required in England. It might very naturally be asked, why it was in the country districts of England a few constables, armed with staves, sufficed to maintain order; while in Ireland it was found necessary to keep up an armed force? He had been reading recently an English publication, in which that very remark was made. He was about to quote an extract from a pamphlet of Mr. Tuke, on the condition of the people of Ireland. It appeared from that pamphlet, comparing the county of Norfolk with the county of Mayo, the population of Norfolk was 438,000, and the population of Mayo 246,000, and the writer went on to say—
  "Let us imagine that in every small town and village of from 3,000 to 5,000 inhabitants in the county of Norfolk companies of armed men were stationed in barracks, varying in number from 16 to 50, whose duty it was, day and night, to patrol the county."
  That was the state of things in Mayo. In Norfolk, they found that 236 rural soldiers sufficed for nearly double the population of Mayo. That was the re-

  173
  mark of an Englishman, and not an Irishman. He had just read, also, that 1,000 men were not considered sufficient in Mayo to maintain peace, because fresh drafts of the Constabulary had gone there from other counties, accompanied by several troops—dragoons, and some companies of foot soldiers. As he was speaking of that county, he would call attention to a telegram which had just appeared in reference to it. In the neighbourhood of the town of Clare-morris, an iron hut had just been erected on the land of Mr. Crawe, J.P., to accommodate a number of constables and a large extra force had also been drafted into that town, in which several iron huts were being erected. Well, what was the reason of all this? The reason was, that an eviction was pending on the estate of Mr. Crawe, and that had caused all these iron huts to be erected. The police force were to be used in enforcing that eviction; and they were, at the same time, fortifying Mr. Crawe's house almost as carefully as if it were the fort of Can-dahar, simply because that gentleman was determined to eject some poor wretch from his estate. Probably, if the Government persisted in carrying that out there would be bloodshed; and whether that was to be so or not, the authorities evidently thought there was danger of it, or they would not have sent so large a police force there. To return to his original point, he had acknowledged that they might reasonably be asked what their object was in carrying on this discussion. His object, then, he would reply, was to impress upon the Government the necessity, before this House rose, of taking measures absolutely to prevent evictions until the House should meet again. If that was not done, they would run a very considerable risk of riot and bloodshed in Ireland, and it was the bounden duty of himself and his hon. Friends to spare no pains to prevent that. The right hon. Gentleman who was responsible at the present time for the Government of Ireland seemed to think he could achieve that desirable forbearance by appealing to the landlords on the one side, and to the tenants on the other. Now, he might claim to have some knowledge of the country, as well as the right hon. Gentleman, and he did not think this appeal would be effectual. In his opinion,
  174
  nothing would be effectual, but some measure which would secure that there should not be any putting out of the farmers. Take the case of the county of Mayo, for instance. He chanced to know that tolerably well, and he would take one particular instance, in one particular barony, which was inhabited by something like 2,000 families. A right hon. Gentleman had told them that because the harvest promised well they would possibly hear no more of the disturbances in that country; but he knew better, and he knew the difficulties of these people personally. They were at present two years in arrear with rent, and had been living on 1d. a-day from the relief lists for the last six months. They had sold every article of clothing that they possessed, their beds, their furniture, and all their little property; and they had now nothing left but the four bare walls of their cabins, and the prospect of their harvest. From this the right hon. Gentleman told them, these poor people, they were to pay their just debts; but would the right hon. Gentleman tell him it was a just thing to call upon these poor people to pay up arrears of rent when the harvest came on? He (Mr. Dillon) had told the people whom he had addressed at public meetings not to pay any rent at all this year. He gave them this advice, because he knew if they did pay their rents out of the harvest it would mean starvation to them and their children. That he believed to be the true morality of the case. As far as he was able to judge, the harvest would barely suffice to feed these people until next spring, and would not at all be sufficient to recover for them the position which they had lost. Was it to be said that it was the duty of these people to strip themselves of everything in order to pay their rent, and then to go on the relief list during the greater part of the coming year!٭ He did not think so, and he told these people so, and he advised them to hold out against the payment of rent, and to pay no arrears at all this year. When he was last in Ireland, he addressed a meeting of fully 15,000 people, and that was the advice he had given them. If he went back to Mayo, after this House rose, and was forced to tell the people that he had gained no protection for them, and that they must either pay the rent or leave their homes, he doubted

  175
  very much whether they would take that advice. He thought, on the contrary, it was extremely likely they would lose all confidence in him. Supposing ٭ he was to tell them to carry out the present policy of the Government. Supposing he were to advise them to submit to whatever their landlords were to demand —and he knew the landlords of that county, and he knew that they would demand their rack rents, every single one of them, in that particular barony —if he told those people to submit in that way, how would the policy of the Government affect them? The Government would then allow the landlords to wreak their injustice—to reduce these people to starvation and to misery—that would be the result. If he were to go down to the barony and say, as he had said before—the right hon. Gentleman had said that he was safe, as a Member of Parliament, from prosecution for the language he might use; but he was not at all clear about that point—if he were to tell them to resist their landlords, to defy the police, and, if necessary, to resist eviction, would the right hon. Gentleman call Parliament together in the autumn and propose a Coercion Act? If he gave advice of that kind, some hon. Gentleman might call it cowardice to point out that the Chief Secretary had no right to denounce him for giving that advice, and had no right to call it cowardly and wicked until he and the Government had given a straightforward statement as to whether or not they would protect the people, without waiting until their hands were forced by resistance.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order; I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that I do not see the exact application of his remarks to the Question before the Committee on the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. DILLONreplied, that he might have wandered a little; but the connection which existed between the Vote and his remarks he would try to explain. He was afraid that the declarations they had listened to would encourage the people to further acts than they had yet ventured on; and, therefore, he was anxious to take away from the landlords this power of marching large bodies of men into various parts of the country, and so, by that means, to prevent bloodshed and firing upon the people. Coming
  176
  to this point of using firearms, he had recently seen some instructions to the Royal Irish Constabulary with regard to the use of their weapons. The men were instructed that when they proceeded on patrol half were to be armed with their rifles, and the remainder with the sword-bayonet only—a good defensive weapon that—so that the force might be able to pursue offenders across the country, supported by the armed party. One would suppose, from these instructions, that the men were marching through the wildest part of Afghanistan. Then, next, they were instructed how they were to march, so that the men without rifles should always follow or move on the flanks of those armed with rifles. Those read like instructions for a military force moving through a hostile country, expecting every moment the armed resistance of the enemy. If that were the case, they could not be more particular. Then, with regard to firing, there were very definite instructions. The word of command in regard to firing was—
  "Whenever the police coming under the order of a high sheriff, sub-sheriff, magistrate, or coroner shall receive orders to fire, they must not do so by word of command proceeding from a Constabulary officer."
  That was satisfactory so far.
  "When no magistrate or sheriff is present and the police are forced in their own defence, they will not do so without express orders of the officer or other constable in charge."
  Thus, in some circumstances, the police might fire upon the people, at the command of a sub-constable or head constable. And he might remark upon that point that, in his opinion, some of the sub-inspectors were far more inefficient, and far more unfit to give the word, than some of the sub-constables. These sub-inspectors were usually young men fresh from the competitive examinations, and utterly unable to deal with cases like those which might very often arise —the only saving clause in the article was that they were not to fire except in their own defence. But, at the same time, he wished to point out to the Committee that it was a perfectly illusory provision, and one which was no safeguard to the lives of the people; for it must be recollected that firing in self-defence depended entirely on the way in which the Constabulary were

  177
  used and handled. If soldiers were obliged to fire in self-defence, the case must be one of exceeding gravity, as when a crowd attacked them. But when they came to consider the rules of the Constabulary the circumstances changed entirely; and he needed only to relate a few instances which had occurred in the last year, and which occurred under his own notice, to show how hopeless it would be to rely upon that provision as any safeguard. At more than one of the meetings in Ireland—large and excited meetings held during the last winter—the police appeared on the scene. There was no possible reason for their coming, nor the least danger of any disturbance of the peace. That was not all. They not only appeared upon the scene, as he had observed; but, on several occasions, to his own knowledge, they took under their charge the "spy reporters" whom the Government sent down, and who were peculiarly obnoxious to the people. The police forced their way into the thick mass of the people and fixed their bayonets, and then made a square round the reporters. If it had not been for that discipline of which he spoke, and which the Chief Secretary had thrown into his teeth—if it had not been for that discipline which enabled him and his friends, as most officers controlled their men—he believed that not one policeman would have left the crowd alive. Had it not been for their influence—the passions of the people were so excited, and the outrage they thus considered was committed upon them was so great, to see armed men thus come into the midst of a crowd who met to discuss, in a peaceable way, the state of the country—that, had a single drop of blood been shed, he did not believe a single policeman would have left the place alive. At the last meeting at which he was present, it was estimated that 10,000 men were in front of the platform. The Government sent down a man well known to the peasantry, notorious and hateful to them—so hateful that he himself was obliged to take him by the arm and walk him out of the crowd, in order to save him from being murdered. When he got the man on the platform, in the middle of the meeting, several men attempted to jump on to the platform and pull him down; and, if he had not himself gone forward
  178
  with him, he had no doubt there would have been a riot. The police were drawn on one side with bayonets fixed, the rifles loaded; and it would have been their duty, he supposed, to save the life of this man if he had been attacked. Had that taken place, there could have been no doubt in the mind of any man, or anyone who saw that meeting, that a number of lives would have been lost on the side of the people, and every constable in the place would have been slaughtered. This was the condition of things which it was their duty to put an end to if they could possibly, and it was one of the measures they were aiming at by opposing this Vote. But, as he had already explained, they also opposed these Votes on another ground— that they were unnecessary waste of public money in support of an unconstitutional force which ought not to have been permitted to exist in Ireland. It was a force which he and his hon. Friends were determined to disband, whether they succeeded now, or next year, or in years to come. Their efforts would never be wanting until they had succeeded in disarming and disbanding that quasi-military force. A great deal had been said during the last fortnight about the preservation of law and order in the Irish nation. He wished to draw attention to the fact that law and order in Ireland were now preserved at an enormous expense. If they took the counties in the West of Ireland alone, they would see what an enormous expense was incurred in the preservation of law and order; but the result had been, in the first place, that they had not preserved law and order; in the next place, they had not preserved human life, for the lives of the tenants, as well as of the landlords, had been sacrificed; and, thirdly, in the counties, where they had been at such enormous expense to preserve law and order, the state of things was admitted by Englishmen and Americans who had travelled there to be a disgrace to the Government of this country. He had heard it stated by numbers of Americans, and by numbers of Englishmen, that it was a disgrace to England that any people calling themselves Her Majesty's subjects should live as the peasantry lived in the West of Ireland. This was the result of 80 years' preservation of law and order and the rights of property.

  179
  The present Liberal Administration refused to suspend the rights of property for the next few months, even to save the lives of human beings. It was a very difficult thing for Irishmen to understand the sacredness of the rights of property as understood in England. In Ireland they had been brought up to regard the rights of property as the right of landlord property, and as not sacred, because they had judged by its effects, and they had seen that it was a curse and a ruin to their country. Why should the rights of property in land be more sacred than the rights of any other kind of property? It was the custom, in many countries, to suspend the rights of property when public necessity demanded it; and they had shown the Government that circumstances in Ireland were so desperate that it was demanded. All that they wanted was that the Government should suspend the power of eviction, which would not amount to a suspension of the rights of property, because wherever people were able to pay they would do so. Hon. Members had amused them by heaping every kind of calumny upon the Irish tenantry, and it was an accepted fact in that House that the Irish tenant was universally a robber and a cheat. He had heard hon. Members, amid the cheers of that House, say that, if they suspended eviction, not a tenant would pay his just debts, and that was equivalent to saying that the Irish were robbers and cheats. He utterly denied that the Irish tenants were unwilling to pay their just debts. In his opinion, the effect of suspending eviction would be that, in those districts where the people had been rack-rented for years, and had been reduced to a state of the utmost poverty, such as was a disgrace to civilization, then they would pay no rent so long as the Act was in force, and that was a consummation devoutly to be wished. It had been said in that House, with reference to Irish landlords, that they would not depart from the charity to which they had been accustomed; but he denied that the Irish landlords were exercising, or had exercised, charity. Therefore, they could not depart from it. In a publication which he held in his hand, written by an Englishman, who said that many men had come to him and told him that they kept their land
  180
  in a bad condition for fear that the attention of their landlord should be directed to it, and their rents should be raised. He also mentioned one very remarkable case of a man who was tenant of a pastoral holding which, when he took it, was only a waste piece of land. That man left a corner of the land waste. Mr. Tuke asked him why he did so, and he said that he kept it as a warning to the conscience of his landlord to show how he had improved the land, should the landlord desire to raise the rent. Could there be a more striking instance of the demoralization of the present land system; and yet an hon. Member of the Irish Tory Party had spoken of the charity and forbearance of landlords. What could they think of the charity and forbearance of landlords when no fewer than 20,000 houses had been pulled down within the last 30 years. They had had an illustration that evening of what reliance could be placed upon the promises of Ministers. In reference to his Colleagues the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary made a declaration, and he (Mr. Dillon) said at the time that his Colleagues might not be prepared to stand by him in that matter. That had been justified, for the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had withdrawn the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that justified their insisting upon their demand that power should be given to prevent the Irish landlords from evicting their tenants wholesale. As that declaration had been withdrawn they were more than ever anxious to take away from the Irish landlords the only weapon by which they could carry out their unjust claims. The police in Ireland were kept up for a purpose which was thoroughly well understood by the people, and they were used by the landlords for the purpose of enforcing their unjust demands. It was for those reasons that the Irish Members were bound by duty to their constituents to resist the passing of this Vote, for they placed in the hands of the landlords a power of which they wished to deprive them. There was no doubt that if they succeeded, as he hoped they would, in taking away the only weapons which the landlords had—namely, the police, evictions would cease. If the police were withdrawn landlords would cease to rack

  181
  rent their tenants, and no Irish landlord would seek to carry out evictions without the assistance of an armed force to back him. It would be absolutely impossible for any landlord to do so. It might be said by the Government, in defence of the necessity of this Vote, that law and order must be preserved in Ireland; but he maintained that the preservation of law and order in Ireland should be done by the same means as those used in England. In the case of any occasion arising in which it was necessary to preserve the peace, they had 25,000 troops in Ireland doing nothing. He would suggest that half of the Irish Constabulary be disbanded and the rest have their rifles taken from them. If that were done Irish Members would withdraw their opposition to this Vote; but if the Government would not make this concession, they would continue their opposition so long as there was any chance of their succeeding.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: Sir, the hon. Member who spoke last rather spoiled his speech by the last sentence. I think the speeches generally of the Irish Members have been of a character to produce an influence upon the Members of this House, and I hope they may have some effect upon the opinion of the Members of another House also. I should be glad to think that a report of them will be entensively read throughout the country, for the purpose of giving information upon many points to the people of England, which probably the great bulk of them do not possess. I was going to say, further, that I think those speeches contrast most favourably with the speech heard in the earlier part of the evening from a right hon. and learned Gentleman who held a high and responsible position in the late Government (Mr. Gibson). I have not heard any speech for a long time which I think was so bad in its spirit, and so calculated to be injurious in Ireland, as the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. It was intended apparently to be so; I hardly know the exact word to use, for I do not wish to say anything offensive. If that speech was not intended to do harm, it did, in the most direct manner, misinterpret the speech of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary; and it tended to dispel in Ireland, if possible, any hope of
  182
  good to be done for that country. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) opened the debate from the opposite Benches; and in his speech he did me the honour of making several extended quotations from the speeches which I delivered in past years upon the state of Ireland. I do not blame him in the least for introducing these extracts to the Committee, and there is not a word in any of them which I am disposed to withdraw from. Everybody must admit that the condition of Ireland at the present time is deplorable, and it has been deplorable so long as I have had my attention turned to it or been able to examine its condition. I travelled a good deal in Ireland many years ago, in 1849 and 1852, and, from that time to this, I have held very much the same opinion with regard to the condition of that country and to the necessity for large and fundamental changes with regard to the ownership and the tenure of land there. The precise question which we have before us now is the Irish Constabulary; and I agree with a good deal that has been said with regard to that force. It is a different force from anything we have in this country for the preservation of peace; but it seems to me to be, in the present condition of Ireland, almost a necessary incident to that condition; and the fact that it is necessary, if it be necessary, is a proof of how much there is required to be done by changing the whole social condition of the great mass of the tenantry of Ireland. The debate to-night has not been' got up with the idea of preventing this Vote being passed, or of preventing the necessary expenses for the coming year being provided for. No hon. Member upon these Benches thinks that possible, and I do not know whether any of them would think it wise. The protest which they have made is a reasonable one, and the time may come—I hope it may come soon—when the police system of Ireland may be placed on a footing as judicious and comformable to our notions of freedom as the police systems of Eng-land and Scotland. Suppose this change to be possible, suppose it were wise, what would such a change mean? It would mean that perhaps £1,000,000 now, paid out of the taxes of the United Kingdom for the police of Ireland, would have to be paid mainly by the Irish people in

  183
  accordance with the custom of this country. That is to say, at least £500,000 would necessarily have to he paid by the proprietors and occupying tenants of Ireland. If it were altered, according to the plan that obtains in Scotland, where the sum is divided between the landlord and the tenant, the result would be that the landlords would pay £250,000 for the support of the Constabulary, and another £250,000 would be paid by the tenants. The remaining £500,000 would be voted in this House as other Votes are granted for such expenses in England and Scotland. I think that is hardly a proposition which hon. Members opposite would receive with enthusiasm; and if they were disposed to accept it, I expect that the tenantry of Ireland, whose cause they advocate with so much earnestness, would doubt whether the change was a wise one. That is the practical point to which hon. Gentlemen opposite must look, and which they must consider before they make any change. That has nothing to do, however, with the character of the Constabulary, or with its manner of administration, or with its duties. I am speaking of it now merely as a financial question affecting the great body of proprietors and ratepayers in Ireland. I now come to the question of what I think is the mistake the Irish Members are making in quarrelling with the fact that reforms in Ireland do not proceed at the rate they would wish them to proceed. The speeches to-night have been speeches of great ability. The speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power), delivered two nights ago, was a powerful speech, such as is very rarely heard from any Bench in this House; but that speech and many of the speeches tonight have been badly founded. Some Irish gentlemen told me the other day —and I thought it was a very true observation—that in Ireland the only history the people had read was the history of the wrongs of their country. Now, that is a history of a sad and melancholy character, and the persons who have preceded us in this House of Commons —I speak now of the last two centuries —have been responsible for that melancholy history; but still, if we look back to the history, and especially if we look back to the last 50 years, we shall find that, even with regard to Ireland,
  184
  backward as it was, there have been changes so remarkable and so comprehensive, that I think an Irishman must be unable to take a fair view of what has been done, if he does not come to the conclusion that the case is not absolutely hopeless, and that Parliament, which in past times has made great reforms, has been succeeded by a Parliament more capable and willing to reform; and that, therefore, it is doing an injustice to their country, to themselves, and to the people of England, to suppose that the progress of reform has been permanently arrested, and that the great things which still require to be done for Ireland are not to be done by the ordinary methods by which progress has heretofore been accomplished. I am not going into the question raised by the hon. Member for Mayo; I will only ask you to look at the last 50 years within the memory of most of us. Within that time the whole population of Ireland, both Catholic and Protestant, has been powerfully represented in this House. Within that time, in 1869, many of us here taking part in it, perfect religious equality was obtained by the Disestablishment of the Irish Church. In the succeeding year an Act was passed which violated all the notions of property which were held, not only by landlords of Ireland, but by most of those of England and Scotland. Every contract between landlord and tenant in Ireland was forcibly broken by the Land Act of 1870, and the conditions under which tenants at will held their farms were changed to the advantage of the tenant. That was done, if not by the unanimous vote, at all events, by a large majority in this House, and by a sufficient majority in the other House of Parliament. I might refer to one or two other points in which Ireland has been benefited during the last few years. During the last Liberal Government in 1874, in Ireland was given, together with Great Britain, a system of voting by Ballot. I recollect in the speech I made a good many years ago at Limerick, and which has been quoted by the hon. Member for Galway, I said that there were three things which I thought Ireland wanted, and which I thought the next Liberal Administration would give to her. They were the Disestablishment of the Irish Church, great concession with regard to land, and

  185
  absolute freedom of election by means of the Ballot. Now, the Ballot has been am immense improvement in Ireland; Pit has destroyed the illegitimate power of the landlord and of the priest; and, at this moment, there is no country in the world in which there is a greater freedom of election than in Ireland. The jury system has also been amended. Then there was another measure passed which amended the jury system. Irish Members know—I speak it with shame —that, whatever Government 'was in power in all time past, it was the common, and almost universal, system to pack juries in Ireland, and there were special means taken to exclude Catholics from the juries. I need not say that in a multitude of cases Catholic offenders and prisoners did not receive whole and righteous justice from the Protestant juries that were empannelled. Well, these things have been done. I have myself been a party to the doing of some of them, and I cannot accept the doctrine of Irish Members, who spoke as if there was some impossible barrier to all future reform and progress. I believe we have now a Government more willing, and, I hope, more capable of doing good to Ireland than any past Government; and I believe, at the same time, we shall have greater willingness on the part of the population of England and Scotland to join in any moderate, reasonable, and possible proposition that Irish Members may make in this House than existed at any previous time. I do not say that everything has been done that ought to be done with regard to land. I hold the same opinion now which I held in 1849, after the Famine, when I, with a most intelligent Irishman, visited all kinds of people, and heard the opinions of most intelligent men with regard to the condition of their country. We have now a condition of things which it is impossible to continue without disorder. We have 500,000 or nearly 600,000 tenants of the soil, who are really in-the condition of tenants at will; and we have, on the other side, about 10,000 proprietors, one-half of whom are absentees. Now, it is the commonest thing in the world to hear it said that, among the advantages enjoyed by the people of England, in the rural districts, is the presence among them of noblemen and gentlemen who are large proprietors; it fact, it is one
  186
  of the terrible mischiefs which are to arise when the Game Laws are abolished that gentlemen will not live upon their estates, and that the civilizing influences, always supposed to accompany sporting, will be withdrawn, and the rural population sink into a condition of ignorance and degradation such as that which is assumed to prevail in our great towns. In Ireland one-half of the proprietors are said to be absentees. I recollect staying a day or two in one of the central counties of Ireland with a friend of mine, and in speaking about the magistracy and their duties, that gentleman said—"The great difficulty is that we have nobody to put on the Bench. If a man has several thousands a-year, he lives in London or Paris; if he has £1,000 a-year, he lives in Dublin—he does not live here. Looking round the whole of this district in which I act as magistrate, it is a great misfortune to find no gentleman suitable, even in the eyes of the tenant farmers, to be placed on the Bench. "That is one of the effects of absenteeism which prevails to so large an extent. We know that landed estates, managed by agents, must be managed in circumstances very unfavourable, in many cases, to the tenants. The landlord may not be very well off; he may be more or less impoverished. He will write to his agent to send him his rents, and the agent is considered a good agent in proportion as the rents are high and regularly paid. With regard to the payment of rent, if anyone were disposed to find fault with the Irish tenant in this respect, I wish to state that there is no country in the world in which the tenants occupying land have been more scrupulous and regular than they have been in Ireland. I have heard that even from Irish landlords, and only very recently, speaking with a gentleman with a great many thousands a-year income from one of the Southern counties of Ireland, I was told that even in these adverse times he had received almost all his rent, and had not the slightest reason to complain of the tenantry holding his land. I am of opinion that in this single fact of 500,000 tenants looking in the face of 10,000 proprietors is to be found the whole of the evils which afflict that country, and that in a change of that condition, and in that change only, lies

  187
  the remedy which Parliament can provide. Almost all people make mistakes, I suppose, about their own interests. If the Irish proprietors knew their own interests, I believe they would be clamouring at the door of this House for some change with regard to their condition. An Irish gentleman told me some time ago that the condition of Irish proprietors in Ireland is such that they are almost content with anything that would give them any probability of security for their property. I would wish not to be one of 5,000 proprietors who are resident in Ireland; but I would wish to be one of 10,000 who might and ought to be there. If there were so many, they would find that the proprietary class would be much more powerful, and that great solidity would be given to the social and political conditions of Ireland, while the property of proprietors in Ireland would be just as secure as that of proprietors in Great Britain. But, unfortunately, the Irish proprietors trust to the support of the proprietors in Great Britain. They do not consider the condition of their own country, and the danger in which they stand; they rest upon the votes of country Gentlemen in this House, and those bigger country Gentlemen who fill the Benches in another House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, he rose to Order. He wished to know whether the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman had any connection with the Constabulary Vote before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the speeches delivered in the course of the debate had been, with scarcely a single exception, remarkably orderly and proper; but he was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had travelled considerably beyond the question.
  MR. JOHN BRIGHT: I feel there his room for the observations of the Chairman; but my purpose has been to show that the Irish Constabulary, with all its defects, is the natural and inevitable result of the landlord system in Ireland, and that a Vote of Parliament to put an end to the Constabulary system and transfer the £1,000,000 from the Vote of to-night to the ratepayers in Ireland is a thing by no means possible so long as the present condition of Ireland remains. Therefore, in that respect, I think I was not departing very widely
  188
  from the Question before the Committee I ask hon. Gentlemen opposite what prospect is there of being able to get rid of the Constabulary and of putting Ireland under the ordinary police system which exists in England? I think the prospect is very much better than it has ever been before. There is a Government in power backed by a large majority, which contains Members who are well-known for their sympathy with the Irish population—I need not point out to my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government. I should be ashamed to argue with hon. Members from Ireland as to the disposition of the Prime Minister towards their country; I should be ashamed to ask them to believe, because none of them can doubt that they ever had a Chief Secretary on the Government Benches whose sympathies with the true interests of Ireland are so strong and so pronounced as those of my right hon. Friend beside me. I would not draw any contrast between him and the Irish Secretaries who have preceded him. I hope it is unnecessary for me, after the extracts read by the hon. Member for Galway, to say that my own sympathies with Ireland have always been as strong as if I had been born in her midst; and that there is no sentence I have ever spoken in public in favour of justice to that country to which I do not now adhere, and which I do not rejoice to have had the sense and intelligence to utter. What has the present Government done? They have issued a Land Commission. Well, the late Government has issued a Commission also; but the object of that Commission was to deal with the whole of the United Kingdom; while the present Government, anxious to concentrate its view upon the pressing evils and necessities of Ireland, has appointed a new and smaller Commission, more competent, speedily to examine and report upon the questions submitted to them. Their inquiry is proceeding, and their Report will, I hope, on some early day, be presented to Parliament. I am certain that no equal number of men could have been chosen who will more freely and openly accept the evidence of Irishmen than the members of the Commission which has been appointed. There are one or two things I wish to say to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I need not say that nothing will fall from me which can offend any one of them.

  189
  They have had for three nights extended debates upon the position of their country. I am not going to find fault with the debates. Some admirable speeches have been delivered, and I hope they will have an effect upon both Houses of Parliament, and upon the public opinion of this country; but there is an unwisdom sometimes in pursuing even a good cause; and to a considerable extent the cause which hon. Gentlemen from Ireland advocate—namely, a substantial change in the tenure of land in that country—is a good cause, which it is quite impossible that Parliament can close its eyes and ears to. The Land Question in Ireland will necessarily before long have to be discussed on the floor of this House. Progress is not effected by enormous leaps; but, nevertheless, within the lifetime of Members of this House prodigious changes have taken place in this country, changes which, in most cases, have come to be acknowledged by those even who opposed them at the time, as just and valuable. Now, there has been a world of difficulty in getting beneficial changes both in England and Ireland; but there is a power in England, and in Ireland too, which, if exerted in an honourable and just cause, no other power in the country can for any length of time withstand. I believe these debates, which have an intense interest for myself, will not be without a great result. The Government are as anxious that the condition of Ireland should be changed as any hon. Member on the Benches opposite. They have no interest—no man in England has any interest—in maintaining the present condition of Ireland; and I believe, with the fair co-operation of hon. Members from Ireland with the parties sitting on the Ministerial Benches, before long the condition of affairs in Ireland will be changed and amended. There are, at the present time, very heavy clouds hanging over Ireland, and the anxiety which is felt by the Representatives of Ireland is also felt in England. We know, however, that the clouds which often obscure the political and social aspect of a country at times, break, and are chased away. I am afraid, with regard to many of those poor families in the West of Ireland, where the land is so bad and the climate so precarious, that, if many of those poor tenants even had their farms given to them, they
  190
  would still be unable in some seasons to live without charitable assistance. But with regard to the greater part of Ireland there can be no doubt that, looking at the fertility of the soil, the character of the climate, and the industry of the people, expectations may be entertained that the whole face of Irish society will be changed, and hon. Members opposite should not assume that nothing can be done in this Parliament and country. Something can be done, and it requires only the earnest and sensible co-operation of Irish reformers with English reformers, led by a Liberal Government, to make changes which will be of immense and widespread benefit throughout the whole of Ireland, and from which I believe, in my conscience, the landed proprietors will gain at least as much as any other class.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he thought it must have been owing to the generosity with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had always treated Irishmen that he had alluded to the observations which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had addressed to the House on Tuesday night in terms of such exaggerated praise. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman for the manner in which he had shown his approval of the remarks he had made upon the Motion submitted to the House by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He was aware that it would be entirely out of Order to attempt to go back to that discussion; but he had been so pointedly referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, in connection with the invitation which he extended to Irish Members to co-operate with the Party of which he was so distinguished a Member, that he ought not to remain silent when such an appeal had been directly addressed to the Irish Members. He was bound to say that he knew of no one who was more disposed to place confidence in the assurances of the right hon. Gentleman than himself; but he must not lose one moment in assuring him that the principal object which the Irish Party, first constituted in that House in the year 1874, had before them, and which they had been commissioned to struggle for by the Irish nation, rendered it absolutely impossible for them to become incorporated

  191
  with any English Government that refused to restore the national liberties of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman had addressed some practical observations to his hon. Colleagues with reference to the objects to be achieved by a continuance of the present discussion, and he seemed to think that the very fact of the existence of a Liberal Government and a strong Liberal Party supporting that Government was, in itself, an assurance that the law would be administered in Ireland with so much consideration, that the people would have no ground of complaint when the House should again meet. He ventured to say that, although this was a very plausible assurance, it was one which the Government had it not in their power to fulfil. Given a state of law which menaced the lives of tens of thousands of the Irish people, and a Government whose highest duty it was to enforce that law; and they had a Government that, from the accident of its position, menaced the lives and happiness of the population. There was no way out of the difficulty. The Government had in Ireland a force of some 24,000 armed men in the Military Service, and a force of about 12,000 men in the Constabulary Service; and these two forces were to be employed by them, during the coming winter, in the maintenance of an unjust law. Now, whether force was to be applied by a Liberal Government or a Tory Government, it was nevertheless force. Though the bayonet of the Irish policeman were wrapped in the drapery of Liberal Constitutionalism, the shining steel would still be behind; and when it penetrated the breast of an evicted tenant, who might make a vain attempt at resistance to the armed force of the Government outside his demolished cabin, it would matter little to him and to his homeless family by what Government he was struck down. He mentioned those points, because he knew that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was so strong a logician that, while he could be convinced of the force of his own arguments, he would not fail to perceive the cogency of replies that might be legitimately made to them. At the present time, no doubt, the Government occupied this favourable position. They could make one very fair and reasonable claim on the considera-
  192
  tion of Irish Members, and on the sympathies of the Irish people. They could say that their intentions during the present Session of Parliament had tended so far in the direction of Irish land reform that they had actually exhausted their own power to give effect to those intentions, by introducing a measure of land reform which they expected to carry through both Houses of Parliament, and, therefore, that their intentions were really stronger than their power to carry them into effect. The Irish people had entered on a struggle which was of an international character, and the oppressed tenantry, numbering with their families nearly 3,000,000 of people, were not able to distinguish, in their helplessness, between an English Government drawn from the Liberal Party, and an English Government composed, of Conservative Members. It was always and still the English Government; to them it was the English Government which, having inherited the powers of its Predecessors, had also inherited their sins. It had inherited the aversion which those trampled people had cherished against past English Governments, and must continue to cherish against the English law, until the law was made conformable with the peace and prosperity of their country. It was easy to say that the Irish Members were dreadfully unreasonable, and that they forgot all the beneficial legislation which had been passed by that House. He did not forget it. He did not forget it when he was speaking the other evening, because he then asked the House to put into one scale the legislation passed in favour of Ireland, and into the other the legislation directed against her, and then, by a very simple effort of mensuration, to decide how far his country was indebted to this English Parliament for any beneficial result that might have followed from legislation. What he would now say on that point was this—The Government had failed, in the present Session of Parliament, to impress the other House with the wisdom of their chief proposal regarding Ireland. They were now called upon to maintain the law. Well, he would say to them that, if they felt they could not enforce the law without doing an injustice to the Irish nation and to the great mass of the population, they should not hesitate a moment in summoning Parliament, for the purpose

  193
  of submitting new proposals calculated to prevent and defeat that injustice. It was only in that way that they could obviate the necessity of employing the Constabulary for the purpose of maintaining an unjust law. Why should the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary place before his mind, in the way he had done, the prospect of the introduction of a Coercion Bill first, and a remedial Bill afterwards? Why not invert the prospect, and first introduce a remedial Bill? and if that did not create a respect for the law, then ask for further powers to reduce this turbulent population, as they were described, to order. That appeared to him to be the course a statesman would adopt. It was utterly impossible to say that the Irish people, who had been subjected to so much misery as had been described so frequently already, could respect the law so long as it was in conflict with their right to life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in their native land. If the Government of England was unable to cope with the Irish difficulty, it was then an admission that their rule in Ireland stood condemned. Then he would say to them—"After a struggle of seven centuries Ireland stands before the world to-day with the laurels of national victory on her brow, because the English Government has confessed, after an experiment of seven centuries, that that experiment has failed, and it is obliged to surrender its self-imposed task of attempting to govern the Irish people. That is your real difficulty. There was no difficulty for us. Your difficulties are of your own creation, therefore do not call upon us to surrender the happiness of our own impoverished people on the one hand, or the national liberty of our country on the other." Grattan told us years ago that no nation could honourably surrender its liberty, and that a nation should be as jealous of her freedom as a woman of her honour. If any Irishman in that House was to hesitate when the proposal for surrender was made, even by the most liberal and most freedom-loving English statesman in that House, then he should maintain that the man was guilty of an act of treachery to the people who had sent him there to utter uncompromisingly the demand for national self-government which alone could secure the prosperity and contentment of the Irish nation.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, it was just as well that the Committee should understand exactly how this matter stood. He and his hon. Friends did not intend that a Vote should be taken upon this Main Question without submitting to the Committee also a number of considerations on the details of the different items of the Vote. This Constabulary Force in Ireland was one which he and his hon. Friends contended was wrong in every particular. They maintained, in the first place, that the Vote was too large, and that too much money was asked for. They next declared that the Constabulary was wrongly conducted in all its details, and that nothing less than a thorough re-organization of the system would be sufficient. Last Tuesday evening great complaints were made in his presence to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for the speech he had delivered. He had not had the opportunity of hearing that speech; but he read it next morning in the paper, and he must confess he was very much disappointed with it. The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to him to understand the importance of this Land Question in Ireland; and he very much feared that any Bill which he would introduce in this Autumn Session which had been partially promised to them would be a Bill not satisfactory to the Irish people, and would not put an end to this system of conflict between Irish people and Irish police. In corroboration of his opinion, he could point to the evidence of the Bill which had been passed in that House, under the auspices of the right hon. Gentleman, and was afterwards thrown out in the other House. He did not intend to criticize that Bill in detail; but he might observe that it was entirely impossible that a Bill of that nature could be satisfactory with the Irish people. It, in the first place, only touched a very small fringe of the Land Question. It only affected, besides, about one-half of the country; and the result was that, unless the right hon. Gentleman came to the conclusion that the Irish Land Question deserved a more radical reform than he at present seemed to think, any time spent in discussing his proposals would be time thrown away. He was quite ready to admit the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster

  195
  were Gentlemen filled with sympathy for Ireland, and Gentlemen who would be disposed, if they had the power to do so, to propose laws which would be beneficial for the Irish tenant farmers. He must confess he had not the same confidence in all the Members of the Government; and he had very small confidence in the so-called Liberal Party in that House, because, so far as his experience went, that Liberal Party had not given any evidence, in the most remote degree, of their sympathy with the Irish on this Land Question—the one proof that they were incompetent to come to a sound conclusion on that matter. Though he need not at present discuss the Irish Land Question in detail, he must remark that at present they were in conflict on this question of rent. The point at issue was whether the Irish people would submit to be plundered as before in a peaceful manner, or whether they would be willing, if they got the redress which was denied them by Constitutional means and the Votes of that House? As a corroboration of what he maintained, he would quote a case which appeared in that morning's paper. A tenant farmer was evicted from his holding, and a number of people gathered together, entered the holding, and put the tenant again into possession. The landlord appealed to the Superior Courts for a further power of eviction, but, after all, was very glad to compromise by giving a permanent reduction of £100 a-year in the rent, by forgiving the tenant one whole year's rent, and, in addition, borrowing £300, to be lent to the tenant without interest for the purpose of improving the land. That tenant thus got redress by these unconstitutional means, which would have been denied to him if he had acted in that peaceable manner which had been recommended by the right hon. Gentleman and other Members of this House. They must, in fact, have one of two things. They must have redress for unjust laws by one means or other. They maintained that that House was either incompetent to give that redress, or determined not to give it. Therefore, there was no remedy left to the tenants but to have recourse to force. He must also point out, what was already notorious, that this Government, through the mouth of the Chief of the Government, had repeatedly told the people that they were bound to administer the
  196
  law, no matter how unjust it might be; but he found an illustration of that in a case which occurred recently. What happened in regard to the Brighton Aquarium? The Government thought the decision of the magistrates was unjust as regarded the occupier of the Aquarium, and they, therefore, remitted the fine.
  MR. WARTON: Sir, I rise to Order. I want to know what the Brighton Aquarium has to do with this Constabulary Vote?
  MR. BIGGARsaid, if the hon. and learned Gentleman would wait until he had finished, the Committee would, no doubt, be very glad to hear any remark he wished to make. For his part, he (Mr. Biggar) thought this case of the Brighton Aquarium was an illustration of the way in which the law was administered by the Government, and it was a precedent which it would be well to have carried out.
  MR. WARTON: Sir, I rise to Order. I want your decision on this question of the Aquarium.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have heard nothing which strikes me as being out of Order.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he was very much obliged to the Chairman for his decision, and he could assure him he was the very last person in the House to attempt to act irregularly. He thought, in fact, he was thoroughly justified in the remark he made. What he wished to press upon the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was, that if he found a law which he acknowledged to be unjustly administered by the people in authority, he should not be a party to having this unjust law carried into effect. If the Chief Secretary would promise them that he would refuse, in all cases where a landlord proposed to evict a tenant on a claim for rent which was unreasonable, to give the assistance of the police for the purpose of carrying that eviction into effect, or for the purpose of serving these ejectment processes, he thought they would be justified in withdrawing their opposition to this Vote. If, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman persisted in his determination to carry this unjust law into effect, he and his hon. Friends were called upon to offer a very decided and strenuous opposition to any Vote for this Constabulary Force. In his opinion, that force was bad in

  197
  every particular. It was presided over, not by a person who had risen through the different grades of the force, but by a military officer, who had no sympathy with the people of the country, and who treated the Constabulary as a military machine rather than as a police force. Next it was complained that a very large proportion of the officers in that force were not of the Catholic persuasion; and the result was that, as the vast majority of the men were Catholics, they had no chance of promotion unless they came to some understanding with the police officers above them. In consequence, a very large proportion of the people of Ireland did not look upon the police force as an impartial and properly constituted force. Reference had been made to the fact that a large proportion of its officers were Freemasons. Now, everyone knew that Freemasonry was one of the most dishonest systems in the community, because the members were banded together for the purpose of supporting their individual friends, in the most unfair manner, in opposition to the rest of the community. That was the system on which Freemasonry was based; and the system was carried, out, to a great extent, in the ranks of this Irish force. Instances were given in which very great injustice took place, in the Northern parts of Ireland especially, where the Protestant Party was in the majority. In the Southern parts of Ireland this question did not arise, because the Roman Catholics were much more tolerant, and did not tyrannize over their Protestant neighbours, with the result that both parties got along in comparative quietness. In the North, however, where the Protestants were in the majority, they tyrannized over the Catholics in the most iniquitous manner, and the result was that conflicts continually took place. In all these holdings the Roman Catholics did not get fair play. The large proportion of the magistrates were Protestants, and, in the majority of cases, they were persons who had no idea of justice whatever. They acted in the most unjustifiable manner on the bench, and, in addition, gave their instructions to the police force and to the officers of the force in the same manner. A large proportion of the officers were non-Catholics, and the result was that the rank and file, by their instructions, acted in the most un-
  198
  fair manner. As a consequence, the Protestants were encouraged in their system of tyranny over the Catholics. He had just noticed two cases of trouble which had recently arisen. A travelling party was passing between the towns of Post and Down, and were met by an Orange mob at a place called Church Place, some slight stone-throwing occurred, the Orange party being the aggressors. The police showed their impartiality by summoning a number of boys who had nothing to do with the matter. That was one instance where they summoned parties who were simply spectators walking after the procession, while they allowed the aggressors to escape. Then with regard to the recent case to which so much reference had been made. There Mr. Webb, the sub-inspector, was a violent Protestant. All the magistrates were Protestants, for there was not a single Catholic on the bench in the County of Tyrone; and, as a consequence, the police, instead of protecting a peaceable procession thoroughly within its rights, attacked the procession, and allowed the aggressors to get off scot free. He thought that was enough to show that the police system was conducted on a most unfair principle, and required a thorough reform. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would say he would utterly refuse to allow the police to assist in serving ejectment processes in cases where the rent was very much above the Government valuation, and would firmly set his face against any such things until the people got the benefit of their harvest, and thus were enabled to put themselves in a position to fairly pay their way. For permanent legislation on this subject, they need not hurry it if a temporary promise were given that until next Session these evictions would not be allowed. The right hon. Gentleman had continually said he was bound to carry out an unjust law. He (Mr. Biggar) maintained he was bound to do nothing of the sort. There was plenty of time before the Session closed to suspend a law that was unreasonable; and, in this case, the injustice was so glaring that he did not see why the Government should refuse to do what he suggested. If, however, they would not consent to make this reasonable concession to the wishes of the Irish people, the result would be a continuous warfare, the people would be shot down,

  199
  and the landlords would be able to turn these people out of their land backed by a so-called Liberal Government and the bayonets and rifles of the Irish police.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought they were indebted to the Chairman for the laxity with which he had allowed this debate to be carried on, and for permitting it to diverge from a debate on the Constabulary of Ireland into a discussion on the question of land tenure. But it was important to Ireland, far more than any mere detail as to the Constabulary, that they should have been favoured that night by the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. He was glad to hear from that right hon. Gentleman that the condition of Ireland was at present deplorable, and the question arose in his mind since, when had the right hon. Gentleman arrived at that opinion? During the 12 years he had been in that House with the right hon. Gentleman, he had never found him vote for any extension of tenant right, or for any fixity of tenure in Ireland. It was true that he was a Member of the great Liberal Party who introduced the Land Bill, and it was true that he was one of that House who voted considerably in support of Government propositions. But it was true, also, that he regularly voted against Sir John Gray's Motion, and against any Motion which recognized the right of an Irish tenant in the land. Since that Government fell, and deservedly fell, in 1874, and since the Tory Government had come into power—a Government which, according to the right hon. Gentleman, was unworthy to occupy the Treasury Bench—Motion after Motion had been brought forward to extend the Ulster Custom to Ireland; and who was more consistent in his opposition to remedial measures in 1874, 1875, 1876, and 1877, than the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster? When the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue), in 1877, brought forward his Motion, that it was not desirable that the property intended to be conferred by the Land. Act of 1870 upon the tenant farmers in Ireland should be taken away, and that measures should be taken to prevent property so conferred upon them being filched away by an arbitrary increase of rent, where then was the right hon. Gentleman? Did he lend his vote
  200
  in support of that Motion? No; he was conspicuous by his absence. Yet he now told them, forsooth, that everything had come from the late Government, though they merely established a Commission which was not competent to report. He had said that the present Government had established a Royal Commission, which was more competent to report than the late Commission. He did believe in two Members who had been appointed on that Commission. He believed that the hon. Member for the County Cork (Mr. Shaw) had a knowledge of the Land Question in Ireland which few Members of that House possessed, and he believed in Baron Dowse. But who else was there on that Commission worthy of trust? The Government had put at the head of it, as its Chairman, a landlord utterly unknown beyond the precincts of his own estate; and it was true, also, they had added to it one whom he was proud to acknowledge as a personal friend, but one who, in that House, had always shown the most inveterate hostility to the demands of Irish tenants—the rejected of Carlow and Roscommon. Yet they were told, forsooth, that this Commission was an instance of the tender anxiety of the Government for the Irish tenantry. With reference to the Vote for the Constabulary, he was absent when the Question was put; but he was informed that it was to be taken in globo. Although the Constabulary might be stigmatized as ruffians by those who did not know them, yet he had known them for 15 years, and he could bear his testimony to their character, and honesty, and high sense of duty. He could also acknowledge the manner in which they performed their duties under the difficulties with which they were surrounded. When the Vote was taken he should like to move its reduction. There was one remarkable fact in connection with this Vote which in English matters would not be tolerated for one single instant. They were asked to vote a sum of £1,000,000 for the Irish Constabulary, and yet, when called upon so to vote, there were not laid upon the Table of the House the rules and regulations by which the force was governed. Every sub-inspector and every head constable had a volume of those rules in his possession; and, through the favour of a friend, he had been furnished with one.

  201
  But those rules and regulations ought to be laid upon the Table of the House for the information of hon. Members who voted the money for the police. He thought it most improper that those regulations had not been laid before the Committee, and he should move that the amount of the Vote be reduced in the Stationery Department for that sum. With respect to the Medical Department, he did not know who was responsible to the Committee for the explanation of the details of the Vote; but he thought that some Member of the Government should be in his place to answer the details of a Vote for £1,000,000. Some Member of the Government should be in his place to undertake the responsibility of replying to the observations he was now making as to the details of the Vote; and he should move the adjournment of the House until some Member of the Treasury Bench would undertake to answer his question. He did not think it was respectful to the Committee that the Members of the Government should be absent. He did not know who was responsible to the Committee on this question. [Mr. GIBSON: The Attorney General for Ireland.] A right hon. and learned Gentleman told him that the Attorney General for Ireland was responsible. If the Government were willing to explain the details to which he had alluded, he was quite willing to go on, otherwise he should beg to move the adjournment of the House.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that there was no Motion upon which the hon. Member could move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. CALLANbegged to move that the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Callan.)
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he would like to point out to the hon. Member that they had hardly yet got into the details of this question, and they had hitherto only been discussing one great principle in the whole Vote. He had no hesitation in admitting that the Irish Members had one main object in discussing this matter; but that object was not in any way to delay Public Business.
  202
  No Irish Member with whom he was acquainted, or associated, had the slightest wish to delay Public Business, or the passing of this Vote, beyond the time which they thought necessary to urge upon the Government certain important considerations, and to obtain from them, as he trusted, certain admissions in return. They were anxious to obtain, from responsible Members of Her Majesty's Government, some assurance that they saw, as the Irish Members saw, the baneful nature of the whole system upon which the police force of Ireland was based. That was their motive in endeavouring to address the Committee at some length, and with such force as they could command; and they sought to prevent the passing of these Votes, which would prolong, for some further time, the system of which they complained. The complained of the system upon which the English Government was conducting the police in Ireland. He had listened with the deepest attention, and with the profoundest admiration, to the speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had delivered. No Irish Member could help being affected by the spirit and the sense of that speech. No Irish Member could fail to be impressed by speeches such as that, nor could such speeches fail to make the relations between the Government and the Irish Members more satisfactory than they were before. But that speech did not remove the great difficulty which stood in their way in the passing of this Vote. As the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had so eloquently pointed out, there still remained the same condition of things; there still remained the law, admitted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to be unjust and oppressive, and which he could not, without some difficulty to his conscience, continue to enforce; and there remained all the machinery for enforcing that unjust law. They had yet had no assurance, and he had seen no indication, of any serious resolve in the minds of Her Majesty's Government, to abolish that system either now, or at some future time. The Irish Members regarded that system of military police as tempting the landlords to oppressiveness, and they felt bound to do all in their power to get rid of it. That military system had a tendency to create an

  203
  oppressive spirit on the part of landlords, and it fostered the very evils which were made an excuse for maintaining such a body in Ireland. It was idle to suppose that that Praetorian Guard at the service of the landlords would not be used as an engine of oppression. It was kept to enable one specially privileged class of the community to collect its civil debts at the point of the bayonet. It was impossible for any body of men, however well inclined, to have such an engine of oppression placed in their hands without making use of it. By that system the Government impressed upon the minds of the Irish landlords the conviction that they were, and ought to be, a privileged class. What greater privilege could there be? They were set apart from all other classes, and they had placed at their disposal a well-drilled, well-regulated military body, to collect their civil debts, and to enforce, according to their own view, their civil rights. Would it be possible, in a country like England, to place a power like that of the Irish Constabulary at the disposal of any class? Yet, in Ireland, this body simply enabled the landlord class to collect their civil debts; and for that purpose alone were the Irish Constabulary trained and maintained as a military force. He could hardly believe that there were many hon. Members of that House who had not been much impressed with the statement made by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and by the extraordinary picture which he had painted for them, in simple straightforward words, of the anomalous condition of things which they had been trying to find some means to alleviate. He had been deeply impressed with the truth of the assertion made by the hon. Member, when he said that, but for the organization of the Land League, so much denounced in the House of Commons, it might many times have been impossible to save the lives of those very police engaged in so odious a business. He doubted whether any hon. Member would say that it was not better to have an organization proclaiming its grievances through the newspapers, and on the public platforms, rather than to have a secret society nourishing its wrongs. He could not help, furthermore, expressing his conviction, formed from personal knowledge, that the influence
  204
  which, for months past, had mainly stood between the people of Ireland and some unhappy outburst of revolt, had been the controlling influence exercised by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). He was well aware that some hon. Members might not entertain the opinion he was expressing; but he was satisfied that the confidence felt by the mass of the Irish people in his energy, earnestness, and in his efforts to obtain redress in that House, had prevented an outbreak of sporadic, but dangerous revolt. He would appeal to the Government to say, whether the time had not fairly come, when they might offer some assurance that they would give their grave consideration to the introduction of some system, whereby the use of a military body for the enforcement of civil claims in Ireland might be avoided. He did not believe that there was any country in the world where a police force like that of Ireland was maintained for such a purpose. The question upon which they had been engaged in debate, a few days ago in that House, was whether bullets or buckshot were the proper mechanism to be used for the collection of the landlords' civil claims; whether bullets or buckshot were the more effective means of enabling the landlords to get in their rents; and whether bullets or buckshot were the missiles less likely to bring about the deaths of innocent and harmless people. It seemed to him that people who did not pay their debts to their landlords were in no different position from those who were unable to pay their tailors' bills. What could they think of a system which, in the 19th century, enforced the payment of debts by the use of bullets and buckshot? Was it not time that they should hear from Her Majesty's Government that they had some intention of reforming that system? The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster made an appeal to them, in moving terms, on the ground of the services rendered by the Liberal Government to Ireland in times past. Most freely would he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) acknowledge those services; for the right hon. Gentleman himself deserved more fully than even Fox did, to whom the poetic words were applied, to be described as one —"On whose burning tongue, truth, peace, and freedom

  205
  hung." But, so far as they had gone in this debate, they had had no promise, and they had heard no suggestion of a promise, that anything should be done to reform this most odious police system. He regretted that the Irish Members, in pursuing their object that night, should not have received the smallest countenance or support from Members of the Liberal Party generally. Although the Liberal Benches had been crowded by hon. Members during that night's discussion, not a single Liberal Member had risen to offer a word of sympathy to the Irish Members. He knew that many of them were steeped to the lips in Liberal professions, and yet he did not hear from any one of them a single word to sustain the Irish Members in their most earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Government. He should not embarrass his hon. Friends by singling out any of them by name, so as to bring them into a delicate position with Her Majesty's Government. But there were many hon. Members upon the opposite side whose opinions on this question he knew to be in accordance with his own. If they lived in that palace of truth which the French writer had described, they would hear one after another of those hon. Members denounce the police system of Ireland with an earnestness as great as his own, and with an eloquence to which he could make no pretension. The object of the Irish Members in this debate—he was glad to find it had been a debate of a most thoroughly practical character— had been the one single purpose of obtaining from Her Majesty's Government some assurance that they were determined, at the earliest moment, to put an end to this thoroughly vicious and odious police system in Ireland.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that as the Question before the Committee was only one to report Progress, he should not detain the Committee for any lengthened period in the observations which he should make. He, however, felt bound to take notice of one or two observations which had fallen from the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) who had asked whether the Government considered bullets or buckshot were the most effectual weapons for the collection of civil debts. He (the Marquess of Hartington) would venture to say
  206
  that the question of bullets or buckshot had never come before the House, or anywhere else, in connection with the Land Question. When the question of buckshot and bullets came before the House it was not in connection with agrarian disputes, or with the landlords; the buckshot had been used by the police in the midst of one of those savage sectarian disputes, which were admitted by all parties to be a disgrace and discredit to Ireland. When the hon. Member represented that, but for the purpose of the collection of the landlords' rent in Ireland, it was unnecessary that the police force should be armed at all, he should have endeavoured to show that the people of Ireland were prepared to obey the law, and to obey an unarmed force like the English Constabulary. Did the hon. Member think that in these religious disputes, which so often led to bloodshed in the North of Ireland, the two contending parties should be allowed to fight it out between themselves, without any interference on the part of the constituted powers; or did he desire that the police should be placed between two armed mobs, and should be furnished only with the simple weapons which were found sufficient to preserve the peace in England? The hon. Member, and other hon. Members near him, had endeavoured to represent that this force was kept up in Ireland merely for the purpose of protecting landlords, and of assisting them to collect their rent. His (the Marquess of Hartington's) experience of Irish administration was not recent; but he remembered a time, not so long ago, when the service of the police was as much required for the protection of the tenant, who had either unwittingly or unknowingly offended against the stern law of some Ribbon Society, and had thus rendered himself obnoxious to the members of such a society, as they were required for the protection of the landlord. He had no intention of entering further into a discussion which had already been prolonged so much. The hon. Member told them that the discussion had been continued for the purpose of obtaining some pledge from the Government that the police would not be used for the purpose of enforcing the law. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had several times addressed the

  207
  House in a spirit of sympathy and good feeling towards the Irish Representatives, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had that night made a speech which he was sure would commend itself to the sympathies of the Irish people, whether or not it commended itself to that of the Irish Members. The Government had no assurance to give beyond what they had given; and if hon. Members thought that by simply delaying Supply they could wring from the Government pledges which they were not disposed to give, they were very much mistaken. The hon. Members had said that they had not yet reached a stage when it was possible to discuss the details of this Vote; but he was afraid that it would be necessary for them to proceed to discuss the details of the Vote before it could be agreed to. This question had practically been discussed in a more or less discursive manner during the last three nights; and he saw no reason why, even at that late hour, the details of the Vote should not be satisfactorily discussed, and the decision of the Committee taken upon it. It was absolutely impossible for the Government to agree to the Motion to report Progress, which had been made by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), and he was compelled to ask the Committee to come to a decision upon the Vote that night.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he could not but express his regret at the tone in which the noble Marquess had just spoken. The noble Marquess, in defending the necessity for an armed police, might have remembered that, on the occasion of the Phoenix Park riots, the rioters were at once dispersed by the Metropolitan Police armed with the baton, which he said was quite ineffectual for the purposes of the Government. He had listened to the speeches from the Government Bench as to the question of land, and the necessity of maintaining an armed force in connection with the present land system, and had been somewhat puzzled at the uncertain voice of the Government. From the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he had hopes that the Government had seen the utter unfairness of maintaining the Constabulary Force in Ireland on its present footing, and intended to modify the system under
  208
  which that force was maintained; but since the speech of the noble Marquess he had been driven to a totally different conclusion. The noble Marquess had alluded to the unfortunate Party riots which took place from time to time in the North of Ireland as a justification for the maintenance of this force, and for its being armed with rifles and buckshot; but he had forgotten that these riots did not take place in other parts of Ireland, and yet the Constabulary all over the country were armed with rifles, and had recently served out to them six rounds of buckshot per man. Again, the noble Marquess had not given a single instance of these arms having been used for the protection of the tenantry; and was not the assumption that they would be so used a mere begging the question? Anybody who understood the Irish land system would know that the Constabulary were maintained for the purpose of protecting the landlords in Ireland; and had not that been acknowledged in precise terms by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster himself? That right hon. Gentleman was too conscientious and too just to Ireland to say one word at the present time in justification of the maintenance of the Constabulary. On the contrary, his argument was that this land system was most unjust and most intolerable, and must be swept away; that the prop of the land system was the Constabulary; and that that prop could not be removed, until the system which it supported had ceased to exist. If, then, the force could not be justified on its merits, he thought the necessity for its abolition ought to be recognized by Her Majesty's Government. The force was unconstitutional, and, therefore, nothing could be said in its defence. It was, moreover, beyond the control of public opinion, either within or without the House; and no one could ascertain the mode of its government. Some years ago, he had himself asked for the Constabulary code to be laid upon the Table of the House; but the then Chief Secretary for Ireland had refused it. He had then asked that a single copy might be placed in the Library, so that hon. Members might know the secret rules and regulations enacted for the government of the force. This request was also refused. The code was of the nature of the Mutiny Act, which the House, with

  209
  great jealousy, passed every year. How, then, could it be wondered at that the Vote received such determined resistance on the part of Irish Members? The debate would have to be continued, he believed, to a second night; and he did not think it could possibly be completed without some more satisfactory assurance from the Treasury Bench than had been given. It would be totally impossible for any Liberal Government professing Constitutional doctrines to maintain the force as at present constituted in Ireland. He thought the Irish land system must be radically and immediately reformed, and, pending that, they were justified in pressing their opposition to the Constabulary Vote; because, while the Government were waiting to mature a plan, the people whom they desired to assist would be evicted, and next summer, when a Bill might be passed to protect them, they would be either in the poorhouse, or on board the emigrant ship. He was aware of the difficulty of the whole situation., and could understand the Government saying they had come suddenly into power, and were not prepared with a land scheme. But the answer to that was, the people were not prepared to wait, and, in that dilemma, would be destroyed. This was a question of life and death to tens of thousands of people in Ireland; and, therefore, he felt, in the face of that heavy responsibility, that Irish Members could not be too punctilious in laying the condition, of affairs before the Government. It would be well if the Government could devise some temporary measure for the protection of persons on the eve of eviction; but, as things now stood, Irish Members were called upon to use every opportunity to protect those unfortunate people by any means in their power; and, certainly, to stop the Constabulary Vote was one of the most effectual means they could lay their hands upon. And now he would offer one word of warning to the Government, who seemed to think they could place reliance upon the Constabulary to maintain law and order—that was to say, the unjust system of landlordism in Ireland. During the last 10 days he had received a letter from a member of the Royal Irish Constabulary, addressed to him in his capacity as the proprietor of a daily journal, and bearing the name and address of
  210
  the writer, who said that the other day he, in common with a number of his companions, were called out to assist at an eviction. They were armed with loaded rifles; but, fortunately, the writer added—
  "After we had been ordered to load, the sub-sheriff, who was a humane man, interfered and effected a compromise between the landlord and the tenant."
  But he went on to say—
  "Had we received the order to fire, do you think we should have done so? I would have remembered that I was the son of an evicted tenant, and that we of the Constabulary are the sons of Irish farmers, and that we have Irish blood in our veins, although we wear the Constabulary coat and take the Queen's money."
  He went on to say that he would not have fired, and that he represented the opinions of many of his companions. It was absolutely impossible for him (Mr. Gray) to say whether or not this man did represent the opinion of any considerable portion of his class; but the Government should bear in mind that the Royal Irish Constabulary, although carefully picked, well-disciplined—men who would probably fight to the death, under ordinary circumstances, in support of the orders they had received, were, to a man, drawn from the small farmer class. In the present state of feeling in Ireland, and with the knowledge that the Government had declared it to be their duty to enforce in Ireland laws which they had acknowledged to be unjust, or capable of inflicting injustice, it was a question whether they could rely upon the Constabulary in carrying those laws into execution.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, on listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he thought the Irish Members had made some progress in educating a certain section of the Liberal Party; but that speech had been more than marred by the ill-timed and ill-tempered speech of the noble Marquess. He had often heard hon. Members opposite ask why they had not clearly stated their wants and grievances; and, at the same time, say that the Liberal politicians in this country would be quite as willing to do what was right in the direction of redress as any hon. Member from Ireland. But when Irish Members took that course, they were met, not by words of sympathy, or even of explanation, but by

  211
  sullen silence on all sides. He, for one, protested against suck treatment on the part of hon. Members opposite. He wanted to call attention to the one damning spot on the system of Irish Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, in 1870, with regard to the landlord system, that—"If Ireland were a thousand miles away, all would be changed, or the landlords would be exterminated by the vengeance of the people." Did the right hon. Gentleman hold a different opinion now? No; he had that day not only acknowledged, but repeated every expression that he used in his speeches on the Irish land system, and said that the police were kept for the purpose of maintaining that system. When did ever a company or guard of policemen turn out to defend an Irish tenant? He had heard of the police being sent to the houses of landlords at the expense of the barony; but had never heard of their being sent to protect a tenant from the rapacity of his landlord. The Irish landlord had all the same remedies for the recovery of his rent as an English landlord. Why was it that he had recourse to the only one which an English landlord never availed himself of? Because he was able to avail himself of this military force to execute his eviction, which was tantamount to a sentence of death to the tenant and his family. No doubt, only a few of them acted, so; but they were enough to bring discredit on the whole body. Now, if the Irish landlords were over to be credited with feelings of humanity, they must be deprived of this power, which he maintained they had, of collecting their rents under penalty of death. Leave tenants to the arm of the civil power, and make no use of an armed force for the extermination of the people. As a proof that the use of an armed force was unnecessary for the preservation of order, he reminded the noble Lord of the scenes which little more than 20 years ago occurred in Liverpool, when armed bands of ships carpenters and dockmen, who, to the number of 600 or 700 men of a side, assembled to fight in the streets, in the same riotous manner, and with similar Party animosities, as they now saw at Belfast or Dungannon, but who were dispersed by the police, armed only with the baton, without loss of life or limb.
  212
  The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said they must maintain their position as the Governing Body in Ireland; but he was one of those who neither saw the necessity of his being Chief Secretary, nor that of the noble Marquess being Leader of the House of Commons; while he certainly felt that if they could not preserve peace and order in Ireland without violating the principles of the Constitution their proper course would be to retire.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 29; Noes 142: Majority 113.—(Div. List, No. 136.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  THE O'DONOGHUEbegged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. In making that proposal he wished, at the same time, to make an earnest appeal to Her Majesty's Government—[Cries of "Oh!"and Cheers.'] That expression of opinion would not prevent him from making this appeal. If any hon. Members chose to raise their voices, he should simply remain where he was until he could make his appeal in an audible tone. He wanted to ask the Government whether they could not give way to the expression of opinion on that side of the House that further discussion ought to take place. The Government had shown, by the recent division, the superiority of their numbers; but those who voted in the minority, nevertheless, represented the opinion of the vast majority of the people of Ireland on this question. Therefore, although their numbers might not enable them to enforce their opinion, they certainly had the Constitutional right on their side.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(The O'Donoghue.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman had appealed to the Government to grant time for further discussion. They must remember, however, the ground upon which it was evidently intended to be supported. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were endeavouring to get from the Government a promise or pledge, he could hardly make out which,

  213
  apparently of one or two things. They wanted the Government to promise them that there should be a meeting of Parliament in the autumn, or that they would discontinue arming the policemen. It was utterly impossible for him to do either the one or the other. What they had actually before them was, in fact, a very practical matter indeed; and that was, whether the House was to do what was absolutely necessary for the government and the peace of Ireland. It was not a question of landlords' rights or of tenants' rights; but it was a question whether there was to be security of life and property in Ireland. To secure life was the first and foremost object of the Government, and after that to secure property. The hon. Member for Eos-common (Dr. Commins) had talked about the possibility, if the police were not armed, that the landlords might be exterminated. Well, that was all very well; but it must be remembered, after all, that landlords were human beings.
  DR. COMMINS: I beg pardon. I simply quoted an expression used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that might be; but the hon. Member had put on it an interpretation, which he was quite sure his right hon. Friend never intended. He believed if the police were unarmed that some landlords might be exterminated. [Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear ! and Laughter,] Well, that might be so; but landlords were entitled to have protection, and at present some of them were obliged to be accompanied by policemen, and by policemen armed. He did not say that was a pleasant thing; but, after all, it was the duty of the Government to preserve life, and it was the business of this House to do, what it had always done, to vote the money which was necessary for the preservation of life. After all the discussion which they had had, he was now told that one of these two pledges was asked. It was utterly impossible for the Government to give either.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he took it that the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman expressed what he meant at the present moment, and doubtless what he had said was the present determination of the Government; but he had frequently seen the determination of the Government, quite as strong as that,
  214
  yield under discussion. It was the absolute right of the Irish Members to have a full discussion on this question, and if they asked them they had a still better right to have a thorough discussion, for in this Vote lay the kernel of the Irish question. The police were the sole prop of the Irish landlord system, and when he and his hon. Friends had succeeded in convincing public opinion in this country that the police were maintained solely for that purpose, the police would be swept away before the public opinion of this country as they were now condemned by public opinion in Ireland. For that reason alone, it was the absolute right of the Irish Members to have an adequate opportunity for the discussion of this matter. He should like to know if any matter as important to the people of England as this was to Ireland were set down for discussion whether English Members would submit to be put off with one night's debate. He did not think that they would, and he and his hon. Friends were fully determined to take the same position as they had seen English Members so frequently take. They had examples before their eyes in hon. Gentlemen who were now sitting on the other side of the House, whom he himself had frequently seen stand up when matters of far less vital importance arose, and insist, not upon a second, but upon a third, and even a fourth, night's discussion. That was exactly the position which he and his hon. Friends intended to take now. With regard to this question itself, he had only to say this—that if there was one branch of the Government more than another which ought to be responsible to that House, and under the control of that House, it was this armed force; especially at this particular time it ought to be subject to, and responsible to, that House. Yet, what was the responsibility which the Constitution provided? The Irish Members had a tithe, or less than a tithe, of the attention of the Chief Secretary. They had an infinitesimal share of the responsibility which he bore for all Irish Departments, and that was the entire amount of responsibility which the police of Ireland at that particular moment bore to the House. This was a matter which must be brought home to Irish Members, because they were threatened that those police would be used to collect landlords' rent

  215
  in Ireland. They were told that if rights and claims which were admitted to be unjust were resisted by the people this winter, that the blood of the people would be shed in order to maintain those rights. Under those circumstances, their sacred duty to their country, not merely to the people who returned them to that House, but to the hundreds and thousands of peasants who had no votes, and who were not yet enfranchised, was to ask for a full and adequate discussion of this question, and on that right he trusted they would all insist.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he must complain very strongly that the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), had "voted with the Whigs" in the last division, after taking up two and a-half hours of their time earlier in the evening in what might be called a Party recon-naisance, mere personal display, a mere Party attack on the Treasury Bench. But after they had done that, they came down there and voted the Irish Members down in their demand for a fair hearing on a question of immense importance to Ireland. Let the Committee observe that not a word had been contributed to the debate on the Irish Constabulary Estimates by one of these hon. Gentlemen. He saw the late Attorney General for Ireland taking copious notes when the Chancellor of the Duchy was making his speech; but their respected Friend— though they differed from him, they all liked him—had thought better of it, for after what happened to him last night he would take care how he made a friendly and sympathetic speech again. On that occasion, being himself a most kindly and sympathetic man, and, apart from official constraint, a most kindly disposed Irish Gentleman, his inner nature broke forth, and he echoed in great part the generous sentiments of the Irish Secretary. But it was a very serious matter for him, for no sooner had he passed from that House into the comparative privacy of the Conservative Lobby than he got it red-hot from his friends, and it was made quite clear that he should not have so spoken. Therefore, after taking copious notes in order, perhaps, that he might support the speech of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, he took wit, not
  216
  in his anger, but in his generosity, and took heed of the danger of being scolded again in the councils of his Party, and had, therefore, held his tongue that night. He would appeal to the Government to say what Irish Members were to think of what was happening on the Treasury Bench. He would put it to the good sense of the Committee if they had not heard two irreconcilable voices. If the Irish Members merited the compliment paid to them by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, they did not deserve the rebuke which had just been administered by the noble Marquess. If that had been a debate pursued in good faith, and if that debate had been conducted with half the ability that the right hon. Gentleman said it had been, if it had been also a debate meriting the full and ample reports in the public journals which that right hon. Gentleman desired for it, then they had not been wasting a moment's time in that House, but had been simply realizing the purpose which, as he believed, had honestly animated them in that discussion. Therefore, although he did not blame the noble Marquess so much as the Conservative Gentlemen who had wasted their time early in the evening, he did submit to him that he had suggested to his faithful followers on the other side of the House that the Irish Members were wasting time, and that in doing so he had made a charge which was cruelly undeserved, unless his right hon. Colleague had been speaking the language of insincerity. What he complained of also was that eloquent and able Gentlemen opposite had not contributed one example of that ability which he was confident they were competent to contribute to the debate to-night. From the little he had been able to overhear across the floor of the sotto voce comments they were making, he was quite sure if they would only get up and address the House, instead of one another, they would contribute something which would be very useful to the Public Business of the country. He and his hon Friends considered that the Constabulary Estimates which they were discussing that night formed a subject well worthy of a week's continuous debate in that House. ["No, no!"] He did not wonder that some hon. Members did receive that statement with an expression of good-humoured acquiscence;

  217
  but he would say for those hon. Gentlemen that he quite understood their position. He knew when one was listening to a debate on a subject with which one was not intimately acquainted, or in which one had not a keen personal interest, that the best arguments seemed wearisome and tiresome to the last degree. He had sometimes sat there during five nights' debate on English subjects, and he had to put the strongest restraint upon himself to prevent his expressing the utter weariness with which he had listened to Englishman after Englishman getting up and talking about the same subject. He had said, over and over again—"Is it not intolerable that all this time should be wasted;" but then he had afterwards reflected that it was not the fault of the Members who were speaking, but it was his own want of sympathy, and his own want of knowledge, that caused him to think four nights' discussion was too long. They had had a long discussion about the malt duty. What did he care about the malt duty? He consumed no malt liquors, and, consequently, all those discussions about malt seemed to him an utter waste of public time. "Well, he listened quietly to their malt duty and currency debates, about which he did not care at all, and to their Hares and Rabbits Bill—although he had never killed a hare, he was proud to say, and no living rabbit could lay at his door the blood of its ancestors—and, having done that, he would ask the Committee in return to consider that to the Irish Members, and to the men they represented, this Constabulary debate was the debate and the question of the Session. He had no hesitation in taking the Committee so far into his confidence, and into the confidence of the Irish Party, as to tell them that there was no doubt in the world that it was perfectly true, as stated in the papers, that immediately on the speech of the Chief Secretary the other evening their intention of debating those Constabulary Estimates for a week was abandoned; and he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) would blame him when he said that it was abandoned because they concluded, after such a speech, that a fair and legitimate discussion, which they thought the House would take kindly, and in good part, for a couple of evenings, would quite suffice
  218
  for the impression which they desired to make upon public opinion, and upon the Members of that House. It was not because those Votes would be passed—because they knew, of course, that they must be passed that year—that they made those speeches, but with a view to action next year. He would, therefore, appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to speak on this subject. He knew there were two feelings which were preserving the silence on the opposite Benches; but he did tell them, the Members of the great Liberal Party present that night, and through them their Colleagues in the country, that their silence was likely to be painfully, and seriously, and hurt-fully, misunderstood by those of his countrymen who were yet well pleased to see those Members sitting where they were. The Irish Party wished that they might remain there, and he would tell them why. He was confident that a great deal of their silence arose not from any want of sympathy with Ireland, but from their hesitancy to embarrass the Government which had their confidence. Indeed, he put it to them, if they wanted to serve the Government, they would do so best by taking up the noble and generous sentiments that had been expressed by the two Ministers on the Treasury Bench. Let him ask his Radical Friends what chance the Irish Chief Secretary and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster would have in the Cabinet against the reactionary Members of the Liberal Party, if it could be said that not one single independent Liberal below the Gangway got up to support their speeches. Did they not see that the silence of the Liberal Party would be thus misconstrued, even in the Cabinet, as well as out-of-doors? The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster ought not to be left alone. Let them consider what happened only the other night. The Chief Secretary for Ireland came down and made a very generous speech; and that evening a deliberate plot was laid by that astute and most amiable and most artful young Gentleman the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), so to attack him, so to cross-examine him, so to worry him, so to talk him over as to extract from him some recantation of the generous sentiments he had uttered. He would merely say of that attack that if there was to be an attack

  219
  there was no one he was better pleased to hear delivering it than the noble Lord, because one could not quarrel with him, even when he was most troublesome. He rose to speak, as a famous American had spoken of another distinguished character "with a smile that was child-like and bland;" but that noble Lord was able, on that occasion, to take advantage of the absence of moral support to the Chief Secretary. Now, why did they not get up to second and support that speech by others in the same strain? Let them have this cold chain of silence broken. ["No, no!"] Did hon. Gentlemen feel as the Chief Secretary felt? ["Yes!"] Then let them express what he had expressed. At all events, he would appeal to the Committee to let them debate this matter. It was now near 2 o'clock, and he thought the House was entitled to expect from them that they should honestly give themselves to the discharge of Public Business to a time which would be unreasonable in March and April, but was not unreasonable now, in the present state of Public Business. He was ready that night to sit until 2 or 3, and he was quite willing to go on with the discussion; but he would ask the Government not to imagine that there would be, in any sense, a hindrance to Public Business by the concession to them of another night's debate upon this most important, this all-important, subject. He could only say that he intended to speak on it himself, and that he had not, by any means, addressed to the Committee all the observations which he intended to make. He had very much to say about the Irish Constabulary; for he differed from a great deal that had been said, although he approved of a great deal more. He would not, however, touch that now; but he did appeal to the Government not to misunderstand them. He would speak only for himself; indeed, it was very dangerous for anyone speaking as he did to speak for anybody else. [Laughter.] Well, for himself, he had no purpose in making this appeal, except to further the progress of Business; and he should be very glad to endeavour, for another half-hour or so, to fairly discuss this question. He did say, in conclusion, however, that unless they had been flattered and unnecessarily cajoled for the purposes of deceit from the Treasury Bench, which
  220
  he did not for a moment believe, he repudiated with vigour the attack that was attempted to be made upon them that night. He believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster spoke sincerely in saying that they were carrying on a useful debate; and if that was true, the penalties of Obstruction should surely not be visited upon them.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, it was not his intention at all to respond to the kindly appeal which had been made to him by the hon. and learned Member to make a speech on the progress of this discussion. There were occasions, as they knew, when, if speech was silver, silence was golden, and the House might very well remember that "Those also serve who only stand and wait." They must bear in mind that this discussion could hardly be said to have commenced that night, because for several days before it had been announced by the noble Lord that the Irish Constabulary Vote would be taken on Monday. Certainly, Irish affairs did occupy the attention of the House for the whole of Monday, and again for the whole of Tuesday; while they had again been engaged for the last eight hours in discussing the Irish Constabulary Vote. An ordinary person would imagine that the Vote had been fully discussed in that time. It must be remembered that what was being discussed was not a Party matter in any sense of the word. This Vote affected not only the landlords, but the tenants, and everybody else throughout Ireland. It was a Vote on which depended the maintenance of law and order in that country; and, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, it would be an absurdity, in a time like the present, when all classes in Ireland were permitted to have arms, to pass a measure by which the police, representing the majesty of the law, were to be the only class without them. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), in his invitation to him to speak, had said that he saw him taking notes when a very distinguished and eloquent Member of the House was making a very powerful speech. It was true that that speech did contain many propositions that he would have been very glad to have discussed, and many propositions which he should certainly have liked to criticize, and to offer his opinion upon; but he came to the con-

  221
  clusion, in which his hon. Friend sitting near him agreed, that, having regard to the state of Business, and to the necessity for this Vote, it was more patriotic not to interrupt the course of Business by going into an elaborate discussion of what would be extremely controvertible matters. There were times when he had expressed his opinion at considerable length on these matters. He had expressed those views also more than once this Session; and it would, in the main, be merely a repetition of them to deal with particular statements. Therefore, he thought it better to pass by that speech on that occasion, leaving his own opinions to stand by themselves, without repetition, as being already tolerably well known. Nobody could question, and he readily bore witness to, the extremely friendly and conciliatory way in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had that evening discharged his duty. How could he be expected to give any definite promise about any land legislation when the Government themselves had recently appointed a new small Commission to report to them? They were now in the position of being obliged to wait the result of that Commission; and when it came they would, no doubt, consider its recommendations, and they would submit to Parliament whatever they, in their wisdom, thought was wise and proper. The right hon. Gentleman surely could not be asked to say anything more reasonable than that. How could he, with a desire for the good government of Ireland, consent to have no Constabulary Force there, or to have an unarmed force in the present state of things? He put it to his hon. Friends who represented Irish constituencies— although it was a matter on which, of course, they would exercise their own independent action—as a matter of prudence, whether they ought not to be amply satisfied with the result they had already produced. Surely, after three days' discussion, they might, at all events, begin by taking one Vote, and then discussing the others good-humouredly as they went along, without making set speeches in each case.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was rather astonished at the idea of patriotism which seemed to be entertained by the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down. He very much desired to save the time of the Govern-
  222
  ment at this moment, and he considered it a patriotic duty to do so; but he had watched, with some attention, the conduct of his Colleagues on those Front Benches in reference to this question of saving the time of the Government; and he found these Gentlemen not very anxious to save time when the Hares and Rabbits Bill was under discussion. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's patriotism, therefore, came to this—that he was willing to waste as much of the time of the Government as might be necessary—or, at any rate, his Colleagues were—in order to save English hares and rabbits; but he grudged the waste of a single day to save the lives of his fellow-countrymen. A good deal had been heard that night with reference to the question that they were really fighting. Now, it appeared from the Returns of the ejectments reported by the Constabulary that, in 1846, there were 79; and in 1878 there were 834; in 1879 there were 1,698; and in the five months of the present year there were 1,060. They were, therefore, more than double the number this year compared with last; while the number last year was more than double the year before. Those, however, were only numbers reported by the Constabulary. If they looked at the total numbers, they would find that, in 1878, there were 1,179; in 1879, 2,677; while in five and a-half months of this year there were 1,690. It was clear, therefore, that unless this process was checked, 15,000 individuals would be ejected from their homes, without hope and without remedy during the course of the present year. He quoted that passage from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman; but he took very great care not to tell the Committee from whom he quoted it, before he had ceased reading it; because he knew perfectly well that otherwise somebody would have got up and stopped him as being guilty of a breach of Order for quoting from a debate during the present Session. He was quoting from the speech of the Prime Minister upon the second reading of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill; and according to that speech, 15,000 men, women, and children, would be left, houseless and homeless during the present year because that Bill had not been passed. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had told them to be patient, to trust to

  223
  the good intentions of the Government, and that all would be right in the end. But what was to become of all these people in the meantime? Did the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentlemen on those Treasury Benches think they were fighting some petty question of Estimates, some petty question of whether a force should be armed with bullets or buckshot? No! They were fighting for 15,000 people, and they would indeed be base betrayers of the trust placed in them if they did not fight to the death, in order to prevent those people from being ejected from their homes, and to prevent the arm of the law, in the shape of the Irish Constabulary, being employed to effect that purpose. Now, some remarks had been made in answer to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan). His hon. and learned Friend had asked Members opposite why they did not break the chain of silence that hung around them. Immediately there came from those Benches loud and sneering cries of "No, no !"He ventured to say that a Radical like himself—and he thought he was as good a Radical as any hon. Member opposite; he knew he was considered too good a Radical by some of his Irish Friends; but he would not raise a discussion about that then—had a right to expect on this question, which was a Radical question, affecting Radicals of England and Ireland, that there should be some proof of sympathy from the Radicals of England when the Radicals of Ireland were fighting for the Constitutional liberties of their country. When Radical English questions were discussed in that House he had always supported them, sometimes greatly to the risk of his own popularity with his constituents, and to the risk even of his hold upon his seat; but if he was to risk his seat in that way, the least he could expect was that English Radicals would do something in return when such a vital question as this was at stake. He had been very much disappointed, he must say, at the silence from those Benches, and at the fact that when they went into the Lobby he looked in vain for a single English Member amongst them. Indeed, he had been disappointed. Where, in fact, must they look for true toleration? He would always maintain that for true
  224
  toleration in religion they had to go to the Catholic people of Ireland, rather than to the Protestant people of England. He would point to those Home Rule Benches in proof, where they would find Protestant after Protestant representing the Catholic constituencies of Ireland. If the English Radicals were as true to the cause of the Irish Radicals as the Irish Radicals were true to the cause of the English Radicals, then Irish questions would have been settled long ago. By taking the course they did, English. Radicals were weakening their own cause, when they ought to be fighting side by side with the Irish.
  MAJOR NOLANsaid, that a good many hon. Members had actually been told that they had better go to sleep; and it certainly seemed as if it would be a long business. He regretted that they could not dispose of this matter in good time, because there were some other Irish measures which demanded consideration —particularly there was the Irish Belief of Distress Bill.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and gallant Member was not at liberty to introduce any other Bill into the discussion. They were there simply engaged in Committee, and not with the Bills on the Order Paper.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that the hon. Member opposite had remarked that no English Radical was present at the last division. He was anxious to state that the vote he had given on this subject was because he believed it was his clear duty to promote Public Business. The unanimous vote of the English Radicals was in favour of the progress of Public Business. With regard to the Irish Constabulary, many of the observations which had been upon it were, in his opinion, deserved; but it had been said by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) that he hoped some pledge would be given that a change would be made upon it. He certainly agreed with the hon. and learned Member in looking forward to the time when some change might be made. He had always advocated the police of England and Ireland being placed on the same footing. When the time came it would be highly desirable for them to consider whether the present extraordinary character of the police in Ireland was to be maintained. For his own part, he strongly hoped that the

  225
  Irish Constabulary would not be employed during the autumn or winter in protecting landlords who unjustly evicted their tenants. He understood that any tenant in Ireland who would have been protected from eviction by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, and who would be evicted by his landlord, would be unjustly evicted. If the Government would make another attempt to pass a Bill to protect tenants in Ireland he should be glad to give it his support; but it was clearly their duty at that time to promote the despatch of Public Business, and when they insisted upon dividing, time after time, it was his duty to vote against them. Next year they could again consider the nature of the armaments of the police force; but he would appeal to hon. Members, for many of whom he felt sentiments of sincere respect, to allow the Committee to proceed to Business.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that no one regretted more than he did the course that they would be compelled to take by the action of the Government. It would have the effect of delaying, more or less, many valuable measures which were in progress. None of his hon. Friends wished to keep back the various measures,; but they wished to do all they could to support the measures which had been brought in by the Government. It was idle to charge them with Obstruction, when they had waited until the last days of the Session to commence a course of Obstruction. If they had desired to obstruct they would have commenced work long ago. He did think that many Members of that House did not fully realize the grave situation which at present existed in Ireland. He had failed to perceive, from the public utterances of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, that he himself appreciated the circumstances. He thought, from his general bearing, that if he were really acquainted with what had been done during the course of the winter, he would not hesitate to get Parliament together during the autumn, when it would be necessary to send another Bill back to the House of Lords. What were the facts with regard to the tenantry in the West of Ireland? He had his information from a gentleman constantly going over that district. He was credibly informed that half the tenantry of Ireland were under ejectment. These ejectments would be stayed until the harvest
  226
  was gathered in, and a contest arose between the rival creditors of the unfortunate tenants. These creditors were not only the landlords, but frequently bankers and shopkeepers. It would take three harvests instead of one to pay one-half of what the majority of the tenants owed. That was the position before the tenantry of the West of Ireland at the present moment. The right hon. Gentleman brought in his Bill—a very insufficient protection it was—but he failed to carry it. He now proposed to let the House rise, and he gave no assurance of what he was going to do to meet the situation. He himself had made a re-assuring statement; but, after private communications with the Attorney General for Ireland, he did his best to diminish the force of his observations. That was the situation before them, and it was a situation of enormous gravity, and one which entitled them to some consideration from the Government in the matter. If the peasantry of the West of Ireland were slaughtered, he would tell the English Liberal Members that their blood would be upon their head. Those who had lived amongst the people, as the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had done for the last two years, and had witnessed their sufferings, had told them of the actual state of affairs, and it should be remembered that he spoke with knowledge and experience of what was going on. It seemed to him that the testimony of one who had spent his daily life amongst those suffering people was better entitled to be heard with regard to their condition than those who were unacquainted with it.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he rose to add whatever emphasis could be given by him to the warning statement of the right hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) who had told the Government it would be unwise for them to strain to too great an extent the temper and patience of the Royal Irish Constabulary in this business. He believed there was no class of men in Ireland who better understood this question of land than the Royal Irish Constabulary, not only because they were farmers' sons, but because they were sent by Government to parts of the country where they would get the best possible information on the subject. A speech had been specially addressed to them at one of the land

  227
  meetings to which the Government had taken exception, on the ground that it was seditious, and instituted a prosecution in consequence. The constables, however, listened with attention; and as far as appearances went, the speech seemed to sink deep into their hearts. The statement had been challenged that the police were employed for the defence of the Irish land system. But what else were they employed in if not in enforcing payment of rent, and the carrying out of evictions throughout the country? Notwithstanding the lateness of the Session, and the desire of hon. Members to be away for sporting purposes, he reminded the Committee that no sporting matter was uppermost in the minds of the Irish Members. It was a question of starvation amongst the people of Ireland; and, therefore, he thought that no time should be grudged, either by the Committee or Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of giving the present question the fullest consideration.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman had doubted the fact that a great number of people were under notice to quit; but the landlords in Ireland managed to terrify the people by the belief that they were under processes when they were not. He had a list of several persons, amongst whom Timothy Lyon, served with no ejectment, had had to pay 30s. under the pretence that it had been carried; another person never served had to pay 30s. costs on the sum of £210s. rent; the widow Sullivan 30s. costs; Timothy Sullivan, who came to pay his rent, was actually served with the ejectment in the rent office by the bailiff, and so on. These were instances of the kind of fraud and extortion practised by the landlords in Ireland. He would not say there had been fraud in these particular cases; they were, according to the rules of the estate on which those things were practised. The landlord was a noble Peer; he was so conscientious that he withdrew from the present Government, because of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, and his name was Lord Lansdowne.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, the newspapers teemed with accounts of notices to quit which were almost equally terrible with the processes of ejectment they preceded; and the decrees of ejectment, it was well known, were equivalent to a sentence of
  228
  death upon the unfortunate tenants. The Act of 1870 provided that every notice to quit should bear a 2s. 6d. stamp; and, therefore, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had any doubt as to the number of these notices, he had only to apply to the Irish Stamp Office, and he would learn at once the number issued during the last 12 months. He himself would be very curious to see that Return. It must be very refreshing to Irish Members to see how a debate upon Irish questions caused the lion to lie down with the lamb, so to speak, and the late Attorney General for Ireland to walk into the same Lobby with the Government. Undoubtedly, it must be exceedingly gratifying to find that the asperities of political animosity could be smoothed down when it came to be a question of smothering the voice of the Irish tenantry, and putting a stop to the abuses of Irish landlordism. The Irish Members desired to obtain from the Government some pledge that evictions should be stopped and that the police should be disarmed; but they had been met by the almost insulting speeches of the Leader of the House. The Leader of the House had told them, with the same asperity of manner a few nights ago, and with the same evident desire to crush the Irish Party, if they could be crushed by a domineering demeanour, that the time had come for plain speaking. He had listened to the speech of the Leader of the House, and, agreeing with him that the time had indeed come for plain speaking, could assure the noble Lord that he would have quite enough of it before the present Vote was passed.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he should like to remind the noble Lord of a certain statement which he made some nights ago, when he calculated the number of speeches, which he characterized as Obstruction, that had been made in the course of the Session. The noble Lord had said that an ordinary day's Sitting lasted eight hours. He begged to remind the noble Lord that hon. Members had been sitting since 4 o'clock, and that surely they had done enough work for one day. The noble Lord should also bear in mind that the fact of the House going into Committee at the time it did was owing to the forbearance of the Irish Members, who might, had they wished, have blocked the Motion

  229
  "that Mr. Speaker do leave the Chair," because they had on the Paper sufficient Notices of Motion to have afforded materials of discussion for several long Sittings. These Motions, however, in deference to the wishes of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), were set aside; and the House would have gone into Committee immediately, had it not been for the action of hon. Members over whom the Irish Party had no control. It was now a quarter to 3 o'clock, and there were many Members, including himself, who had not taken part in the debate on the Constabulary Estimates. Surely, for the sake of those Gentlemen, who had already exercised a considerable amount of forbearance towards the Government in the matter of going into Committee of Supply, it was only reasonable to expect the noble Lord to consent to the Chairman leaving the Chair, and to the discussion being continued to-morrow or Saturday.
  MR. GRAYsaid, it had been his fortune, or misfortune, to have taken part in night Sittings on former occasions. The first was when the House sat for 26 hours on the South African Bill. He had taken no part in the debates which preceded that Sitting; but the reason which, on that occasion, induced him to remain was that the noble Marquess, so the gossip ran, had met the then Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Speaker's room and had made an arrangement.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not know what was the gossip which influenced the right hon. Gentleman; but the fact is I was not in London at the time he refers to.
  MR. GRAYsaid, that on the occasion certain leading Members on both sides had met and arranged that they would remain up and organize a system of relays, and he determined to resist that as unconstitutional. Now, he (Mr. Gray) had seen a noble Lord very active within the last hour, and it had been stated that it had been arranged to organize a system of relays for an all-night Sitting on the present occasion. The noble Lord to whom he referred was about to leave the House; and, before he did so, he begged to ask whether he had been arranging anything of the kind? He could not but think such a course most improper. It would give him the greatest pain to engage in a semi-physical contest with
  230
  the present Government, whose good intentions he had no doubt about; but if there was any such arrangement, he should feel it his duty to resist this attempt on the part of the Government, or any Government, to put down a minority by organized relays.
  LORD KENSINGTONsaid, he had no hesitation in answering the question of the right hon. Gentleman. He had asked several hon. Members if they felt inclined to go to bed, as it was quite possible the Sitting would be protracted.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, although the noble Marquess was right in correcting his right hon. Friend the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), the noble Marquess would not, perhaps, correct him if he called attention to an almost all-night Sitting, in which he, then in the minority, occupied the time of the Committee, until nearly 5 o'clock in the morning, by dividing on a clause of the Education Bill. On that occasion, at a quarter to 4, he had addressed himself directly to the noble Lord, and assured him that the example he was then setting would be recollected by Irish Members, and he ventured to say that had been the case that evening. The contention on that occasion was, that there ought to be another day's discussion on an important feature of the Education Question before a decision was arrived at.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, hon. Members on that side of the House did not coincide in all the views expressed with regard to the occupants of the Treasury Bench. He had himself never thought that either the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, or the Chief Secretary for Ireland, honestly deserved the names of Liberals.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUESTsaid, even if the Sitting were to last from that time forward for two days, as he had heard it rumoured, he could, not conceive why the Committee should not proceed with Business. All hon. Members on that side of the House were prepared to do so, and support the Government as long as they chose to remain. It was unseemly for the Committee to continue squabbling over Motions to report Progress and the Chairman leave the Chair; and he begged hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider the course they were taking in this debate, and the undignified aspect the House of Commons would present to the country on the following day through their action.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was astonished to see the Bench opposite so crowded at that late hour, after the frank speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. He would, however, not do the noble Marquess, who came from Wales, the injustice to say that he was a Liberal; and there were many in that House who thought that the Nonconformists were not Liberal in the true sense of the word. He objected, at that time, to be told by a preponderating Liberal majority of the House that the Vote must be accepted without argument and without reason.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he had only one question to ask of the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington). As it happened to be the desire of Members on the Government side of the House to get through Business, and as it was the desire of himself and his hon. Friends to have these Votes properly discussed, he should be glad if the noble Lord would inform him what time he had ordered his relays to come back? Some of them would then be able to go home and have a sleep and come back to resume the discussion afterwards.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 25; Noes 107: Majority 82.—(Div. List, No. 137.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. SEXTONbegged to move that the Chairman do report Progress. At this stage of that very extraordinary proceeding, he should not trouble the Committee with anything in the shape of argument. It would appear that the period of argument had passed, especially when they bore in mind the partial revelation which had been given to the Committee by the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington), in reply to a question addressed to him some minues ago. It was now quite clear that arguments, however weighty or logical, need not be addressed with any hope of attention to the Committee on this subject. That had become apparent from the speech of the noble Marquess, who was at present in the position of Leader of the House, which was permeated with bitterness and scorn. He had, in fact, addressed himself to the subject in a spirit that had left the
  232
  Irish Representatives no alternative but to hold out to the bitter end upon a matter of such supreme importance to their own people. This was a question of life and death to the people of Ireland, whom they especially represented; and he felt impressed with the conviction that that House had entered upon an historical act, and that on the attitude of the Irish Members on this occasion would depend, to a great extent, the future of the Irish race in generations to come. He was convinced that his hon. Friends round him, and those who had been in attendance up to the present, would persevere to the end in resisting this attempt to import the discipline of a barrack square into the House of Commons. As long as he could command his tongue, and as long as he was able to walk into the Lobby, he would join in protesting against this course of tyranny.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Sexton.)
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he failed to understand how any observations of his, however injudicious they might have been, could possibly affect the time at which the Committee could come to the Business before it. He regretted extremely if any observations of his had given offence to any hon. Members from Ireland, as he should, of course, regret anything which could possibly give offence to any hon. Member of the Committee. Certainly, nothing was further from his intention than to say anything which could be offensive to anyone. Hon. Members opposite seemed to him to be under some misapprehension in supposing that the contest in which they were entering was a contest with the Government alone. He would not, of course, say that this was not a question on which the Government were not deeply interested; but, as he had said the other day, the time had now come when it was a matter of urgent necessity to complete the business of providing the necessary Supply for the Public Services, and that was a consideration which he did not suppose any hon. Members of the Committee would think ought to be neglected; but, at the same time, he did not say that the Business of Supply was

  233
  so urgent that, as far as he and those others who were responible for the Public Services were concerned, the delay of a day or two would make any great difference. But when this question rested for decision with the Committee, the majority of the Committee was justified in exercising some control over the period at which it would decide to proceed with its Business. Now, the majority, several hours ago, had declared very distinctly that it desired to proceed with discussion on this Vote at that hour, and it had been admitted that up to that time the long discussion which took place that evening, and which occupied their attention previously, showed that the Committee was willing to listen with all attention to the arguments of hon. Members from Ireland. When the Committee so unmistakably declared that it did not desire to adjourn again the discussion of this question, hon. Members ought to show a becoming spirit, and a disposition to meet the wishes of those with whom they had to act, and they ought to concede to that desire which had been so unmistakably expressed, and proceed with the Business now. He entirely repudiated the idea that the Government alone were responsible. If there was any sign of a disposition to postpone this Business, he was quite the Government would not, on any consideration, desire to oppose that; but, on the contrary, he believed it was the wish of the majority of the Committee, quite as much as of the Government, to continue the discussion now; and he must say that he thought it was not, perhaps, in accordance with the letter, certainly not in accordance with the spirit, of their Rules, that they should be met by this persistent opposition to the distinctly declared wish of the majority of the Committee.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should make no observation on the tone of the noble Marquess's speech some time ago, because he did not care to enter into a discussion of that kind, which must be of a disagreeable character. He should confine himself, therefore, to the two arguments which the noble Lord had then used. He at first said that this was the third night of the discussion of this question. That had been repeated over and over again, and he believed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the
  234
  ex-Attorney General for Ireland also used that argument. Now, he gave a most distinct denial to that as a correct representation of the case. They were discussing that night the Irish Constabulary Votes. [Mr. MONTAGUE GUEST: No, no !] Well, they were discussing the Irish Constabulary Estimates, and discussing the general question of the Irish police, previous to discussing the Votes in detail. He hoped that would satisfy the hon. Gentleman who interrupted him.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: I beg your pardon. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) said distinctly that he should not discuss the Vote.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I am not interrupting my hon. Friend if I rise to explain. I think the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I would not contradict him more flatly than that I said that the Motion to which I was then speaking was not the details of the Estimates, but the Motion "That the Chairman do leave the Chair," and that, consequently, I was speaking on a wider range, and not referring to remarks which I subsequently should be able to make on the details of the Estimates.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: A long speech was made on that—
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: As to the length, that is a matter entirely of opinion. I have nothing to say to any fault the hon. Gentleman may find with the length of my speech.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought he might leave the domestic question which had arisen to take care of itself.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: Sir, I rise to Order. I observe that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) has provided himself with a palpable supper. I must appeal to you, Sir, whether that is in Order, or whether it is proper that this House should be turned into a restaurant of this nature?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I thought we were in Committee of Supply.
  THE CHAIRMAN: My attention was drawn, both by my own visual organs and by the remonstrances of the hon. Member, to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Meath had brought in those buns. But I did not interfere, because I thought it was a question for

  235
  the hon. and learned Member's own good taste.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I had not the remotest idea that I was in any way offending. If I had thought that, I should not have done so. I am extremely sorry for what I did.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, when he was interrupted by this extremely interesting and amusing interlude he was about to refer to the two arguments used by the noble Marquess in favour of going on. The first was that they were now engaged, for the third time, in the discussion of this question. He must distinctly contradict that. Last night, and the night before, they were discussing very different things from the Constabulary Estimates. He did not now wish to go into a matter that was passed, and he would not say anything as to the character of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman which gave rise to the discussion on Monday night. Plainly, however, that was a discussion of a personal character between the Chief Secretary and his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), and other Members round about him, who supported his view. Now, what in the name of goodness had a discussion as to the good taste or appropriateness of certain language employed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary towards an hon. Member of that House to do with the discussion of the Irish Constabulary Estimates? Therefore, he thought he had disposed of the statement that one night—Monday night—was devoted to the discussion of the Constabulary Estimates. Then he came to the case of the previous night. On the previous night they discussed the question of Home Rule. Now, the principle of Home Rule was the principle upon which every hon. Member who came from Ireland had been returned to that House. It was the central, main, fundamental principle of the Irish Party; and he put it to the Committee whether it would not be a departure from their duty, as Representatives of Home Rule, if they did not, at some time in the Session, bring forward for discussion this central and fundamental principle, to support which they were sent there. If they did not, their conduct would be quite as ridiculous as if the Party opposite were returned for the purpose of disestablishing the English Church, as
  236
  he daresay they would be one of these days, and he hoped he would live to see it. ["Oh, oh!"] He was sorry hon. Gentlemen opposite were so sensitive and thin-skinned; but if a Party were returned to that House to carry out the Disestablishment of the English Church, and if they allowed a whole Session of Parliament to elapse without ever once mentioning the name of Disestablishment, that would be conduct as reprehensible on their part as it would be for the Irish Members to allow a Session of Parliament to pass without insisting on a discussion of the Home Rule Question. Thus, on Monday night, they discussed a purely personal question between the right hon. Gentleman opposite and hon. Members on that side. On Tuesday night they discussed the great question of Home Rule. Therefore, these two nights were devoted to the discussion of questions altogether apart and distinct from the question which they were discussing there that night. He thought he had now fairly disposed of the argument of the noble Lord.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he would proceed to deal with the second argument of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. The noble Marquess said that it was the wish of Government and the wish of the majority of the Committee that they should proceed to Business. He found that in the two divisions that had taken place there were, in the first division, 29 in the minority, amounting, with the two Tellers, to 31; and, in the second division, there were 25 in the minority, amounting, with the Tellers, to 27. Every single one of those Votes was an Irish one; and he would ask, therefore, whether the Irish Members were supporting, or opposing, the Government on this occasion? Only two Irish Members supported the Government upon this question. He was indisposed to say unpleasant things; but he thought that the hon. Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons) and the hon. and learned Member for County Tyrone (Mr. Litton) did not represent the opinions of any number of the Irish people. But whether or not they represented the opinion of their constituents,

  237
  there remained the fact that in one division 27 Irish Members, and in the other division 31 Irish Members, voted against the Government. This was distinctly and purely an Irish question; and what they asked was that an Irish question might be regulated with Irish ideas. Could it be said that they were not acting in accordance with Irish ideas when, in two divisions, only 2 Irish Members voted against 27 and 31 respectively? It seemed to him that, on this question, there was an overwhelming majority of Irish Members.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,resuming, said, that he thought he had disposed of the second argument of the noble Marquess when he had shown that there was an overwhelming majority of Irish opinion on one side, and but an insignificant minority on the other. The noble Marquess said his position was strengthened by the support which he had received from the Conservative Benches. He would call attention to the fact that, on a great question like this, in which the dignity of the House was concerned, not a single Member of the late Administration occupied a seat on the Front Opposition Bench. He would not say that it was not worthily filled as it was now occupied, and that the noble Lord the Member for "Woodstock was not as competent to lead Her Majesty's Opposition as the right hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon. But he would make the noble Marquess a present of the support which he was now receiving from the Front Opposition Bench. It was not surprising that the noble Lord should receive support from the Conservative Benches when he adopted their own bad tactics—force.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: I rise to Order, and to ask whether it is right for an hon. Member to sit with his legs on the seat?
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he rose to an important point of Order. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) called attention to the fact that some hon. Member had brought in refreshment to sustain him throughout the Sitting. He begged to ask, whether it was in Order, as he should be sorry, a
  238
  second time to transgress, in the slightest degree, against the propriety or Rules of the House—Whether hon. Members were entitled to bring drink into the House? He had observed several hon. Members, even the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister, drinking what might be water; but which, to his knowledge, was not always water. He had seen in the public Press discussions as to what was the most refreshing drink that might be taken during a debate; and he should like to know, whether it was in Order for this refreshment to be brought into the House? Personally, he was unable to take anything in the shape of liquid refreshment of the nature used by the right hon. Gentleman; and he should like to know, whether he would be in Order in bringing in a cup of coffee?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he rose to Order to ask whether it was competent for an hon. Member to be interrupted in his speech for the purpose of asking the Chairman a question on a point of Order which was not raised?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he hoped that as they were having a protracted Sitting it would be conducted with decorum. It was very desirable that they should not introduce anything into the debate which would have the appearance of obstructing the Business of the Committee, or that anything should be said which would interfere with the dignity of the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he should be very sorry that any protracted Sitting should detract from the dignity of the House; and he was only endeavouring to answer the reasons which had been alleged by the noble Marquess in favour of going on with the discussion. For his part, he should be perfectly willing to report Progress at 4 o'clock, if the English Members were willing.
  MR. CALLANsaid, at half-past 12 he moved to report Progress in consequence of the absence of any official upon the Treasury Bench to explain the details of the Vote. Even if the Committee were determined to proceed it was impossible for them to discuss the details in the absence of any responsible Minister. He only wished to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the Government were endeavouring to force the Vote on when there was no official

  239
  person to give any information concerning the details of the Vote.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that he must congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House and the Government upon the holy alliance that they had formed with the Tory Party. It convinced him that, when Ireland was concerned, Liberals and Tories equally joined in a tyrannical majority to prevent justice being done to Ireland. Irish Members had appeared to be weak in numbers in that House; but they wore not weak in their determination, as the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington), who represented an Irish title without having anything Irish in him, had informed them that he had sent his supporters to bed, and thought it would be a wise thing for his Friends to adopt the same step. It was obvious from what the noble Lord had said that they were to be met by force, and not by reason or argument. English Members knew previously little about Ireland, and they wanted to know less; and what little they wanted to know they wanted to know exceedingly quickly, in order that they might divide and go into English Business to-morrow. Irish Members, however, would be happy to take an equal part in English Business that they were taking in Irish Business. He would only repeat what he had said before, that when the Hares and Rabbits and the various other Radical Bills came on for discussion, he should endeavour to take the same part in them that the English Members had taken in Irish Business. He had hitherto abstained from interfering in English Business, and he had left it to be dealt with exclusively by English Members. It appeared that that Government, which condescended to receive salary for its services, would not consent to do anything for Ireland until it was forced by its tail —the Radical section of its supporters. The Government would have to fight it out with the Radicals of England who had sent them to power. The Government had shown that it was possessed by the worst feeling of Liberalism, which consisted in otium cum dignitate. He would now call to the mind of the Committee that there was some other Business to be done before they arrived at the end of the Session. If he acted as he ought, and followed out the system of procedure—the humane system
  240
  of hon. Members opposite. He should devote his time by giving his undivided attention to the English measures which might be brought forward, in the hope of doing something to ameliorate them by effecting radical changes in them. He had already placed three Motions on the Notice Paper, commonly called "Blocking Notices," proposing Amendments to these bad Bills. Three of his hon. Friends had joined with him in this task, and he hoped that their efforts would be more successful in producing a change in those Bills than the efforts of hon. Members opposite would be in bringing this discussion to an end. He certainly thought that 4 o'clock in the morning was a fair time to report Progress. In his opinion, they would be much better for leaving this matter until to-morrow evening when they had rested, and the supporters of the noble Marquess, both Tories and Radicals, would be capable of giving their attention to these Estimates. English Members who went through these Estimates were perfectly indifferent to the Irish Votes. They had never extended any consideration to Ireland beyond the physical consideration which consisted in walking through the Lobbies. It was a matter of perfect indifference to them, so long as they were united against the Irish Members. Therefore, he should repay them with the attention to English Business which they so continually gave to the consideration of Irish affairs. As some of those Bills contained nothing Radical, he should devote his attention to making them as Radical as possible. He was perfectly ready to delay this Vote until it was sufficiently discussed, and was willing to remain there until Sunday, if necessary, for the purpose.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member had twice avowed an intention to obstruct the Business of the Committee; and if he repeated that conduct it would be his duty, according to the Rules of the House, to name him.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he rose to Order. With all respect to the Chair, might he ask if the announcement was made at the Table of the House by the second Whip of the Government?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I myself heard the hon. Member for Ennis(Mr. Finigan) say that he was prepared to pursue these delaying tactics until Sunday. I must repeat that, if I again hear such a state-

  241
  ment, it will be my duty to act upon the Rules of the House and name the hon. Member to the House.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked, if the Chairman understood the hon. Member for Ennis to say that he would pursue delaying tactics?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I heard the hon. Member say that he would continue these discussions, against the will of the majority of the Committee, till Sunday; and if the hon. Member repeats the statement, it will be my duty, under the Rules of the House, to name him.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he should like to have a distinct ruling upon the point. He intended to have the point settled, so that a decision would be upon the Books in the years to come, when the Chairman and present Government might be in Opposition. He desired the Chairman to rule from the Chair whether or not an hon. Member who declared his readiness— that was what the hon. Member for Ennis said—"his readiness." Let them have the words; and who, pray, had a record of them? If no one had such a record, he wished to ask if the liberties of an hon. Member of the House were to be abridged without the words used by him being on the Books, so that they might have the opinion of the Speaker in the Chair. Now, the Chairman knew very well that it was perfectly within his competency, and his (Mr. Sullivan's) right, to have the Speaker sent for now in order to have a ruling upon this point; but he would not do that, because he was not present to obstruct Business. What was the announcement made by an official of the Government to-night? Let them have no beating about the bush. They would have no Pickwickian announcements there. What was the meaning in plain English of the announcement made by the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington)? But before he said anything else about the noble Lord, let him say of him that, no matter how unpleasant the duty was in which they were engaged to-night, he hoped no one of his (Mr. Sullivan's) Friends would hesitate to say of him that he had always acted towards them in a kind and courteous manner which deserved their warmest acknowledgments. Whatever the noble Lord had done to-night he
  242
  had done as an official of the Government. Now let him discuss—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Gentleman is now speaking to a Question of Order. I will answer.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Will you kindly allow me to finish my observations? ["Order!"]
  THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) meant that he would attend to the subjects before the Committee, as long as the Committee chose to sit, his remarks would be perfectly in Order; but I must remind the Committee that, for more than two hours, he had not been speaking to the subject before the Committee at all, but merely wasting time by repeated Motions that I report Progress, and that I leave the Chair. If the hon. Gentleman is willing to continue now, or until Sunday, if the Committee desire, with a full and fair discussion of the Estimates, he would be perfectly in Order; but he will not be in Order, if, against the expressed wish of the majority of the Committee, he refuses to address himself to the Business of the Committee.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, if he was to understand that it was in Order— and he hoped someone would make a record of this important ruling—that it was in Order for a Member to say he would remain here till Sunday to discuss the Estimates; but that it was not in Order for him to take part in discussions or Motions for adjournment. If the Motion for adjournment was out of Order it was the duty of the Chairman to stop it. If the Motion that the Chairman do leave the Chair be a breach of the Rules, it was the Chairman's duty to stop it; and, if it were not out of Order, an hon. Member had as much right to speak upon it as he had upon a Motion that Police-constable Mulligan should receive 6d. increase in his pay. With the greatest respect to the Chairman, he (Mr. Sullivan) asserted his right; and he should, by all the Forms of Parliament, contest the point with the Chairman; he should contest with the Chairman his right to discuss a Motion for adjournment quite as much as any Motion directly connected with the Estimates.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he trusted the Chairman would not answer the question put to him by the hon. Member (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), and

  243
  that he would not enter into a discussion with the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) as to what the duties of the Chairman were. The Chairman had ruled—and he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought that the ruling met with the approval of the great majority of the Committee—that the announcement twice made by the hon. Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan) showed an obstructive intention. He did not understand that the Chairman had yet given the hon. Member warning, and referred him to one of the Standing Orders of the House; but he did caution the hon. Member that the announcement he had made was of such a nature that it, in his (the Chairman's) opinion, showed an obstructive intention. The Chairman had only acted as the Committee would expect he would act, and he (the Marquess of Hartington) thought it was not necessary, when the Chairman had taken a very proper course with regard to any hon. Member, that he should enter into a discussion with any other hon. Member as to the propriety of the course he had taken. "When it came to the question of warning a Member, or to taking any action with regard to the conduct of an hon. Member, that would be the time for the question to be put to the Speaker.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House mean to say it is not within my competency?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Order, Order. The hon. Member for Ennis is in possession of the Committee.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he had listened with very great attention to what he was now told was the Chairman's ruling; and he had also listened to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India. He repudiated having said he would obstruct; he repudiated Obstruction altogether. He distinctly stated that he would delay the Estimates, meaning, of course, that he would delay them until they could be discussed properly. He claimed his right to speak upon every Motion, and upon every question; and, if he did appear to break the Rules of the Committee once, he hoped the Chairman would kindly tell him of it; and not allow him to do so twice, and then tell him that he had done so twice. It was just possible that the Chairman might willingly allow him to break the
  244
  Rules, he not intending to do so, and then punish him. He was not, however, very particular as to what punishment he might meet with, providing he had done as he thought he was now doing— his duty conscientiously. He thought he was discharging his duty in opposing these Estimates. He had in his possession a list of all the landlords in England and Ireland; and he should be very happy to go through some of these lists; he would commence by referring to the different pensions of the Irish Constabulary. It would take two or three hours to go through the list; but, if the Committee would allow him, he would read a few extracts, to show that even this matter, in one of its very smallest details, deserved the attention of the Committee for one or two days. He took the list from the Financial Reform Almanac; and he might tell the Chairman that among the best supporters of this publication were to be found some of Her Majesty's Ministers and their supporters. The Return—"Constabulary (Irish) Pensions"—from which he would make a few extracts, was dated—Royal Irish Constabulary Office, Dublin Castle; and there were given the names of all the Constabulary officers now in receipt of pensions, with the amount and date of the pension in each case. The very first sentence showed that, until 1878, there was very little known, within the House, or by the officials of the House, of the exact position of very large sums of money.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he would be perfectly right in referring to this matter as soon as we have had the Vote again read; but it would be desirable to settle the question of Progress first.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that if he might make an observation it would be this— it seemed to him that the Government were not acting reasonably in asking them to go on with Business after a certain time—that was, after 1 o'clock. It had always been the recognized custom in the House that when a minority was asked to go on with the Business after a reasonable time, it was entitled to use the Forms of the House, in order to protect itself from the majority. The Forms of the House were given to minorities in order that they might use them for their protection from arbitrary, or unjust, or hasty action on the part of

  245
  majorities. Now, he and his hon. Friends thought that the action of the Government, in endeavouring to force them to proceed with the discussion of these Estimates after 1 o'clock, was of an arbitrary character, and that that was why they felt entitled to use the Forms of the House for their protection. For his part, he had no objection to resume the discussion of the Estimates after a few hours' sleep, and when what they had to say could be reported to the outside world. He desired to point out, though he did not wish to lay too much stress on the matter, that he had not spoken on the question yet. He thought he was entitled to speak upon it, and at a time when what he said could be reported. There were several of his hon. Friends in the same position. If the Government would now agree to report Progress, he would be glad to resume the discussion of the Estimates at the usual Morning Sitting. He could not see what reasonable objection the Government could urge to such a proposal.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that it was said of the brigands of the Levant that when they got hold of a man they kept him without sleep until such time as he would consent to give them, or procure for them, the amount of money they required for his ransom. He did not think the Government wished to imitate the policy of the brigands of the Levant; but they certainly seemed to be acting something after the same fashion. Surely they did not think that hon. Gentlemen's capacity for going into the details of the Estimates was at all improved by four, or five, or six, or it might be 10, hours watchfulness. For the last two or three hours they had made no real progress. No one could deprecate more than he did progress in a policy which must lessen their confidence in Her Majesty's Government, and lessen their confidence in the Liberal Party, from whom they expected better things. [Groans.'] He doubted whether the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who only contributed inarticulate sounds to the discussion, would be sitting, in all the glory of evening dress, in the position they now enjoyed, if it were not for the support given them by Irish electors. He hoped, however, his countrymen would, in future, discriminate between their friends and enemies. He had very great hopes from what was called English Radicalism, for he had
  246
  always thought there was a little Nationalism in it—a little power of reasoning. The proceedings to-night must damage the Government in the eyes of the country; they must shake the confidence of the people in Constitutional Government and Constitutional usage. To-night there had been an attempt to exercise the despotism of a majority, and that was the worst of all despotisms. Give him rather the despotism of the unspeakable Turk—give him rather the despotism of the Emperor of All the Russias, than that of a so-called, or self-called, Constitutional majority, which would not listen to reason, but which looked upon legitimate efforts to secure reform as something which must be crushed by brute force. The Government majority might keep them there as long as it thought fit; but it would not silence their voice, or crush their determination. They were used to defeats; they had survived many, and they would survive the defeat in store for them upon the present occasion. He would, however, ask hon. Gentlemen opposite whether they thought they were doing their Party or their country a good service in the course they were now pursuing; whether they considered they were acting in a manner which would promote the union between England and Ireland?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Dr. Commins) had spoken strongly upon the despotism of a majority, and the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had stated that it was unpleasant to have this contest. It was very unpleasant, for they would all prefer to be somewhere else; and it certainly was not a very creditable thing for Parliamentary Government that these contests should have to occur. But they must occur, if a minority defied the clearly expressed wish of the majority. What was really at stake now was, whether a minority should or should not prevent the majority from getting through the Business of Parliament and doing what was necessary for the service of the country? This was the third night on which they had had this Vote before them. ["No, no!"] Yes, it certainly was. It might have been brought before them on Monday evening, and it might have come up on Tuesday. It was, at any rate, set down for discussion on three separate occasions, and if they did not proceed with it to-night they had

  247
  no means of knowing that at the close of another Sitting they would not be as far off the end. In fact, they had every reason to believe that if the Committee rose without passing the Vote the same thing would happen to-morrow. ["No!"] He could only judge of the future by the past and the present, and they had every reason to expect that what he had indicated would be the result.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that this was the most important question that the Irish Members had had to engage in during the whole of the Session, and all they wanted was a fair discussion; first as to the principle involved in the Vote, and secondly as to the details. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) knew that they never intended to occupy more than two nights with the whole transaction. It was the Government themselves who were responsible for this undignified and ridiculous performance. They had already wasted valuable time, and they would probably waste more time by far than the Irish Representatives asked at their hands. He was under the impression that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) did not only want to get their assent to the Vote, but he was led to make a cheap display of heroism at the expense of the Irish Members. He was under the impression that the noble Marquess was afraid of the jeers of Conservative Members, and of some of his extreme supporters, if he did not attempt to show fight upon this question. He believed they were now going through a mere mechanical piece of stage-play; and, therefore, it was hardly any use to make any appeal to the moderation and good feeling of Her Majesty's Government. So there appeared no way out of this struggle, if he might call it so, until the Government had gone far enough to satisfy their own idea of how Government should be conducted in this new era of Liberal statesmanship. It was more important than an Irish question; it was the right of the minority; and so it would be interpreted, when at any time a sudden resolve of a Government, strong on both sides, refused the reasonable and just demands made upon them to show how high-minded, how resolute, and how statesmanlike they could be.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he could assure hon. Members that
  248
  the Government were not acting upon a pre-arranged plan. On the contrary, he believed that a great many hon. Members supported the Government who regretted very much the course the Government took on Tuesday in agreeing to an adjournment. Hon. Members said this was a preconceived scheme, arranged by himself from motives into which he need not follow. They were entirely mistaken. He had had to consider, during the past few days, whether this would be necessary or not; and he came to the conclusion, with great regret, that it was extremely probable some struggle of the kind would be necessary. He could not see any disposition on the part of hon. Members to allow the Committee to approach a discussion which they said was most interesting to Irish Members. How had they shown that interest? It was put down as the first Order on Monday; but, instead of approaching a discussion said to be most interesting to them, they proceeded to occupy the whole of Monday's Sitting, during which the subject might have been considered, with a personal discussion affecting his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). Again, on Tuesday, when Supply was put down, they thought it necessary again to introduce and discuss another object. He could not see, under these circumstances, a proof of any desire to discuss this subject fairly, and could only imagine they were actuated by the intention, which, indeed, had been acknowledged by some, not to allow the Committee to pass this Vote until some further pledge had been extracted from the Government.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the noble Lord was under a complete misapprehension. He knew, as a matter of fact, that the intention to pursue a protracted debate on these Estimates was announced by the Leader of the Irish Party to himself and others to have been abandoned after hearing the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. In place of making this resistance, it was contemplated, for reasons already explained, to take only two nights for discussion. Irish Members were exhorted to avoid anything like Obstruction, and were pledged to this. When the late Attorney General for Ireland was lunging across the floor at the Chief Secretary, making to the Irish Members the

  249
  most damaging attacks upon the Government calculated to drive the Chief Secretary from ground they thought favourable to Ireland, it was the duty of Irish Members to reply; but he was entreated by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) not to make any observations on the subject, in order to keep honourable faith with the Leader of the House. Was it in the face of this that the Home Rule Party were to be charged with Obstruction? All he could say was, that he knew something of the proceedings of the Party; and if any such intention was indulged in it was concealed from him, and was not supported by the hon. Member for Cork. If that was so, what became of the only ground upon which the noble Lord charged the Party with bringing about this undignified proceeding? Putting himself in the place of the Leader of the House, he could conceive that if there was such a desire on the part of Members it might be his duty to show that the power of the Government could not be thus set at nought. But was he justified to-night, when he acknowledged he had formed an idea that this was necessary, because he believed Irish Members designed to throw over the Estimates to Saturday or Sunday? He was entirely wrong in this assumption. The hon. Member for Cork had braved the odium of the House ere now; but he was not capable of making representations to deceive the House. It was a most unfair suspicion, seeing that while the artful, the skilful, speech of the late Attorney General for Ireland was being made, he dissuaded him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) from speaking in reply, acting upon the belief that the Irish Members were bound, in good faith, to keep the compact with the Government, and not to prevent the Estimates coming on for discussion. The noble Lord told them, earlier in the Sitting, that it was the bounden duty of the minority to give way when a considerable majority had expressed the desire of the Committee to go on with Business. Well, he would try the noble Lord by the record of what he himself had done, and the Chairman also, who now took the view that it was not right for hon. Members to go on speaking at length to a Motion for adjournment, his name would find a place in the same record. The date was August 3rd, 1876, the subject was the
  250
  "Education Bill," and the House was trying to transact the Business of the country. But there was a minority of hon. Members who were determined that the Business of the House should not be proceeded with that night. They wanted an adjournment just as the Irish Members now did. The present Postmaster General (Mr. Fawcett) persisted in his opposition to the majority—but it was not orthodox now—and, to give a fair opportunity for discussion, moved the adjournment of the debate. That Motion was made, and who supported it? The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) seconded it, and the right hon. Gentleman the present Chief Secretary for Ireland thought the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fawcett) was perfectly right in moving the adjournment. There were other distinguished names supporting these Motions for adjournment; examples under which he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) was not afraid to shelter himself. There was the name of the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). That right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in favour of the Motion, and said he was anxious to economise the time of the House. But, without reading what was said, he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) would come to the record of what was done. The House divided, and the present Home Secretary voted with the minority. Did he bow to the majority of 101, 3 votes less than the majority against the Irish Members that evening? No; this was only the beginning of the night's work. The Question was again proposed, "That the words be inserted," when up sprang the present Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who moved "That this House do now adjourn." Now, really it was a singular circumstance that, on the Treasury Bench, was to be found active Members of the Government, and these the Colleagues of the noble Marquess, whom he followed through all the weary hours of that night's debate. The Motion was put, and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) spoke with his accustomed gravity and seriousness, and the House divided, a majority of 195 against 91. Did the noble Marquess bow to the majority of 104? Was the Chairman called on to declare that it was contrary to the usual proceedings? Why, it was as much the

  251
  Business of the House to discuss this Motion as any other Motion brought before it. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) moved the adjournment of the debate, and was seconded by Mr. Farley Leith. The hon. Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster) was an experienced Member of the House, Chairman of Committee on Petitions, a Liberal, and a Friend of the noble Marquess, would he have made a Motion which was opposed to public Order? And who voted with him? The present Chairman was present at the debate; but he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) would not give the Committee the slightest view of how the Chairman voted. But his respected Colleagues were entitled to have their votes recorded. Then up rose the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and said he hoped the Government would consent to this. Why did he not get up and say the same thing now? On that occasion, the majority of his own countrymen were against him. The majority of the Representatives of the nation affected by the Education Act were against him. Why did he not get up now, and make these remarks, when the country affected by this question expressed, its opinion through its Representatives? Consistency was clearly not to be found on the Treasury Bench. How Office put the same language on the lips of men, be they Liberals or Tories. The Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and said—"It was a great pity wasting all these hours; but, at the same time, he did not know what was to be gained by adjourning, as there was a full House, and as the matter had been fully discussed they had better decide the question." Exactly what had been heard to-night. He was surprised on looking over the pages of Hansard to see how Ministerial speeches were repeated. Who next supported the Motion for adjournment? One of the ablest Members of Her Majesty's present Government, whose public services in the cause of education marked him out as the man selected to fill the responsible Office he now held. Here he was supporting an obstructive Motion, and not deterred by the threats thrown out by the Leader of the House. Let hon. Members be staunch and take heart from this example. The right hon. Gentleman had suffered no penalty for his conduct.
  252
  The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) went on to say that it was the firm determination of the minority not to allow the Amendment to be decided until the country had had an opportunity of expressing its views upon it. And the present Chief Secretary, a veteran in the cause of education, marched willingly into the Lobby in support of the Opposition. Then, after speeches from the hon. Member for Galway Borough (Dr. Ward), the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Galway County (Major Nolan), and an appeal from the noble Lord the Member for Liverpool (Viscount Sandon), the House again divided—Ayes 82, Noes 179; a majority of 97. At that time it was half-past 3, and again the Chairman put the Question. He felt sympathy for the Chairman then, as he did for the Chairman now. He put the Question while the hon. Baronet (Sir Charles W. Dilke), who had been keeping the rota in the most scientific manner, marked off the name for the next Motion for the adjournment of the House. The noble Marquess had laid down the doctrine that for the minority to oppose the repeatedly-expressed will of the majority was Obstruction. Well, he would again apply to this Mansard, record, and would appeal to the noble Lord, for he hoped he might convince him by examples of his own action, no matter how his language expressed his determination, to continue this discussion. He had a hope that the noble Lord would, at least, get up and say what the Leader of the House did on the occasion he had been referring to. "After all, enough for valour had been done." The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) having moved the adjournment, the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) supported the proposal. Really he would put down the volume, for in it there was one person whose place in his esteem he would not have disturbed. It was the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He would rather hug the delusion that he never did anything so indiscreet. Well, the House divided—Ayes 77, Noes 170. The noble Marquess and his Friends were then a little fatigued, the numbers were coming down, and perhaps it would be thought they then deferred to the wishes of the majority and proceeded to discuss the Bill. Did they proceed to discuss the Bill?

  253
  He appealed to the authority of Hansard. They did nothing of the kind. They did not even name it. The Question was again proposed, "That those words be there inserted." Who jumped up next at that far advanced hour? The right hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire (Mr. Osborne Morgan) moved the adjournment of the debate. Why, did not it all read like a story, this, that his hon. Friends had done when they were in the cold dark shades of Opposition. Where was the right hon. and learned Member for Denbighshire now? Why, there was a seat for him when he was in the House on the Treasury Bench, and from that seat he heard him making a most important Motion the other day, and right well he did it. Now, he found next that the hon. Member for Youghal (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) was represented as appealing to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). When Irish Members did this to preserve the benefits of the Constitution to their country, they were very much condemned for the course they pursued; but here he found his hon. Friend (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) appealing to the noble Marquess to let them go home to go to bed, or else to proceed with the Business of the House. The noble Marquess then rose and said —"He was afraid the temper of the House was such as to render any appeal to hon. Members opposite perfectly useless." He knew his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) was perfectly capable of making a good speech of his own; but he could tell him where he would find as good a speech as ever he could want if he liked to look for it. "Sir Joseph M'Kenna reminded the noble Marquess that there were Strangers in the Gallery"—if anybody said that to the Chairman now, he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) knew what he would be bound to do, and he knew what he would do; but he would not even suggest that now, as there were Strangers in the Gallery—"and he did not think the House was appearing in the best light." Now, he would quote the noble Marquess against himself, for, at the present time, there were five times and ten times as many Strangers in the Gallery as there were on that occasion; and they would see whether the House appeared in its best light now, and whose fault it was. What did the noble Mar-
  254
  quess say? He said—"It was the fault of the Leader of the House, and he denied that the Government were justified in seeking to force upon the House an important Amendment." Why, that was just what Her Majesty's Government were trying to do at the present time. Were they, then, to have two sets of words and two measures from the eminent statesman who was at present the Leader of the House? He would be Prime Minister of this country one day; and long might that day be from them, so far as another right hon. Gentleman was concerned. They knew what a noble, splendid, and excellent position the noble Marquess had before him; and he hoped they were not to conclude that the noble Marquess would depart from his own words when he heard what he had said, but would get up and make the same answer now that he did then. What happened next? The Chancellor of the Exchequer got up and delivered just exactly the same address that they had heard that night. "The House was full. There were plenty of men ready to go on with the Business. Why would he not let them go on?" That was exactly the same idea that they had heard expressed that night. Then came a right hon. Gentleman—oh! he would not read the name, or any more of that; but he would only say that it was a speech of a most eminent Member of that House, whom they all respected on whatever side of the House he might sit. This eminent statesman, whom he would not name—"He hoped that further time would be given for consideration before the House was called upon to come to a conclusion." He would not, of course, say who that Gentleman was; but he was loyal to his Party, true to his principles, and then, in that House as he was in this, an ornament to his country, a man of whom they were all proud. After that short debate, the Question was again put—Ayes 72; Noes 160: Majority 88. How evident it was that the minority gave way to the feelings of the majority then! How they respected the institutions of the country and the dignity of the House, which demanded that the minority should give way to the majority! Not at all. The noble Marquess knew a trifle better than that, and immediately after the division they went at it again as fresh as ever. Question again proposed, "That those

  255
  words be there inserted." Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn." How many was it? Oh ! It was no use counting; they went on in just the same way. ["Order!"] He was quite in Order. He was allowed to turn about in order to address the Committee; and new Members, who had only recently come into the House, might allow even so humble a person as himself to tell them that they were not allowed to call "Order" on that point, for it was the duty of the Chairman to maintain Order; and, besides, the interruption resulted in a waste of time which he was most anxious to avoid. As hon. Members would see, he was not reading long passages from this report, because of his great desire to facilitate the progress of Public Business. Then, who was the next Motion moved by? An hon. Member who lost his seat at the General Election, his hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Blake). Sorry he was that he was not with them that night; though, if he had been, he would probably have voted against them in the Lobby. They were not, however, going to make personal quarrels over this contention. This was again put from the Chair by the Chairman (Mr. Raikes) noblest man of them all: "His sword hangs rusty on the wall, beside his broken spear." He also was absent from them that night. The Question was then again put, and the Committee divided—Ayes 68; Noes 156: Majority 88—a mechanical majority with almost exactly the same figures as before. He might observe that there was no debate at all between those two divisions, which was part of the skilled strategy and the Parliamentary tactics of the noble Marquess which impressed him at the time. He told him then, in one of those criticisms which he took with great good humour from so humble a person as himself, that he was laying up a record against himself, and that he would quote them at him one day if he lived, and, Providence having spared his life, he was there that night to redeem his promise. They did not debate at all, but went into the Division Lobby straight—trot, trot, trot, tramp, tramp, tramp, round the Lobbies they went, and the Division was Ayes 68; Noes 156: Majority 88. Original Question again proposed, whereupon the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk)
  256
  proceeded. Now, let the Committee just imagine a Gentleman of the strict propriety and decorum of the hon. Member for Gloucester sitting up till that disreputable hour in the morning and then making such a Motion as that. But he was within his duty, and, like a faithful English Representative, he performed that duty. He proceeded to move the adjournment of the debate. Now, let them just note this. Even his recital, his brief recital of all these proceedings seemed almost obstructive; how must the actual proceedings have appeared? His brief condensed narrative from the recognized records of that House had taken up a considerable time. Let hon. Members think how much time was taken up by those debates, and divisions, and appeals by the noble Marquess to the Government to let the minority have their way, while daylight was coming in at the windows, and they were all going home with the milkman; and what happened then? "Motion by Mr. Monk that the debate be adjourned." The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt): Oh, fancy of all men, proposed to move an Amendment on the clause in order to give the Government an opportunity of expressing their opinion with the object of deferring the consideration of further Amendments. He would that the Home Secretary were present that he might address a touching appeal to his innocent soul, and appeal to him to come over to their side, and help them in accordance with the precedent which he had laid down for himself; and such was the chivalry of the Home Secretary that he almost believed that his generosity would overcome his Party feeling. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Business must be done? Why was it not done? Oh, "The Committee divided, Ayes 64."It was only due, however, to a Member of the Government that he should state that that hon. Baronet protested against the conduct of the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt). He must read that bit. "Sir Charles W. Dilke, on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, declined to be bound by the proposed arrangement, on the ground that it would involve the surrender of all that they had been contending for." He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) could only say that that was language which was worthy of the hon. Baronet, and was like that high-spirited

  257
  English Gentleman without stain and without reproach in his public life. "Question put,"— the hon. Baronet having hoisted the flag of No Surrender —"Ayes 64; Noes 153."There were not 153 hon. Gentlemen supporting the Government that night. There was a House infinitely greater then, and yet the minority kept up till they carried their way. He would see if they would do the same thing now. "Question again proposed"— and he well recollected how, just at that time, the cheers of hon. Gentlemen rang through the House just as the gas was turned out. "The hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bristowe), pointing to the lateness of the hour, moved the adjournment of the House." It was, at that moment, nearly a quarter to 3. What did the noble Marquess and his followers consider justificatory of the lateness of the hour on that occasion, and what did the Committee think now? He quoted from Hansard —"pointing to the lateness of the hour, a quarter to 3."Before a quarter to 3 the Chief Secretary for Ireland and his noble Friend had led their minority through all the obstructive divisions he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had quoted; but the honourable record was not yet finished. They did a little more, and he was going to tell the Committee what it was. Of course, hon. Gentlemen who were there supporting the Government were anxious that they should criticize these Votes. He could only—[Dr. LYONS: Hear, hear !] The hon. Member for Dublin City was ready to answer everything. He had got his Estimates in his watch pocket with his watch. Perhaps that hon. Gentleman would tell him that all this took place in the month of March or in the month of February, when there was lots of time before the House to do Business. He could assure him that it was nothing of the kind. All this took place on the 3rd of August, within four or five days of the end of the Session. Well, the pointing to the hands of the clock by the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Bristowe) seemed to have made no impression whatever, for another Motion was made, "That the House do now adjourn," and then Hansard went on. "The Marquess of Hartington thought the Government was scarcely meeting the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit." Might he say to the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the Govern-
  258
  ment was hardly meeting the Opposition in a conciliatory spirit now? Could he not, perhaps, by an appeal to that right hon. Gentleman, raise some of that conciliatory spirit to which the noble Marquess alluded? He would say to the right hon. Gentleman—"That the House had asserted its strength; that he and his hon. Friends had vindicated their rights, and now he surely would consult the dignity of Parliament and allow them to go home to their beds." He saw he was unsuccessful, and he was afraid official life produced petrification of the heart on the Treasury Bench, and that, until a man got turned out of Office, one could not touch his feelings at all. The noble Marquess found, on that occasion, that although the then Chancellor of the Exchequer was about as mild a mannered man as ever led the House of Commons, generally a kindly tempered man, who, not twice in the recollection of anybody, had ever said a passionate word in that House, was still for going on with the Business of the country, and he considered "that the Government had shown every disposition to meet the Opposition fairly." But the Chief Secretary might, perhaps, say that the Opposition on that occasion was supported by votes from the other side of the House, and that the Government, therefore, were not justified in going on as they did. Quite the contrary was the fact. It was not merely the Government followers who voted with them; but they were supported also by a number of Members from the Opposition. In that very division he had just quoted, from 30 to 40 Home Rulers voted with the Government, and, for that reason, he had any number of keen taunts levelled at himself. "Why are you voting with those Tories? Why don't you stand up for freedom of debate? Why don't you help us to protect the rights of minorities?" He saw some of those hon. Gentlemen who had used that language to him on that occasion sitting opposite to him now. It was too painful for him to look at them; he must turn away. "Question again put: — Ayes 63; Noes 148: Majority 85. Question again proposed, 'That those words be there inserted.'" Perhaps hon. Members supposed that the House adjourned then. Not a bit of it. Another faithful and distinguished and learned—exceedingly learned—Member

  259
  of the Liberal Party sprang from his seat. Indeed, he happened to know that that hon. Gentleman was called upon in his turn, and that a rota on that occasion was prepared by a Gentleman who was at present a Member of of the Government, and Members of the Liberal Party were called upon in their turn to make these obstructive Motions. So, according to the record, he read that "Mr. Serjeant Simon here moved that the debate be now adjourned." Nobody made speeches on that occasion; but they went at it, and took a division without anything else. "Ayes 61; Noes 144: Majority 83. Question again proposed, 'That those words be there inserted.' Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment by Sir William Harcourt." The Committee must observe that the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir William Harcourt) voted with the obstructive minority, with the noble Lord, and with the right hon. Gentleman; but he was for a compromise, whereas some more steadfast Members of the present Government were for no compromise at all, and on his Amendment a Motion was moved and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned, by Sir Charles W. Dilke." Why, he was nearly afraid to read any more of this record. He was almost tempted to sit down and say no more, especially as he was not allowed refreshments whilst he was speaking. The House again divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 140: Majority 83. Original Question again proposed. Motion moved, 'That the Debate be now adjourned.' "Who moved that? It was a new name appearing on the record, though he had noticed it before in the Division List, and he would do the hon. and gallant Member the justice to say that he was as staunch as any one of them. The Committee, however, would notice that this hon. and gallant Gentleman was not called upon to intervene until they were run out of the hon. Gentlemen who had previously moved. The hon. and gallant Member for Kincardineshire (General Sir George Balfour) moved that Amendment. He was very happy to say that that hon. and gallant Member was not there, but was better engaged elsewhere. Well, after all this discussion, at last the Government in broad daylight adopted the course that he was cheered to think even now the present
  260
  Government might adopt, and consented to the Motion. He hoped, therefore, that the Chief Secretary would receive authority from the noble Marquess before he went away to get up at a fitting opportunity and announce— ["No!"] He heard some hon. Member objecting. Perhaps they wished to remain there until Sunday. Now, although there were other Amendments to this Bill, the Leader of the House got up then and said that really the dignity of Parliament needed to be consulted; and seeing that they ought not to be indefinitely sitting there, and that, in point of fact, Her Majesty's Government had vindicated their position in so many divisions, he thought they might go home. He could assure hon. Members that they did all go home the best friends in the world after that stiff and prolonged fight, and he hoped they would do the same that morning when they went home after a similar announcement had been made by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He made these observations simply for the information of new Members, whom he was glad to see were listening in such numbers. They came fresh to the work. Their ardour had not been chilled by experience; although, no doubt, when they had been at it longer they would take the matter in the same way that others did. He had made these observations also for the benefit of his own Colleagues that, standing firm in precedent, they might induce the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Marquess to give way to a principle which would be remembered in future.
  LORD EDWARD CAVENDISHsaid, he was not a Member of the House when the debate took place to which allusion had been made; but, still, there was just one observation in reference to it which he should like to make. Many remarks had been made that evening with reference to the Party opposite not having had an opportunity of discussing this subject now before them. In consequence of that remark, he had taken the opportunity of consulting a list of those who had spoken during that debate, previous to the time when the adjournment of the debate was moved, and he found that 24 speeches had been made, 19 of which came from Members of the Party opposite. Therefore, there was a very considerable difference between the circumstances to which the

  261
  hon. Member alluded, and those in which they were now engaged. As there were only 31 Members in all, in the largest minority that they had yet had in any of the divisions, they could fairly assume that there would be only 12 other Members who could take part in that debate, and as the adjournment of the debate was moved at half-past 12, there would have been time for several speeches before half-past 2. He must say he did think there was considerable force in what fell from the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), who was more entitled to attention, from the ability with which he handled his Party, and who had more reason to ask for an opportunity to speak on an occasion like the present; and, therefore, he was quite persuaded if that hon. Member had risen, even so late as 12·30, that the gentlemen who undertook the reporting of the debates in that House would have been able to present a proper and accurate description of his remarks. [Mr. PARNELL dissented.] He observed that the hon. Member for Cork City shook his head; but he thought he was mistaken. He might remind him, also, that all this debate was now too late for the papers already published, and would have to go to Saturday's papers. What they had seen that night proved that the intellects of hon. Members were just as keen now as on any previous occasion; and he was quite confident the hon. Member for Cork City was fully equal to discussing this question now, and that the gentlemen who were reporting the debate would afford him every opportunity for a full, satisfactory explanation of his views in the Saturday's papers. He could say, for himself, that he had listened with deep interest to the discussion which took place during the earlier part of the evening. He had always felt for the Irish grievances, and if the debate had closed when the adjournment was moved he had no doubt it would have had a very great influence throughout the country. He might add, that he was deeply grieved, as a new Member, and he was sure others would agree with him, to hear the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down so prostrate his intellect as he had done by the speech which he had just delivered.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, he understood the position of the hon. Gentleman the
  262
  Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) to have been that they would not prolong the opposition to the Constabulary Vote; but, at the same time, they desired that there should be two nights' discussion. But, practically, there might be little service in an adjournment, as the next day for Supply would commence with two Motions, by two hon. Members from Ireland, who had not as yet intimated their readiness to withdraw. He did not see what great advantage there could be in putting off discussion with those Motions on the Paper, and thought that some little progress should be made.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he must express his surprise that the noble Marquess had advised the Chairman not to rule certain points as out of Order in the course of the discussion. As a new Member of the House, he would like to know where to look for the Rules which would guide him in taking part in the discussions.
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. Member would find the whole subject to which he referred dealt with in 173A of the Rules of the House; and he need not, therefore, particularize any further.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, an hour-and-a-half ago he had made a proposal to the Government which was not accepted. In making that proposal a second time, he would only express his regret that these proceedings had taken place; and he could assure the noble Lord that, from every point of view, he had made a great mistake in taking up the attitude he had assumed. The proceedings of that evening were extremely disagreeable to him, and he much regretted that no way had been found out of the situation. He could not, however, take any part of the blame for those disagreeable proceedings upon himself. He thought the noble Lord had taken upon himself, as Leader of the House, a more headstrong course than he was entitled to pursue, and that, in imputing motives to some hon. Members, he had exceeded the rules of conduct sanctioned by the Rules of the Committee. They desired the Government to allow them to proceed with the debate on the Estimates at a time when they could be properly and legitimately discussed. There was not, and could not be, any foundation for the suggestion of the noble Lord, that any attempt had been made, or that any intention existed, to obstruct the Police and Constabulary

  263
  Votes. The noble Lord himself was responsible for compelling the Irish Members to use the Forms of the House for the protection of the interests they had at heart. He seemed to suppose that, if he had agreed to their request, the same thing might have taken place at the end of the next night in Supply as had taken place last night. He could not understand how the noble Lord—still less the Chief Secretary for Ireland— could have made such a suggestion. Irish Members had kept faith with the Government both in letter and spirit. It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) who had originated a discussion in which he (Mr. Parnell) would like to have joined; but he had refrained from doing so, in order not to break the spirit of the engagement entered into and the understanding arrived at. What ground then had the noble Lord for the statement which he now made, that they had formed the intention to obstruct the Police Vote—that was to say, to debate them unduly. He would candidly admit that, at one time, previously to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he had entertained the idea of using the Forms of the House to their fullest extent; but he had abandoned it on hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The Government must have known that the Irish Members did not intend to discuss the Vote on Tuesday; and yet, in face of that knowledge, both the Chief Secretary and the noble Lord rose and made these assertions. Now, he submitted that this was neither fair nor worthy treatment, on the part of those right hon. Gentlemen, to extend to Irish Members. They were told that they must not use the Forms of the House; but he could assure the Government that when they fettered Irish Members in this way, and prevented their enjoying the same freedom and liberties as the English Members, they were taking one step to render it impossible for Ireland to continue to send her Members here to claim any sort of justice whatever. He trusted that this disagreeable scene would be allowed to terminate, and that the discussion might be resumed at a time when hon. Members could do their duty, and when the public could be made to understand what was the actual position
  264
  of Irish Members with regard to this Vote.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he should be one of the last persons to deny the right of the minority, on a matter of principle, to exhaust every Form of the House for the purpose of asserting that principle. But he had heard it explained from the opposite Benches that Irish Members did not contest this Vote, and that they did not intend to try to prevent its being passed. Their only contention was that some hon. Members had not yet spoken, and that they ought to have another opportunity for speaking at a time when their speeches might be more fully reported. It had been urged that this was a matter of life and death; but surely it was not a matter of life and death that some nine more Members should speak upon it, the large majority present having already spoken, and having been patiently listened to. Up to a certain period of the evening they had a grave, fair, and calm statement of the real grievance on the part of the Irish people; and he had contributed to the discussion a small experience of his own, not now applicable, because the circumstances under which it was possible no longer existed. If the question had been one of fighting the Constabulary Vote right through, on the ground that the Constabulary was a military force and not a peace force, he should have thought the position assumed by Irish Members perfectly right. But they did not propose that. They only proposed to speak some hours longer at an earlier hour of another day; and to delay the proceedings of the Committee simply that some speeches might be printed at greater length was, he thought, unworthy conduct on the part of a great Party, with really grave issues.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, if he had not replied to the appeal made to him some time ago, it was because he did not understand what that appeal was. He now understood it to mean that the present discussion should be terminated, and resumed at that day's Sitting. But he had not heard any offer made by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). He had no knowledge whatever of any agreement that if Progress were reported on that Vote the debate would not be continued for an indefinite time; and, in the absence of such an understanding, he thought that

  265
  by simply reporting Progress at that time the Committee would not have advanced one step. If the hon. Member would state what he and his Friends were willing to do, in consideration of the Government agreeing to the request which he made to them, he should be happy to respond to it, and, if possible, meet their views.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 11; Noes 98: Majority 87.—(Div. List, No. 138.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR,in moving that the Chairman do now leave the Chair, said, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was the last man who ought to attack the minority; Irish Members, however, could do without his aid; but he reminded him that when the majority of that House, largely made up of Members of the Opposition, had endeavoured, by every Form of the House, to exclude him from the House, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had stood by his side. The hon. Member for Northampton must acknowledge that the Irish Members were the best judges of whether or not this was a matter of life and death. An hon. Member on the Treasury Bench had actually the audacity to cheer the proposition that the discussion should proceed without a fair hearing being given to Irish Members. The hon. Member for Northampton said that if this was a life and death question they would be right in fighting it with all the Forms of the House. Irish Members maintained that it was a question of life and death; and if they were to follow their convictions, they would keep the Committee sitting for a fortnight before allowing the Vote to pass. But they did not intend to follow the recommendation of the hon. Member to exhaust all the Forms of the House, because they did not wish to do any more than the smallest sense of duty compelled them to do. They did not wish to embarrass the Ministry nor place themselves in collision with the House; and, accordingly, they had given up several possible opportunities of further delaying the progress of the Estimates. Nothing would have been easier for his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to have put down, perhaps, half-
  266
  a-dozen Motions that would have occupied the House up to even that hour without approaching the general principle of the Constabulary Vote. But he had not put a single Notice on the Paper, and had, moreover, resisted the temptation to join in another discussion, rather than break faith with the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had made a most important statement, saying that if he were obliged to bring in a Coercion Bill he would feel himself obliged to bring in pari passu, even at the risk of calling Parliament together, a measure for restraining the carrying out unjustly the law against the tenants of Ireland. Could there be any admission made by a Cabinet Minister which more vitally involved the immediate future of Ireland? That statement gave to Irish Members a ray of hope in the midst of the darkness of opposition. It taught them that 15,000 people, who would, perhaps, be left homeless, if the landlords were to carry out their rights, might be rescued even at the eleventh hour. The dexterous acuteness of the ex-Attorney General for Ireland had been employed to endeavour to get the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw from that most important declaration. Then followed the Attorney General for Ireland, whose gloss on the pledge of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had, in the minds of many Irish Members, seriously diminished its value. The Leader of the Opposition, too, said that the statement of the Chief Secretary, in place of being categorical and unconditional, was merely hypothetical, and had regard to a contingency which might or might not arise. That statement was in itself of great importance, and might affect the interests of these people threatened with eviction from their homes. But, notwithstanding all this, not one single word had been uttered from the Benches below the Gangway. He put this in all fairness before hon. Members opposite. He asked, would not his hon. Friend have been justified in rising to protest against this pliancy on the part of the Government? The right hon. Gentleman had appeared to Irish Members to show serious signs of pliancy; but in spite of that they had not uttered one single word of protest, in order to keep him to what they believed to be his original intention. He held, therefore, that the

  267
  conduct of the Irish Members was the most striking testimony to the good faith with which they had endeavoured to carry on the discussion upon these Estimates. It had been his duty, with the consent of his Colleagues, to open the discussion on that question. He had hoped he should have been spared the necessity of addressing the Committee, for it was not at all in accordance with his wishes to intrude upon their attention for one moment more than was necessary. Even on Tuesday night, when they were discussing the Home Rule Question, although he had been asked by some of his Colleagues to say a few words upon that Motion, and although it was a question to which he had devoted considerable attention, and on which he did not altogether agree with the views of his hon. Friends, he was so anxious that there should be no appearance of unduly taxing the patience of the House that he had held his tongue throughout the whole debate. On that occasion, at half-past 1 o'clock in the morning, he had simply asked the noble Lord to agree to the postponement of the Estimates on the ground of the long discussion which had taken place. He thought if ever there was an occasion of their being within their moral and Constitutional rights it was the present. He should, therefore, stand by the side of his hon. Friends as long as they thought it necessary to resist the tyranny of the Government in refusing the reasonable request for another discussion on the Vote.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
  DR. COMMINSsaid, it appeared to him that they were to have relays of Chairmen as well as relays of Members. He could not, however, congratulate the Government on the change which had just been made in that respect. He thought that if the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) had only recollected the debates of the last few days, he would have found some better grounds for the desire for a continuance of the discussion on another day than that some six Irish Members should have an opportunity of speaking. No Member on that side of the House had made any such statement. It was a contemptible motive to allege against Irish Members, and was entirely due to the
  268
  ingenuity of the hon. Member for Northampton. If the majority of that House had the right to preclude or stop discussion, where, he asked, was the line to be drawn? He was not aware that any Rule of the House prescribed the number of speeches to be made in Committee, or the number of hours to be occupied by any given subject. Irish Members claimed the right to continue this discussion as long as they thought it would be useful to convey information to hon. Members who stood in need of it, or to the public outside, who might be influenced by what was said in that House. They were continuing the discussion on behalf of those who were helpless, and could not argue for themselves; and were they to be told that they must not do so because the House had to adjourn shortly? He was not aware of the necessity for the House adjourning on any particular day. The Government talked of sending back messages of peace to Ireland. But, he asked, was it the message they were to carry to their constituents, that the very existence of 2,000,000 of people was not worth a second day's discussion in the House of Commons? It was the desire of Irish Members to get the people to keep the peace, and to enable the people to endure the yoke of poverty under which they suffered, and which was made more galling by this armed force that pressed it on their necks. It was the desire of Irish Members to tell them that there was a Government in Office willing to take their case into consideration; but he feared, after the treatment they had met with that night, it would be impossible to speak words of encouragement, and carry back a message of peace to the unfortunate people of Ireland.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was afraid that anything said at that hour would be little better than idle beating of the air, nevertheless, he would like to address the Committee for a few minutes. He thought he might say there was no man in that Committee who was more deeply impressed with the claims of minorities than himself, and, believing it was the vital duty of hon. Members to insist upon their maintenance, he had devoted himself to that task. If he had watched the course of that evening's debate with deep concern, it was because he believed that nights like that would prove fatal to the defence of minorities. But although

  269
  he was a strong defender of the rights of minorities, he was a still stronger defender of the rights of Parliamentary Government; and it seemed to him essential that when a subject had been fairly debated and the arguments fairly heard, the minority should then yield to the majority, and if they did not the result would be, as he had before pointed out, the adoption of rules which would compel the majority to deal with the subject, even without the expression of further argument on the part of the minority. That was what he meant by saying that he inferred from the course of that night's discussion the defence of minorities would be in jeopardy. As to Obstruction, he had argued, under other circumstances, in the first Session of this year, that it consisted in using the Forms of the House to defeat the will of the majority after the minority had had their say. It was not Obstruction to use the Forms of the House to obtain the adjournment of a discussion on a question newly raised, on which neither the House nor the country had been able to form an opinion. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had entertained the Committee that evening with a long account of repeated divisions over a certain question. But the case which he cited was not one of Obstruction at all. On the occasion referred to, the then Government suddenly changed their minds on an important principle at an advanced hour of the night, and the Opposition persisted in Motions for adjournment. That precedent did not apply to the proceedings of to-night. He thought the complaint of hon. Members opposite that English Members had not joined in the debate exceedingly unreflecting. He had listened with profound attention to the arguments of hon. Members opposite bearing on the question of the social condition of Ireland. They complained no English Member had spoken; but they must remember that they were addressing a new House, the Members of which came with no pledges at all, with regard to the question of Irish affairs, and that the best thing they could hope from them was sympathetic silence. What were the cheers which followed the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, but cheers attesting the sympathy of hon. Members on that side
  270
  of the House? But the good feeling which was then manifested during six months' debate had been frittered away; and Irish Members had, so far from doing good, injured their cause by the course they had since pursued. He asked the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) for a more specific declaration of his intentions with regard to the continuance of this discussion. Had it been communicated to the Whips on that side of the House that the debate was to last two nights, he had not the slightest doubt that arrangements could have been made to give the two nights desired. But that had not been done, and the greatest uncertainty resulted as to the intentions of hon. Members opposite. He asked hon. Members opposite whether they wished the work of the House to be done? If so, let them make some reasonable arrangement; but if they wished to make the work impossible, he expressed his opinion that they would be the first to suffer. He trusted the hon. Member for Cork would make an offer to the Government that would rescue the Committee from their present position.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) had given a curiously-perverted account of the condition of affairs. He had said that the question of Police Estimates had been debated for six hours, and that the Report must make a profound impression on the country; and then he asked why Irish Members were not contented, and why they had not stopped at that point. There were two distinct portions of this question. First there was the question affecting the armament of the police force, and their use, as a military body, to enforce civil rights. After that came the Estimates themselves, on which Irish Members had many suggestions to make, and some important Amendments to propose; while the position sought to be forced upon them was, that after they had exhausted the whole evening in debating the general subject they should begin on the complicated details, and go through them, until such time as they were exhausted, at one Sitting of the Committee. His hon. Friend had said that upon a consideration so complex and important he had been struck dumb, and had not been able to make up his mind. Surely, that statement on

  271
  the part of the hon. Member was, in itself, a justification of their asking time for fuller consideration of the Vote. It was no question of making speeches; but a question of making the whole subject clear to the House and the country. They had hoped to get from Her Majesty's Government some assurance that they would consider this question; and they looked forward to the day when this atrocious system of quasi-military government in Ireland could be given up; but they had received no assurance to warrant them in refraining from pressing their case on Parliament and the country. No one could have gone into the Lobby during the last few days, and not have heard of the ingenious preparations which were being made to put down Obstruction. He could not, of course, enter into what had been said to him by hon. Members, and what he had said to them; but he might remark that his firm conviction and belief was, that the Government were made aware of their desire for a fair debate, which should extend over two nights, and that the Government declined to listen. That, at any rate, was the impression conveyed to his mind; and, therefore, he did not think that Irish Members had themselves to blame for what was going on that night. It had been said that they were estranging the support of English Liberals, and that they might find the rights of minorities still further limited in that House. He hardly knew by what process of strange misconduct they could find themselves in the condition of receiving less support from the English Members than they had received that night. He must say that if, upon this most important question, all their efforts failed to get, even at the close of the Session, a fair time for a fair discussion, which was not likely to go over two nights, they had very little indeed to lose in the limitation of their Constitutional rights in that House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down evidently seemed to suppose that some communication was made to his noble Friend, or to himself, in this matter; but that was not so; at any rate, none was ever made to him, and he did not understand that any communication had been made to anyone else. The hon. Member had also spoken of an offer
  272
  which he thought ought to have been accepted. He could not make out whether there was any offer, or what that offer was. With regard to the Constabulary Vote, that, certainly, was discussed for five or six hours; but, so far from their being told, in the early part of the debate, that it was a matter which was expected to take only two nights—one for the general matter, and the next for the items of the Votes— they were told that it would be the duty of Irish Members to go on with their opposition until they got a pledge from the Government which it was impossible for them to give. That was distinctly the ultimatum given to them. [Mr. PARNELL: I never made such a statement.] That might be true; but one of the hon. Members who usually acted with the hon. Member did make that statement. It had been said that it would have been reasonable that there should be one other night given for this discussion, and he understood the hon. Member to suggest that it should be tomorrow. The hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) might, he certainly should have thought, have postponed his Motion with regard to a very important question, which was not likely, however, to come on for discussion during this Session, so that they might conclude their Estimates; but he did not see that there was any disposition shown to facilitate that arrangement, and the position they were now in was, that no hope was given them that to-morrow would be sufficient, and they really did not know that at any future day they would not be in precisely the same position as they were now. Therefore, they were driven to feel that if this were to be a question of endurance it would be a saving of strength and better for the dignity of the House that they should have one night of this kind of talk, and even another day rather than that they should have it all gone over again on another occasion. The hon. Member evidently did seem to think that some offer was made, and he should really like to know what it was.
  MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the hon. Member for Cork should use his influence with him. Now, he himself possessed a seat in that House, not in consequence of the influence of the hon. Member for Cork, but in spite of all the

  273
  efforts of that determined band of brothers, the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), the hon. and learned Member for Ennis (Mr. Finigan), and the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan). He was, therefore, certainty astonished at that appeal. It was well known that he had not only won his seat against that opposition, but that he had to fight a Petition at the hands of the hon. Members. Nevertheless, it was true that he did make an offer, and it was the only one that had been made that night. Feeling the disgrace which would attach to that House, and the injury which would be inflicted upon the interests which he held dear if that Obstruction were continued, he did go to the senior Whip immediately after the announcement of the division and suggested to him the propriety of terminating the scene then and there, and adding that he, for one, was ready to give up the place that he held upon the Paper, especially as upon that Motion would arise a discussion which would prevent any other Business coming on. He was at that moment still prepared to yield his position, and to give up for the sake of the House the place which he had bargained for so often, and had at last succeeded in obtaining. He hoped they might terminate that unseemly wrangle even at 7 o'clock in the morning; and he, for one, would be most happy to do so. If he went on with his Motion, others who came after him certainly could not go on with theirs; and, therefore, they might make a merit of necessity, and withdraw also.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it must be obvious to the hon. Member who had made this suggestion, and to the Chief Secretary who had repeated it, that he could enter into no such bargain in the absence of his hon. Friends; he could not even say that he could approve of such a bargain being entered into, for it would be grossly false on his part to undertake to do anything of the sort. He and his hon. Friends acted in consultation with each other, and they only acted after full consultation with each other. It had always been his boast that he had never yet done anything contrary to the opinion of the Party with which he had the honour to act; and, therefore, to ask him at a moment's notice to make a bargain of this kind, in the absence of many of
  274
  his Friends who had just as much right to be consulted as he had, was practically absurd. He could only say if the proposition was repeated on the return of those who were entitled to be consulted that he should be happy to consider it. He should only like to point out, however, to the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) that he was not very fortunate in his interpretation of the rights of minorities; in fact, his evidence on this subject was opposed to the evidence given by Mr. Raikes, the late Chairman of Committees, before the Select Committee on the subject, in which he plainly intimated that the use of the Forms of the House by minorities on the occasion of the obstruction to the Sunday Closing Act was not, in his opinion, such a use in the Forms of the House by minorities as could be called an abuse of them. He recollected upon that occasion, which was an all-night Sitting, when Motions to report Progress were made in great frequency, that the hon. Member got up and made a speech similar to that he had delivered that night. He told them then that he was a great supporter of the rights of minorities, and that he viewed this kind of work with dread, and that it would tend to restrict those rights. It was exactly the same kind of speech as that which the hon. Gentleman had just made now, when he had told them that the use of the Forms of the House which they were making was a use which the minority were not entitled to make. When, however, Mr. Raikes, the late Chairman of Committees, was subsequently examined on this question by the noble Lord the present Leader of the House, and the noble Lord asked him whether this opposition was not an opposition—by about the same minority as theirs that night—which could be called obstructive or an abuse of the Forms of the House, Mr. Raikes distinctly gave it as his opinion, upon that occasion, that the opposition which the hon. Member for Liskeard had stigmatised as an abuse of the rights of minorities, was not so, but was, on the contrary, a perfectly justifiable use of them. So that they had, on the one hand, the opinion of the hon. Member for Liskeard, and, on the other, the opinion of Mr. Raikes, who was called before the Select Committee on Public Business as the especial and official

  275
  witness of the late Government for the purpose of giving his opinion, upon which a certain Rule was framed. This was very remarkable, as showing that the hon. Member for Liskeard was not such an authority in regard to the rights of minorities as he would have hon. Members suppose. His opinion was directly contradicted by the opinion of the late Chairman of Committees of that House, a gentleman whom no one would say was not infinitely better acquainted with the Forms of the House and with the powers and rights of that Assembly.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would leave that question altogether and go back to the practical matter which was now before them. He rather thought the hon. Member who had just sat down would have listened to the question he asked him, and would have told them what the offer was which he said he had made at half-past 1 in the morning and had subsequently repeated. When he heard that, he rose just now and stated that he wished to know what the offer then made was, and he now again asked the hon. Member to be good enough to state it.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he had already stated his proposition two or three times, and his experience in regard to it, upon the last occasion, was not a happy one, because his words were taken hold of by the hon. Member for Northampton, and misrepresented in a way which to him was exceedingly painful. However, he would repeat over again what he had asked the Government to accept at 4 o'clock, just three hours ago. He suggested that, if Progress were reported, they would be very happy to go on with the discussion of the items in the Vote at the commencement of the Business in the usual way. They proposed that in order to show that they did not care, and did not wish to obstruct the Progress of Business, if the Government would agree to report Progress, and fix their Sitting in the usual way, he and his hon. Friends would be very glad to proceed with the discussion of the Estimates, and to a fair and bond fide discussion of those Estimates.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, if he understood that that meant that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would not proceed with his Motion at the Evening Sitting; because, otherwise, he did not see that the hon.
  276
  Member was giving them any advantage or offer at all. If he understood that the hon. Member for Galway was not going to proceed with his Motion, he would know better where they were; but, at present, he did not understand that that was so.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was very lamentable that this spirit was not evinced when the hon. Member was in the House, and when he called attention to this question at 1 o'clock in the morning. The very first time when he spoke during that morning's debate he mentioned this circumstance, and turned about and appealed to his hon. Friend the Member for Cork to state exactly what his feelings were, and what was his wish. He then declared that he and his Colleagues desired that there should not be more than two nights' debate, yet at that hour—five hours ago—after he had made that statement, not a single Member of the Government rose to reciprocate that request, or exhibited a desire to do anything to respond to that offer. After the exceedingly philosophical disquisition to which they had listened from the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) in his speech, because he himself had stated that all that they desired was a bond fide discussion, it had been said that all they wanted was talk. Of course, there was a sense in which that phrase might be used; but he did not think the hon. Member would hazard his public reputation, and his literary and political repute, by any such statement as that talk and discussion were incontrovertible. He knew perfectly well that by that debate they did not mean mere talk, in the sense in which he used the words. His hon. Colleagues would be incapable, on a matter of this sort, to ask that House to waste a night of its time for the more purpose that five or six Members might make speeches, and nothing more. He should think very poorly indeed of those of his Colleagues, or of any other persons, who would wish to ask the House to sit for that purpose, and for nothing else. He would not notice the imputation of the junior Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). That hon. Member owed nothing to him, and even if he did owe any thing to him, with regard to obtaining his seat, all he asked was that that hon. Member would do his duty faithfully, and he would have

  277
  nothing to say to his conduct. But he did protest against what that hon. Member had said, and he did object also that the hon. Member for Liskeard should represent that their object was so mean and bad. What did he mean—what did hon. Gentlemen opposite mean—what did they all mean, when they defended the liberty of discussion? Was it the liberty merely to talk? When the Speaker of the House went to the Bar of the House of Lords, and demanded for that House of Commons freedom of discussion, did it mean—" Pray, Your Majesty, let us talkee, talkee?" "What did the hon. Member for Liskeard get up his political and philosophical speeches for? Was it merely for the sake of talk; did it mean more than "Pray, Mr. Speaker, let me fire off my speech?" Not at all ! By the talk, or by the speech, or by the debate, they all meant such a contribution to the debates of the House as would either immediately, or subsequently, have an effect on the decisions of that House; and it was with that view, and in no other view, that he and his hon. Friends had said, or contemplated, or demanded, the right to a fair and not an unfair discussion of this matter. It came very badly indeed from some hon. Gentlemen opposite to complain that he and his hon. Friends wished for discussion on this subject. They knew how, by discussion, he and those round him had moved hon. Gentlemen opposite to come and help them on the flogging debate, and the stirring discussion of the Mutiny Bill was another illustration. The very things which at first brought obloquy on his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), and those who acted with him, were the very things for which he and the Irish Members were condemned, and which were subsequently carried by the aid of a few courageous Radical Members. How was that done? Simply by discussion or talk, as the hon. Member for Liskeard called it. That right to talk, as it was now phrased, had abolished the "cat." It was true the "cat" was not got rid of that Session; but would the hon. Member tell him that their talk and their speeches were wasted, because the "cat" was not abolished immediately? Right well they knew, at the time that they talked, that they would abolish it in the next year, and that was exactly
  278
  what was the case with them now. The misrepresentations, unconscious, he was sure, of the hon. Member for Liskeard might do harm and; therefore, he appealed to that hon. Member's better judgment, to his calmer judgment, whether he did justice to the Irish Members in endeavouring to represent that all they asked for and all they demanded was more time, that they might make an empty discussion, and waste time on empty idle talk. Then, again, it was said that they had already had three nights' discussion on this subject; and, consequently, that to require further discussion was, if not exactly obstructive, at any rate, in spirit, obstructive. [Mr. COURTNEY: I did not say so.] The hon. Member, at any rate, called attention to the fact that this was the third night of the discussion.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, perhaps he might explain. He began by saying it was idle to continue the discussion in respect of these two matters. He said that the question at issue in debating the matter of the Constabulary was, whether the social and political condition of Ireland was such that peace and order must be maintained by a semi-military force. That was the underlying idea of that night's debate, and that same underlying idea was the substance of the other two nights' debate.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that was exactly the charge of which he complained. They had it now again from the hon. Gentleman that the speeches of that night were simply a repetition of those previously made. [Mr. COURTNEY: Not necessarily.] But, at any rate, the hon. Member maintained that this was a waste of time in fact. Now, he called his attention to the fact that, earlier in the evening, there arose on the Treasury Bench a Minister of the Crown, not to blame Irish Members for what had taken place that night, notwithstanding the previous two nights flung in their face. [Mr. COURTNEY: I said the same thing.] But what, then, was the meaning of it all? Why were these three nights trotted out in this way, if they were not meant as an imputation that the Irish Members had been unnecessarily occupying time on either the first, or the second, or the third night? They were entrenched behind the statement made on the Treasury Bench by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, that

  279
  up to that time the debate had been both able and useful. Was all that mere talk? If a moment of time had been wasted, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was responsible for the wasting of it. How could they be blamed when that right hon. Gentleman, towards the close of that debate that night, had risen and complimented his Colleagues upon the speeches they had made upon this subject, on both the first, and the the second, and the following night's debate? Oh, perhaps the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) would say, those were only speeches; but what were they assembled there for? Why, speeches. Could not the hon. Member himself write a pamphlet and tell them all that he wished to say quite as easily? Could they not do as they did in America and say—"We will take your speech as read, and send it to The Congressional Globe? "Why did they not do that in England? It was because they wanted to influence either immediately, or subsequently, the mind of the House. He was exceedingly sorry that this matter of compromise was not carried through. He might add that, for himself, he was so utterly taken by surprise with the proceedings of that night that all his arrangements, both business and domestic, had been based on the impression that he would get home about 2 o'clock. So little did he expect this prolonged Sitting that until he heard the announcement and the confession made by the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington) that arrangements had been made for this scene by the Government, he had done nothing in the way of preparation; and it was not till that was said that men like himself were driven, with their backs to the wall, and felt that they must fight it out. It was after that confession that they felt that any amiable arrangement was not possible, and that the Government having made all these arrangements before they knew of it, and, as the Committee would observe, before they retorted by sending off some of their Friends to go to bed also, it was only then that an amicable arrangement became impossible. He sincerely deplored the fact that the Government did not earlier take the course that they all hoped would be taken now. As he saw his hon. Friend the Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) in his
  280
  place now, he would earnestly request him to give way, and to facilitate a sensible settlement of this matter. Indeed, he would most cordially urge that upon him. If his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) found himself now, or when his hon. Friends returned, in a position to immediately state what the Chief Secretary wished him to do, he would do it with his hearty concurrence and good will. If everyone had been of his mind, an amicable arrangement would have been made seven hours ago, and that was only prevented by the fact that they were all conscious of the arrangements which the Government had made.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 11; Noes 91: Majority 80. — (Div. List, No. 139.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that a proposition had been made to them by the Government that he should ask his hon. Friend the Member for Galway City whether he was willing to postpone his Motion standing on the Paper for Friday night in the event of the Government consenting to report Progress then, and putting the Constabulary Estimates down as the first Order for Friday night, at 9 o'clock. He might say that he had communicated with his hon. Friend, and would leave him to speak for himself on that matter. In the event of his complying with the request, he wished his (Mr. Parnell's) position in the matter to be clearly understood. He trusted that, in the few words which he was going to say, there might be no misapprehension as to the statement which he was making. He had said that he was willing that Progress should be reported if the Government placed the Constabulary Votes down for some future Sitting, and that he should be willing, and would undertake, that the discussion should proceed in a fair and bond fide manner. He was not to be taken as admitting for a moment that the discussion upon these Estimates had, up to that time, not been carried on in a fair and bond fide way. He must guard himself against that; nor could he enter into any bargain, nor could he give any undertaking, or agreement, in the absence of his hon. Friends, that the Estimates would be finished on

  281
  that evening. That was all he could say.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that his suggestion was that the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) should not bring forward his Motion, which stood on the Paper for 9 o'clock that evening, if Progress were then reported. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had, in accordance with the wish of the House, very properly offered to withdraw his Motion, so that, virtually, the only obstacle to the Committee proceeding with the Estimates at 9 o'clock was the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway City. In asking the hon. Member for Galway City to withdraw that Motion, he might say that it concerned a subject in which he took great interest, and was one which was of the greatest importance to the country. But, nevertheless, he thought that his hon. Friend would not stand in the way of their proceeding with the Estimates that evening at 9 o'clock, if, by so doing, he could put the House in a fair way to get out of the unpleasant difficulty in which it was placed. He might say further that he thought the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had met this matter in a thoroughly satisfactory way. He was sure that now there could be no great difficulty in arranging the matter between him and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, since he had shown a disposition to meet the difficulty.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that before the hon. Member for Galway rose he wished to say one word, for he did not wish him to make a useless sacrifice. He could not help thinking that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had left them in the same position in which they were before. If he would do his best to carry out a definite arrangement with his Friends, that would be sufficient for the House to act upon.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that he hoped his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork would go a little further than he had done. He was quite certain that the hon. Member himself was not anxious to prolong this scene. Undoubtedly, the hon. Member was in a somewhat difficult position in being asked to give an absolute pledge on behalf of his Friends who were not present. But he did not suppose that those
  282
  hon. Members had permanently left their places. Perhaps it would lead to some sort of arrangement if the hon. Members from Ireland then present would say that they would use their best influence to prevent Motions for reporting Progress being made to-mor-mow evening, so that the Estimates might then be finished. They would have from 9 to 2 or half-past to discuss the Estimates, during which period there would be plenty of time for their discussions to be reported in the newspapers, and hon. Members could lay all they wished before the public. He thought that an undertaking by Members then present that they would use their best influence to prevent Motions for reporting Progress being made to-morrow evening would be satisfactory.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he did not wish that there should be any misunderstanding on this matter. He was afraid that they could not take that debate at 2 o'clock that day, because it had been arranged that other Business should be taken, and hon. Members were coming down expressly on that understanding. He could not help thinking that if the hon. Member expressed not only his own determination to make an arrangement, but would also undertake to use his best influence with his Friends, the matter might be satisfactorily arranged.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that he would really recommend the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to let the matter rest with the hon. Member for the City of Cork. There was no design of doing anything which was at all contrary to the understanding which had been arrived at. Such an idea was quite foreign to them, and if the right hon. Gentleman would only consider that the hesitancy of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork to go any further arose only from his scrupulous regard of his own weight with his hon. Friends who were absent, and his reluctancy to make promises in their name. He would see that there was no real obstacle to the arrangement which was proposed.
  MR. BRIGGSsaid, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork seemed to have very great power with the hon. Members around him, and he had not the slightest doubt that if he pledged

  283
  his word that he would exert his influence in the way indicated, he would endeavour to perform his duty, and would have a legitimate effect upon those who followed him. The hon. Member had given them a specimen of his powers previously that evening, and had exercised his influence in a most remarkable manner. If the hon. Member would only exercise some influence upon a future occasion, he was sure that the debate which would ensue would be concluded within a reasonable time. He rose for the purpose of seconding the appeal which had been made to the hon. Member for Galway, who had a Motion on the Paper in which he (Mr. Briggs) was very much interested. He should like to give the hon. Member his support in that Motion; but he could not conceal from himself, and he had no doubt the hon. Member did not conceal from himself, that the question could not then be approached in the way that he could wish. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had consented to withdraw his Motion so as not to obstruct Public Business; and he ventured to add his appeal to the others which had been made to the hon. Member for Galway to ask him, under the circumstances, not to bring forward his Motion. He could promise him that on any future occasion he brought forward his Motion, it should have his most hearty support.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that it was hard for hon. Members to understand the position in which he was placed. The arrangements which were made before Mr. Speaker left the Chair had been previously agreed to by all his hon. Friends, and he was bound to [act with the majority on this occasion. He regretted very much that he could not say, straight out, that he would exert his influence with his Colleagues in this matter. He did not think it proper for him to say that he would, and he could not give any further pledge than he had already given.
  MR. DODDSsaid, he rose for the purpose of making a suggestion. They could all understand the position in which the hon. Member for the City of Cork was placed in being unable to make a promise for his hon. Friends in their absence. He should, therefore, suggest that they should continue this discussion a little while longer, until those Friends
  284
  returned to their places, for, if not, they would look exceedingly foolish if the hon. Member for the City of Cork made a promise for those hon. Gentlemen, and when they returned they did not agree to it. At the same time, that course would relieve the hon. Member for the City of Cork from the difficulty in which he was placed, and would not prolong the Sitting to any great extent.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that the suggestion of the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) was good, but was hardly practicable. He thought it would be better if the hon. Member and his Friends communicated with those who were absent in order that some arrangement might be come to.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that the pledge that was asked might put the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in the position of being charged with having broken his promise, no matter how faithfully he might have adhered to it. That was not the position in which the hon. Member ought to be placed. Some hon. Members, when they returned to the House, might take a stand, which would enable hon. Members on the other side to question the bona fides with which an arrangement might have been come to. He could not answer for other hon. Members taking the same view of the matter which they did. He did not think that his hon. Friend could go further than he had done.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that he was sorry he could not add anything more to the statement he had already made. He should be glad to do anything he could to lead the way out of the present difficulty. He must say that it would be more satisfactory if the arrangement he had suggested were made than if they waited until his hon. Friends reentered the House. He did not know that he ought to go any further than he had done. The result was much more likely to be satisfactory, if the arrangement he had suggested were carried out in the way he had suggested, rather than if they waited until his hon. Friends came in. He begged to move that the Chairman do now report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Parnell.)
  MR. SHERIDANsaid, that he thought they should now proceed to the discussion of the Vote. It was childish trying any longer to come to an arrangement.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that he was sorry the hon. Member who had just sat down had tendered the advice he had. It was well known that he was independent in that House; but he had some knowledge of Irish Members opposite; and it was quite certain that those who were absent would abide by the undertaking given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the assurance given by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), might, he thought, be accepted by the Government.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he placed great reliance upon the assurance of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and he believed that he intended to use his influence in accordance with the wishes of the Committee. That influence was backed up by the assurance which had been given by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) and by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins). But he looked for some explanation from his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) as to the course he intended to take. He felt sure that he would follow the example set him by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), and would consent to postpone his Motion. He thought that the Committee might rely upon the partial assurance given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork that it would be a binding pledge upon his absent Friends.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the only reason the matter was not settled before was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had stated that the matter had quite gone beyond him. He had long since come to the conclusion that he would bring forward his Motion that night under very unfavourable circumstances; and he could not help thinking that the slight differences of opinion that had arisen between the Party to which he belonged and his hon. Friends opposite would act unfavourably towards the Motion which he wished to bring forward. He did not say that this was not legitimate on the part of the hon. Members. He had no
  286
  hesitation, therefore, in saying that he did not intend to allow his Motion to stand between the House and these Votes. But as many persons besides himself were interested in that Motion, they would not be satisfied if he did not try to do something with regard to it. He would, therefore, ask the Government to do something to place it in a more favourable position for another occasion than that which it now occupied. This question was one which numbers of people considered as of the utmost importance, and he hoped that the Government would give an opportunity for this discussion. There was as much feeling with regard to the Obstruction of that House amongst the people of Ireland as amongst those of England. About 4,000 or 5,000 enthusiastic Radicals had recently asked him to use all the Forms of the House in order to bring this great and burning question, this obstacle to all progress, before the House. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would appreciate his difficulties in giving up his Motion.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that he could not pledge himself for his Friends who were absent; but he (Mr. Labouchere) supposed that those Friends had been taking their rest, and would return to the House. As it was very probable that when they did come the Committee would have arrived at some amicable arrangement, it appeared to him that it would be well for those hon. Members to get up a little earlier than usual. It was some waste of time for them to wait there until 10 o'clock, when the difficulty might be met by hon. Members in question rising a little earlier.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that he would beg the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to let the matter rest where it was.
  MR. METGEsaid, that whatever difficulty the Committee found itself in it had been placed in it by the Government. The Irish Members were perfectly willing to report Progress at 1 o'clock that morning. It was of the utmost importance that that question should be thoroughly discussed at a convenient hour; and unless that could be done he should be against all compromise.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) would only go a little further, he thought the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be satisfied.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, his difficulty was that he could not, in the absence of his hon. Friends, appear to lay down a policy or come to a decision. It would not be fair or right to them. He did not, in their absence, like to lay down any particular course, for it would be an indication on his part, in their absence, of deciding upon a particular course.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he thought they must congratulate the hon. Member for the City of Cork upon the very straightforward way in which he had met the difficulty; but they must hope that the hon. Gentlemen of whom he spoke would have uneasy slumbers, and would soon join them. If the hon. Gentleman would promise to use his best influence to try and persuade his hon. Friends, even if he could not persuade them, he had such thorough confidence in his doing what he promised, that he would be satisfied. All hon. Members round him showed, by their silence, that they were willing to take that course. The hon. Member had, however, as yet, only said practically that he could not undertake to use his influence with his absent Friends.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that, in saying he could not undertake to use his influence, he wished to be understood only as saying that he could not make any declarations to the Committee of what course he should take.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that he was sorry to intervene once more; but he understood the hon. Member for the City of Cork to say that he would consult his Friends, and would ask them not to prolong the discussion over another night. Further than that a statement had been made by the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), who had also promised to use his influence with his Friends. Under those circumstances, he thought that the Government might reasonably assent to reporting Progress.
  MR. WARTONsaid, that he thought the Government would act wisely in accepting the assurance given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Unless they did so, they might go on
  288
  for any time longer without any result. He hoped that the Government would accept the assurance of the hon. Member that he would use his influence with his Friends.
  MR. MONKsaid, that as one who had not prolonged the discussion by one word that evening, he should appeal to the Government not to give way on this subject. He had scarcely left the House during the discussion, and he did hope that the Government would not give way, except on a distinct understanding that the Votes would be considered and passed that evening. He wished to know why it was that the supporters of the Government had remained there that night'? It was in order that the Irish Votes might be considered and concluded during the present Sitting. If they were to have all these contests, he thought the Government had nothing to complain of with regard to the support that they had received, not only from that side of the House, but from the Conservative Party, who had expressed an almost unanimous desire that they should continue the Sitting in order to obtain these Votes. He hoped that the Government would not be weak enough to yield.
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, that he had also sat through that night; but he did not come to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Monk). He was strongly of opinion that the terms offered ought to be accepted. If they continued the Sitting to 9 o'clock that evening, the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. F. O'Connor) would come before them. In his opinion, the terms offered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) were very fair, and he hoped they would be accepted by the Government.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that he hoped the Government would let them go on, and sit day and night until the matter was disposed of. Every fair opportunity had been given to the Irish Members—he should be the last man to wish not to give them fair play— to discuss the matter; but it was perfectly clear that their object was Obstruction, and nothing else, and he thought it was beneath the dignity of the Government to give way, and he trusted the Government would stand firm, and resist the attempted dictation

  289
  of a handful of Members at any inconvenience.
  SIR HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANsaid, that there was nothing definite in the proposition made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). There was no engagement, and no understanding, and no promise, as to the part to be taken by his hon. Friends in the matter. Under these circumstances, it was abundantly clear that if they let the matter go over till 9 o'clock, they would have the same debate over again, and would be in exactly the same position as at present.
  MR. PUGHsaid, that he was strongly of opinion that the right course was to come to the arrangement proposed. If the idea was, that when the matter was resumed at 9 o'clock it would not be concluded at that Sitting, then he should be the last to wish to agree to any such promise. But, looking to what had been said, he felt satisfied that they would then pass this Constabulary Vote. The statement of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), and of the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins), showed that their Friends were unanimous in wishing this course to be pursued, and that the discussion on the Vote should be finished at the Evening Sitting. If that were so, he had not the slightest doubt that those hon. Members from Ireland now absent, when they came in, would fully endorse those views, and the matter would be satisfactorily concluded.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that not one word had been uttered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in which he did not fully concur. The arrangement proposed by the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock-Allan) was impossible. But, as the matter stood, he could not recommend the Government to accept the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, that, as a Member of the Conservative Party who had sat through those proceedings, he wished to make one or two observations. He had carefully abstained from saying anything in the course of the debate, for fear of its becoming the excuse of a fresh development of discussion; and he should have said nothing now, except to explain the position in which he and his Friends who sat about him found themselves. They had been there all the night ready
  290
  to support the Government, not only in carrying through the Irish Estimates, but for whatever else they were required. The Government were in charge, through their great majority, not only of all the Government Business, but, what was far more important, they had the custody of the honour and dignity of the House. If they should take the course of yielding to the Third Party, which he could not conceive they would do, they were there to offer their protest. If the Government chose to take the opportunity of yielding to the Third Party, they must do it on their own responsibility; but, so far as the Conservative Members were concerned, they were prepared to carry through Public Business in the ordinary way, and he and his Friends would support the Government in doing that at whatever inconvenience to themselves.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that what they all aimed at was to get those Votes settled that evening. If they could get that done he did not think they would insist upon going on; but they ought to have some assurance on that point from the hon. Member for the City of Cork. He was sorry to say they had not yet had such assurance, and the hon. Member said that he was unable to give it. As they could not get such an assurance they must try and settle the matter in another way.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said that he could not get the assurance he wanted from the hon. Member for the City of Cork. But they had had an assurance from the hon. Member for Roscommon (Dr. Commins) on behalf of himself and other Members of the Party present, that they would use their influence to bring the discussion on the Votes to an end that evening. That had been repeated again and again. What was the alternative? To wait until the other Members came in, in the course of the day. That alternative was so impracticable that he did not suppose that Her Majesty's Government would assent to it. The offer made by the Irish Members present was favourable to bringing the matter to an end that evening; and he should be disposed, therefore, if the Motion to report Progress went to a division, to support it.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the

  291
  Member for the University of Dublin(Mr. Plunket) had distinguished himself by the observations which he had just delivered. It had been well said that if one Irishman was to be roasted it was easy to find another to turn the spit. He regretted that the right hon. and learned Gentleman should have thought it his duty, when they were approaching a compromise, to endeavour again to start up a discussion. The view taken by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was a very reasonable one, and he thought that with a little good sense on both sides of the House they could arrange the present difficulty.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that he must once more appeal to the Committee to come to an agreement on this subject. He was persuaded that the arrangement which had been expressed by hon. Members on the other side would be rigidly adhered to. On previous occasions he had seen that they had every reason to rely upon promises given in that House. There was an implied understanding come to between hon. Gentlemen in the present case, and he thought that was as strong a promise as they could receive. They had had a promise on the part of every Irish Member, except the Leader, who said that he was deterred by a feeling or scruple towards those who were absent from entering into any express agreement. He honoured that scruple, and he thought that in consequence of it they might the more entirely rely upon the word of the hon. Member; but he also relied upon the implied word of every hon. Gentleman who sat round the hon. Member for the City of Cork. They all wished to put an end to this scene, and to have a fair and final discussion that night. A desire to that effect had been expressed by all the hon. Members from Ireland, and two of them had also withdrawn Motions of their own, in order that such a course might be taken. He hoped the Government would assent to the arrangement.
  MR. JENKINSsaid, that he hoped the Government would accept this arrangement. This was not the first time that he had been engaged wrangling, and he had found that they always came out of it by means of compromise. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would accept the offer made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 15; Noes 87: Majority 72. — (Div. List, No. 140.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Barry.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he felt fresher than he had been some hours ago; and as several hon. Members had returned to the deliberations of the Committee, including his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland, he thought the discussion might now proceed to the end.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 11; Noes 88: Majority 77. — (Div. List, No. 141.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. O'Kelly.)
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: — Ayes 10; Noes 92: Majority 82. — (Div. List, No. 142.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Metge.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the minority maintained that they were entitled to use the Forms of the House for the purpose of insuring to themselves another opportunity of discussing the Irish Estimates. That opportunity had been refused to them by the Government, and the last attempt made to bring about a compromise in that direction had failed, although the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had offered to give place to the Government on Friday, provided the Estimates were put down for that day. The Government had refused to accede to this proposal unless some Irish Members gave a pledge that they would use their influence with other Irish Members to get them to allow the Estimates to go through on that evening. He felt that such a pledge could not be honourably given in the absence of the Irish Members interested; and,

  293
  therefore, the attempted compromise had fallen through and matters stood as they were. He regretted exceedingly that the compromise had not been accepted, and thought that the Government would have to reconsider the matter.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork having told his story, he wished simply to say that the Government had received no assurance that they would stand in any better position that evening than they were in last evening. With respect to these Estimates they had not asked the hon. Member for the City of Cork to pledge himself as to the conduct of his Friends; they simply asked him to use his influence with them. But the hon. Member would not even undertake that. As the Committee were, in his opinion, at that moment in a condition to proceed with a full discussion of the Estimates, he trusted that some progress would be made. He suggested that the Committee should make the experiment for half an hour, at any rate. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was, he felt sure, quite competent to urge any objections which he might think fit to the details of the Vote; and, for his part, he felt equally competent to reply to them.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he thought the time of the Committee might be profitably occupied in discussing the Estimates in detail. He found that a large sum of money was asked for surgery and medical attendance; and he would ask in connection with that item what was the system at present existing in Ireland with regard to the surgical and medical treatment of those twin forces—the Metropolitan Police and the Royal Irish Constabulary? If a man was ill, he had the opportunity of choosing to what hospital he should go, according to his religion. If a man was a Protestant, he was sent to a Protestant hospital, which was admirably managed. He was glad to see, that the Attorney General for Ireland, in his own utter ignorance of the subject before the Committee, was appealing to an eminent legal authority sitting beside him. That little fact showed the lamentable want of some Irishmen in the House who knew something about the country, and who were not obliged to appeal to outsiders. When these men were thus sent to the hospital they were attended to in the best possible
  294
  manner, at a cost to themselves of 7s. per week, which would be deducted from their pay; but in the case of an unfortunate man who belonged to the Royal Irish Constabulary he was sent to St. Stephen's Hospital, which, of late, had acquired very unsatisfactory notoriety for many things in connection with its medical and nursing departments, and was a hospital pretty well known for dealing with venereal complaints. The unfortunate constable was sent to this hospital, where, if he was a Catholic, he was deprived of the religious administrations of his own minister, where no Sister of Mercy was allowed to go to wait on him, and no minister of religion attended. So far as the Catholic was concerned, he was deprived of all religious ministrations, though he might have the advantage of a Protestant chaplain, who was paid £300 a-year out of the funds of the hospital, and who administered to the spiritual needs of the non-Catholic patients. The constable patients were subject to military rule, and were charged 10s. 6d. per week— 3.s. 6d. more than the Dublin policeman was charged for his medical attendance and board. About two years ago, there was a case in Dublin which attracted great notice, and of which a full and careful report appeared in the paper, and of the depositions and proceedings of which he held a certified copy in his hand. What was the verdict of the Coroner's jury in that case? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew very well what it was; and he had to complain that no steps had been taken to relieve the Irish constables of this over-charge, because, if a Dublin Metropolitan policeman was maintained in the hospital for 7s. per week—at one of the first hospitals in Dublin—why should one of the Irish Constabulary be obliged to pay 10s. 6d. for an inferior hospital? The verdict of the Coroner's jury was such that the Lord Lieutenant directed the Hospital Board to hold an inquiry into the matters disclosed; but what an idea it was —the Dublin Hospital Board holding an inquiry into matters of illegal treatment. They collected the medical men, and, of course, they adopted the old Scotch system of "claw me, claw thee.["'Oh, oh!"] He begged pardon, if he had offended Scotch Members; but he always understood that was the Scotch system. Those Dublin doctors did not examine a

  295
  single witness outside the hospital, or a single person who had a complaint to make. They held the inquiry in private, and no intimation was given of it, and no Report from it was ever published. But last year he moved for the Report of that Hospital Committee, and it was now in the Library of the House, and anyone who read it would see that it was a most imperfect inquiry. It was evidently held for the purpose of whitewashing the officials connected with the institution; whereas he believed that the evidence given before the Coroner, and the verdict of the Coroner's jury, condemned the whole system under which the deceased was treated. The jury said that they were of opinion that the attendants in the ward where the deceased was confined were far from efficient. He was at that inquest himself, and what were the facts disclosed? A man examined stated that a post mortem was held, and always was held, on every policeman who died at the hospital for many years. There had never been any attempt to deny that fact. That assertion was never contradicted, although it was an offence under the Statute Laws without notice to the relatives, and without their consent, for the hospital authorities to perform a postmortem. The medical authorities of the hospital declared that they performed the post mortem because of the necessity of reporting to the Constabulary authorities, and that it was in accordance with the rule of those authorities. But in regard to that statement, he would simply take the evidence of the Assistant Inspector General of Constabulary in Ireland, who said that there was no rule with regard to post mortems to be made on any bodies of the Royal Irish Constabulary. The rules required every case of death to be reported, and that was all; no application for a post mortem was actually made in this case. Now, he would state exactly what he had himself ascertained to be the fact by the evidence. This unfortunate man was taken from the country, and was brought up from Waterford to this hospital. A sub-inspector of his force, who went to see him in the hospital, declared that when he came up, and, entering the ward, asked for Constable Alison, the patients pointed him out to him. He was lying on the floor like a drunken man, insensible; yet that was the hospital to which Irish Constabulary con-
  296
  stables were compelled to go, and for the accommodation of which they had to pay 10s. 6d. a-week. The witness further deposed that there was no attention paid to him at all, and that had he been a wounded prisoner in a Russian tent he could not have been treated with more indifference. He thereupon went to Dr. Johnstone, who said the man was not so bad as he appeared to be, and was shamming. Thereupon he found, from the evidence of Sub-Inspector Carter, that Dr. Johnstone told that sub-Inspector that he and Dr. Martin had subjected the deceased to the most infallible tests, and they were convinced he was shamming.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and, 40 Members being found present,
  MR. CALLAN,continuing, contended that the whole system was radically wrong. If a man was ill in the country, he was sent up, in charge of the constable, to Dublin; although there might be equally good doctors in the country. The doctor who had charge of this man in the County of Waterford himself said that if he had been left at home he would have lived longer. His wife further said that when she went to the hospital she asked to be allowed to see the corpse; but was told that it was in the deadhouse, where all other bodies were. Finally, however, she got to where he was lying, and when she endeavoured to put her arms round his neck she was prevented; and the reason was that the post mortem had been performed, and the body had not been cleaned up; and it was in a most disreputable state—in a state for which the medical men might have been indicted. The cause of his decease was somewhat complicated, and for that reason they took this policeman off his bed, carried him to Dublin, forced him to leave his wife and every member of his family, and be shut up in this hospital. The whole system there seemed to be of the worst. The patients who came up to be examined stated that the nurses would not treat them well unless they bought provisions of them. All these establishments were conducted on what was called the low-diet system, and persons who were in them had to buy food of the nurses. There was a regular tariff of prices charged for the Consta-

  297
  bulary patients; besides this, they had to buy whisky from the nurses, and in that a regular trade was carried on, selling it at 9d. per quartern, which was an enormous profit for the mere trouble of bringing it into the hospital. So long as two years ago there were complaints about this system. The Constabulary had to go there; they had not a ward to themselves, for every ward was not separate; but they had to mix with rogues, thieves, and rascals, and every corner-boy sent from Dublin, to be treated for venereal diseases. He really hoped that the Chief Secretary would arrange that the constables of the Royal Irish Constabulary should be allowed some privileges, the same as the Metropolitan Police; and that they should be allowed to select one or two hospitals for themselves; and that they should not be charged more than the other hospitals were prepared to take them for. He hoped an explanation would be given of all these facts; and it was because he desired to obtain that explanation that he moved to report Progress. He did hope that they would at last succeed in obtaining what they wanted in this matter, and that the Chief Secretary would give a satisfactory assurance that the matter complained of would be remedied, the difficulty that was complained of dismissed, and the Royal Irish Constabulary placed on the same footing as the Dublin Metropolitan Police.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that he did not see that this discussion placed them in any better position than they were in before; and he must say that he wished the hon. Member had given him some Notice that he was going to bring that matter forward. It did not appear from the Votes that this subject was going to be touched upon; and, therefore, although at another time he would have been able to have gone into detail on this subject, as no Notice was given to him beforehand, he had not been able to obtain the necessary information. The hon. Member had made out a strong prima facie case against the management of this hospital; but he did not think that he could do more than say he would do his utmost to examine into it. Of course, if he had been in Office for a year or two he would have been able to give some explanation as to these affairs; but, as it was, he did not see how he could venture to say more than that
  298
  the charges which the hon. Member had made should be carefully examined into. He understood that these charges were, that the hospital was badly managed, that the charges to the patients were more than they were at other hospitals, and that they had not the same regulations with regard to the Sisters of Mercy as at other hospitals. He thought that these were statements which all required careful consideration; and, at any rate, they certainly deserved notice.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was very glad to receive that assurance from the Chief Secretary, and the fact that this matter wanted discussion was one reason why they ought in a calm mood to take those matters into consideration. There was also a Vote on the Estimates for the salary of the surgeon-deputy who was the superintending surgeon at this hospital. Now, he made those charges from what he had seen himself; and he had read them from the verdict, and the evidence taken by the Coroner of the City of Dublin on the inquest of the body of Constable John Alison, in the month of September, 1878, and ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on the 8th March in the present year. These were all facts, and he was prepared to prove the literal truth of every statement he had made—first, that the Metropolitan Police were sent by Dr. Nedley, the Protestants to the Home, the Catholics to St. Vincent's Mater Misericordia, where they had ministers and Sisters of Mercy of the respective religions to which they belonged to wait on them. In those places the constables only paid 7s. per week for the best hospital attendance, while the Royal-Irish Constabulary were obliged to pay 10s. 6d. in this hospital. At the same time, he was bound to admit that since these charges had been made the patients had received much better attention, and the doctors did not now make postmortems without obtaining leave from the relatives of the constable who had the misfortune to die in the hospital. But it was, nevertheless, a shame and a slur on the high character of the Medical Profession in Dublin that they did not meet and get rid at once of the imputation which was cast upon them by this disgraceful act. Its effect was to throw a thrill of horror throughout Ireland, and all the constables were very anxious

  299
  now that they should be relieved from the necessity of going to a place which was to them a sort of Black Hole. Many constables had told him that they would rather leave than go to it in any case of serious illness. There was a Government inquiry in 1878–79, and what was the result of it? It was the Dublin Hospital Committee, consisting almost exclusively of doctors, with some Members of the Dublin Corporation. They held an inquiry with closed doors, and suppressed all knowledge of the grave charges. Not one sub-inspector, neither Carter nor O'Brien, knew anything whatever of this taking place until after it had been held, or 20 persons would have been ready to come and give evidence against the hospital. No one, however, was acquainted with the fact that the inquiry was to be held, excepting the doctors.
  DR. LYONSsaid, as the name of a great Dublin institution had been mentioned, he wished to say that it was an institution which was well known throughout the medical world as a great medical school; and the names of Mr. Cusack and Sir Henry Marsh in the past, and of Robert Macdonnell and Dr. Grimshawe, the present Registrar General, who were amongst the officers of the institution on the occasion in question, were alone sufficient guarantee for the way in which it was managed. He might also mention that it was managed by a Board of gentlemen of very distinguished position, among whom were Sir Ralph Cusack, some of the chief Judges, and some of the most leading citizens, who took a great deal of pains to look after it. He had been thoroughly familiar with its working for a great many years; and he was in a position to state that the general control and treatment of the patients had, for a long series of years, been conducted in the most satisfactory way. With regard to this case with which the hon. Member had become acquainted, and of which he had got some knowledge on a particular occasion, it was complicated by a great many details. Without going into matters which it would be entirely improper to discuss, it would be quite impossible to lay the whole merits of the case before such an audience as that which he was addressing. He would not undertake to say there might not have been some reason, in that individual case, for calling attention to these mat-
  300
  ters; but, from a very long acquaintance with the institution, he could say that it had been managed in a way highly creditable to all concerned, and he could only believe that it was by some exceptional circumstances that any such things had occurred as those to which reference had been made. He did not understand how it could be that a patient should be placed on the floor in an institution where there was an abundance of beds of recent construction, and with every comfort provided for the benefit of the persons who came in. No one could imagine that in a hospital of that kind cruelty would be gratuitously practised on a patient. With regard to the making of the post-mortem examinations, he said, without hesitation, that the hon. Member would find it extremely difficult to prove that such a system was carried out over a number of years in the manner referred to. They all knew that in many cases of death from obscure disease it was desirable; and, in many eases, the friends and families of the patients were the first not only to assent, but to request that an examination should be made. In this particular instance it was perfectly unavoidable, considering the various questions that arose, and the charges that were launched against the institution. He could not allow that discussion to go on without bearing his humble testimony, from close and intimate acquaintance with the medical staff in past times, and all who were at present officers of the institution, to the very great zeal, attention, and thoroughness with which the general management of the institution was conducted. He supposed there was no institution in the world, no matter how managed or looked after, in which absolute security could be given that there was no want of attention to the necessities of some rare and individual ease. This, he believed, was an exceptional case; and he was convinced that anything of the kind alleged should be a general rule was impossible. He was quite ready to maintain that there was no truth in any charge of that kind; and if any question arose as to the propriety of admitting the Royal Irish Constabulary into the various Dublin hospitals he would feel that that was very desirable. He was connected with large Irish hospitals into which the Metropolitan Police were allowed to go, selecting the hospital to which they de-

  301
  sired to be sent He had to do with very large numbers of these Irish forces, and he knew that they reported very favourably of all institutions in which they were treated. He did not see any reason why the Royal Irish Constabulary should not enjoy a similar privilege; and he thought no technical objection should be allowed to stand in the way of bringing on the proposal.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had now heard both sides of the case, and he would endeavour to get at the facts, and especially as to the statement of the hon. Member that the Constabulary were deprived of hospital treatment, unless they paid more than other constables did in the Dublin police. He thought, probably, it would turn out that the hon. Member had stated an isolated case. He must ask, however, what was the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That I do now leave the Chair.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked, if they had not better get rid of that Question first?
  MR. CALLANsaid, that, so far from this being an isolated case, every hon. Member from Dublin was perfectly well acquainted with it, for that ease had attracted great attention in Ireland, and it was universally regarded as an example of the system that prevailed in their hospitals. The name of a learned and eminent medical practitioner had been mentioned, in order to throw the light of his character over the hospital mismanagement; but that Gentleman had withdrawn from the hospital, and so there was nothing gained by that. Everything was in a scene of the most thorough and complete disorder. With regard to the post mortems, they had been made for 15 years, without leave, either from the constable or the authorities, or the friends of the deceased. Of course, as the Metropolitan Police had these advantages for 7s. a-week, he could not see that there was any good or valid reason why the same advantages should not be given to the Royal Irish Constabulary at the same payments. Besides this question there arose the question of religion; and he really did not see why a force which was composed in three parts out of four of Catholics should be deprived of the opportunity of enjoying the ministrations of its own ministers. He did hope that
  302
  the right hon. Gentleman would succeed in arranging so that constables should be allowed to go to Catholic hospitals, where they would be attended by nurses of their own religion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would suggest that the hon. Member should call on him if he was in Office when they got back again, and should arrange to immediately ask him a Question in the House upon the point. By that time, he would be in a position to tell him whether a change ought to be made or not.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would put a memorandum of the facts before the Chief Secretary, and he might add that he spoke on this question at the request of upwards of 50 Members of the force, whose letters he had in his pocket and in his locker in the Lobby at the present moment. He did hope that no undue action of his would injure his clients in what they called a private grievance.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 12; Noes 64: Majority 64. — (Div. List, No. 143.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had a serious question to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India as to some news he had just read in the papers of that day. In order to put himself in Order, he would move to report Progress.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must follow the ruling laid down in previous Committees; and I must refuse to allow, on a Motion to report Progress, questions to be put in connection with Business not before the Committee.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he would move that the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again, and the reason why he wished that they should report Progress was that he wanted himself to leave the House in order to satisfy himself, as he could not put a Question to the Secretary of State for India, whether the news from India in The Standard had any foundation in fact or not? He very much hoped the Committee would allow them to adjourn, in order that the sources of that matter might be inquired into by other Members besides himself. He believed the statement made in The Standard was ex-

  303
  ceedingly serious as to General Roberts being obliged to stop on his march, in consequence of a mutiny of the troops.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was exceedingly sorry if there was any bad news; but he really thought the hon. and learned Member was hardly treating the matter seriously. It was quite clear if he wished to read the news he could do it, and he could certainly be spared for five or ten minutes from that Committee. It was surely hardly worthy of them that such an excuse for a Motion should be put forward; and he hoped the example would be followed which had been set by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan), and that a really useful discussion of the important matter of the Constabulary Vote might be allowed.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, the news which had been received that day from India did give them an additional reason for reporting Progress, because it appeared that no statement could be made while the House was in Committee; and, in his opinion, a statement should be made on the state of affairs in India with as little delay as possible, and they ought to obtain from the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India in reference to this matter—
  MR. MAGNIAC: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask whether your ruling is good or bad; and if it is good, whether it is proper that hon. Members should be allowed to refer to subjects utterly and totally unconnected with this question?
  THE CHAIRMANsaid, he had already required the hon. Member to confine himself to the Question with which the Committee had to deal, and he had already once called his attention to this matter.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, if he was in Order, he was going to suggest that Progress should be reported temporarily, in order that they might have a statement upon this subject, and then, afterwards, Committee might be resumed. Of course, then, the question would remain unchanged as to what the Committee proposed to do with reference to this Business. The situation was unchanged, as
  304
  far as he and his hon. Friends were concerned, although many of them had been deprived of their rest and sleep by the action of the Government—action which, as they submitted, was utterly unnecessary for the purpose which they had in view, the expedition of Public Business?— Business which he would maintain would be better provided for according to their Motion to report Progress. Had that been agreed to at 1 o'clock they would have been enabled to go away, and to come back ready to consider the Votes fairly that evening, instead of being in a position in which they did not know exactly how they stood. Propositions were made before the noble Lord returned to his place, of such a charater as to be satisfactory to himself, and not merely to himself, but to some hon. Members on the side of the noble Lord, so much so, that several who had been supporters of the noble Lord during the night in the Division Lobby voted with him in one division, and afterwards refused to take any farther part in supporting the Government. That was a very remarkable fact, and should be made known, because it should be understood that the responsibility of rejecting the proposal he had made rested upon the Government.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Gentleman is mistaken. I do not know what proposition he has made. I asked him what offer he had made.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, it originated in a request from him. The proposition they then made was of such a character as to induce a considerable number of Members—[Mr. WARTON: No; only four.]—who had been supporting the Chief Secretary for Ireland to show that they thought his offer was a reasonable one and ought to be accepted. So much did they think so that they retired from the Committee, and refused to support the Government any longer. It was desirable that that statement should go forth, in order to show how thoroughly they had put themselves in the right during that night, and how willing they had shown themselves to be to agree to any compromise that could honourably be accepted. He regretted that that compromise had not been accepted, because the result was that they stood where they were now.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, if the argument which was adduced

  305
  by the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) was seriously put forward, he thought, without infringing any Rule of Committee, he might answer that argument by one word—by saying that he was not in a position to give the Committee any information with respect to affairs in Afghanistan which they were not able to obtain within the walls of that House; and, therefore, on that ground, there was no reason for the adjournment of the debate. With reference to what had just been said, he was in the House until 7 o'clock, and he failed wholly to understand what the nature of the offer was. If anything had been said since he had been there of a more definite character, he still did not wish unnecessarily to prolong this extremely unsatisfactory state of things. If the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) could inform him what was the nature of the proposition which he wished to make, he could assure him that he would give it his best consideration.
  MR. WARTONwished to say just one word. The hon. Member had just stated that he was supported by a considerable number of Members of the Government after one of the divisions. He took a note of all the divisions, and the number which voted in each of them. In the fourth division, 11 voted with the hon. Member, there being 91 on the other side. In the next division they had added four, and it was 15 to 87; while, in the next, there were 88 to the same number of 11.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, as there seemed to be some inexplicable desire on the part of right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench to hear once again a proposition which he had several times already made, and which, as he thought, was thoroughly understood by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary— and which he certainly might communicate to the noble Lord by his side—as he did not wish to appear discourteous in refusing the request of so many hon. Members who had not been there during the night, and were desirous of learning what was proposed, he would only say that his proposition was that the Government should report Progress, and that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), having agreed to postpone his Motion in favour of the Government, and the hon.
  306
  Member for the County of Louth (Mr. Callan) having also agreed to postpone his Motion in favour of the Government, that then Supply should be put down. He forgot the exact words that he used; but he believed he said that they would then proceed with a fair and bond fide discussion of the question. At the same time, he could not answer for the hon. Members who were absent; and he could not say for them, in consequence, that the Votes would be finished on Friday night.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that really the hon. Member must think that they who sat on that side of the House were fools, or so weak-minded and purposeless as to have no firmness, or else he would not have made the proposition that he had been making.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped he might interpose for a moment. He thought the hon. and learned Member would see that after he had been explaining his proposal made during the night in the absence of the noble Lord, it was scarcely for the hon. and learned Member to criticize his conduct in repeating, to the best of his recollection, the proposition he originally made.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he did not care so much what the hon. Member said now, but what he had said over and over again in the course of that discussion. He had been there during the night, and he had heard what had been going on from beginning to end, and he had never heard any proposition from the other side of the House which any sensible man could think worthy of acceptance, or even consideration. If they were prepared on that side of the House to surrender at discretion, the hon. Member had just given them an opportunity of doing so; but nothing more than that had they ever had offered to them during the whole course of that discussion. The Chief Secretary had been asked, over and over again, to give a pledge of some sort, and he had absolutely refused to give any, or to agree to any of the proposals suggested. The discussion was, therefore, continued with the object of compelling the Government to do what they had declared they could not do. Beyond this, nothing definite had been proposed by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). The only promise he had made from beginning to end was that he would undertake that the dis-

  307
  cussion on the Estimates should be a fair discussion. He thought, at first, that that was a fair proposal; but it soon appeared that it meant nothing, as the hon. Member immediately added that he considered the discussion which continued all through the night was a fair discussion. What, then, did this question of terms mean? It only meant that the hon. Gentleman would be prepared to continue the discussion in the same spirit as that which he was now exhibiting. He was very sorry to find himself opposed to Irish Members, with whom he sympathized in many things; but he did feel keenly that the dignity of the House was at stake, and that they were bound, as individual Members, to stand by the House and its proceedings, and to show the country at large that they would do their best to carry on the discussion like sensible men, and not like a lot of schoolboys, making themselves ridiculous and a laughing-stock to the country. He hoped that the Government would stand firm, until they found that hon. Members on the other side were prepared to discuss the matter fairly. That would be by far the better course. They had got a week before them. He was quite content to remain there discussing the Votes as long as they liked; but he had had enough of the Obstructionist tactics, of frequent divisions and speaking against time, in order to carry, by terrorism, what they could not expect to carry by fair means.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that he had not been present right through the night; but he had heard what had recently taken place. He quite agreed that this was a matter in which the honour of the House was concerned, and upon which it was right that any hon. Member who had a remark to make should make it. He did not express an opinion as to what had been going on during the night, although he had been informed by his hon. Friend beside him, who had been present, of the general character of the discussion that had been going on. But he was rather induced to rise by what had fallen from the hon. Member from the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell). As he understood him, his proposal was, that if the Government would agree to report Progress, he, and those with whom he was acting, would be prepared to proceed that evening with
  308
  a fair discussion of the Vote. What he (Sir Stafford Northcote) wished to know was, whether that implied that the discussion they had had that night had not been a fair discussion? If the hon. Member meant to imply that the discussion which had taken place during the night had not been of a fair character, it was well that the Committee should understand that. If the hon. Member admitted that the discussion which had taken place during the night had not been a fair one, the admission was of a very serious character, and one which the Committee ought to take notice of. He did not understand, even now, what the hon. Member really proposed; but it did appear to him that his proposal, in its present form, was utterly impracticable.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman the late Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to draw an unfair inference from what had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, which, in his opinion, the words of the hon. Member did not bear. The discussion during the night had been confined entirely to the Vote, in which the noble Lord the Member for Haverfordwest (Lord Kensington) stated that the Government were prepared to have recourse to physical force. Up to that time there had been a very fair discussion, so much so, that they had been complimented upon it by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. But, after the statement of the noble Lord, the discussion that had taken place had not been upon the Estimates, but upon Motions for adjournment; and what his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork had pledged himself to use his influence to bring about was, that next evening at 9 o'clock there should be a fair bond fide discussion upon the Estimates, and not upon Motions for adjournment. The words made use of by the hon. Member had been "fair and bond fide discussion on the Estimates:" and that did not imply, in his opinion, that up to the present time the Irish Members had been discussing these Estimates unfairly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had said that the proposals made by Irish Members had been such as no man of sense could refuse to listen to. The proposal which

  309
  had been made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, with the view of terminating the discussion, had been recommended for the acceptance of the Committee by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson), and also by the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Barran), who, with all respect to his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), he must say he thought were three men of as good sense as himself. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had also suggested that the Government should accept the compromise offered by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. Here, therefore, were four Gentlemen, supporters of the Government, eminent for their ability and good sense, who had declared, in unhesitating terms, that the proposition made by his hon. Friend ought to be accepted by the Government. A very significant change of front had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the moment that he saw his supporters come into the House. The right hon. Gentleman was on the point of coming to an arrangement, when he suddenly rose and said he saw daylight—that the reporters had returned, and that he was quite prepared to go on. It was just like a man in a dark place, who suddenly emerged into daylight, declaring that he was not afraid. Throughout the night his advice had been in the direction of conciliation and adjustment; but a significant change of front on the Treasury Bench had made that conciliation extremely difficult.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that, no doubt unintentionally, the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down had very much misinterpreted the language of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The language of his right hon. Friend had been entirely good-humoured and conciliatory, and it was only when it was found impossible to come to a satisfactory arrangement that he had proposed to continue the discussion. They had heard a great deal about the proposition which the Government ought to have accepted. He had been trying to make out what that proposition was, and he thought it was extremely desirable that they should hear from the author what the proposition exactly was. At the material part of it the hon. Member
  310
  himself hesitated for two minutes, and it was obvious that he was not very clear in his own mind upon the subject. What was that proposition? The hon. Member for the City of Cork had said that if the Government would adjourn now, then they could have a fair and bona fide discussion upon the Estimates. [Mr. PARNELL: I said that that was the proposition originally made.] He (Sir William Harcourt) said that that was the proposition made by the hon. Gentleman, that there should be a fair and bona fide discussion. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition had fairly said—"Do you mean that the discussion we have had has not been bond fide and fair? Do you mean to have such a discussion as we have had, or something different? Are you proposing to us to have such a discussion as we had last night, or do you mean that last night we did not have a fair and bond fide discussion." If it were meant that there was to be such a discussion as there was last night, then that was not a fair and reasonable proposal; and, on the other hand, if the hon. Member meant that there should not be such a discussion as they had last night, then he admitted that they had not had a fair and reasonable discussion. The hon. Member also said that he could not answer for hon. Members adopting the same course as he did. It was very curious that he could not answer for his Friends agreeing to have a full and fair and bona fide discussion. [Mr. PARNELL: That is an entire misrepresentation.] He (Sir William Harcourt) was very glad to hear that that was not what the hon. Member meant. He had said he was unable to give an undertaking that his Friends who were absent would agree that there should be a full, and fair, and bond fide discussion on the Estimates that night. The hon. Member said he could not answer for those who were absent, nor was he prepared to promise to use his influence with, his absent Friends that they should have a fair and bona fide discussion.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in the House at the time he made that proposal.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he was in the House before 8 o'clock, and he heard the hon. Member for the City of Cork make that statement. The hon. Member was asked

  311
  whether he would go as far as to say that he would induce his absent Friends, when they returned, to agree to enter into a fair, bond fide discussion, and he refused to do so. [Mr. PARNELL: No!] What was the thing he said? He could not undertake to use his influence to induce his Friends to do so? What was it that the hon. Gentleman was willing to do? What was it that the hon. Gentlemen who were absent could not be pledged to? The hon. Members who were present were willing, as he understood, to enter into the question that the discussion should be closed that night. [Mr. PARNELL: No!] The moment that he made the proposition it was contradicted by the hon. Member; but that was certainly the way it was understood by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), and the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hop wood), and the ground on which they recommended it to the acceptance of the Government. The Committee ought to know what the proposal of the hon. Member was. There was something which the hon. Member for the City of Cork was unwilling to undertake on behalf of his Friends, and he wanted to know what that was. If the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) knew what that proposition was, he should like to hear it from him. Now that the hon. Members for whom the hon. Member was unable to promise and vow anything in their name were present, it would be well that the hon. Member should consult them as to their agreeing to what he was unable to pledge himself to. If the hon. Member would do that, and communicate the result to the Committee, the Government would then know what the proposition was which it was unreasonable on their part not to accept.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, that the proposal made was, that if the debate were adjourned and Progress were reported, there would be a probability of closing the debate that night. He did not think there was any such probability. In his opinion, the hon. Member for the City of Cork made a very fair proposal by saying that, so far as he was concerned, he would undertake that there should be a fair discussion. How far that discussion might extend he could not pledge himself, because the matter depended on other persons for whom he was not
  312
  responsible. It was perfectly right for him to draw a line there, because a number of persons might interpose in that discussion, and it might be protracted either by hon. Gentlemen opposite, or by others, for the purpose of trying to involve the hon. Member in a breach of his undertaking. He thought his hon. Friend was perfectly right not to place himself at the mercy of any hon. Member; but the hon. Member did promise, and he (Dr. Commins) promised for himself that nothing but what was fair should take place; that if the discussion was protracted beyond that night, it would not be by the action of the hon. Members from Ireland then present. Everything had been done to involve his hon. Friend in a maze of contradiction, and throw upon him the responsibility for the discussion which had been wasted. Something had been said about unwillingness of one side or the other to have a fair discussion. He should like to know who were the parties that were unwilling to have a fair discussion. They had divided by 11 against 91 in favour of having a fair discussion, and at 10 o'clock in the morning they were contending for the same thing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, having refreshed himself with sleep, had come again into the House, and had sent out the Minister who was responsible for those Votes, and then tried to force the Committee to go on with the discussion. He was at a loss to know if that was fairness, or had the least approach to fairness. Hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to have their own notions as to fairness, and some seemed to have their own notions with regard to good sense. He could not help saying that he preferred the folly of the four hon. Gentlemen whose names had been mentioned to the presumed good sense of the other 91 hon. Members. The responsibility for this waste of time was upon the Government, and the Irish Members had not wasted one moment. What they were anxious for was to have a perfectly full and fair discussion of this momentous and important question. They had discussed it fairly, and they had not avoided the discussion; but the appeal from reason to brute force had come from the other side. There, apparently, the discussion now rested, and it seemed to him that the good sense was entirely on the side of Irish Members.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that if the absence of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland was to prevent the Irish Members from returning to the discussion of the Irish Estimates they need not entertain any uneasy feeling, as his right hon. Friend was close to the House, and was willing to proceed with the discussion at any moment. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that he was not able to pledge himself for his hon. Friends who were absent, but they were now present. He did not understand why they were unwilling to enter into a fair discussion of the Estimates then. They were told that if the debate were adjourned there would be a fair discussion at 9 o'clock that evening. If the hon. Members present would undertake to go on with the Estimates at 9 o'clock, and discuss them fairly then, the Government would be prepared to accept the proposal. But the proposal made last night was one which, it was impossible to accept.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, so far as he was concerned, he was willing that there should be a perfectly fair discussion that night at 9 o'clock. It was extremely likely that the course could be taken by all his hon. Friends who would come into the House; but further than that he could not go. He would say, on be-behalf of himself and his hon. Friends, that they would discuss the Estimates perfectly bond fide, and would do nothing for the sake of Obstruction, and that they would not give the topic one moment's consideration more than it deserved. They were asked to promise that the discussion would be terminated that night. Was it proposed that the entire Irish Estimates should be adopted as well as the Constabulary? He did not know whether that was a proposition or not; but they were asked to impose upon themselves what amounted to a cloture. They were asked to bind themselves that not only the discussion upon the Constabulary, but upon all the other Irish Estimates, might be brought to a close that night. He thought that was the most unconstitutional suggestion he had ever heard made. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland in his place again; and he could assure him that, in the opinion of his hon. Friends then present, the discussion of these Estimates had
  314
  imposed upon them laborious duties. He did not think that the Government realized the importance of this Constabulary question. They were anxious that public opinion in England should be thoroughly aroused on the subject; and they did not think the discussion that they yet had was calculated to thoroughly impress the body of the people of England with their views. He did not know whether the action of the Government, in refusing to give an assurance with regard to the Constabulary, was an instance of the exercise they would make of their powers during the coming autumn. The Constabulary was maintained solely for the purpose of maintaining the odious and unjust land system. All the earlier oppressive measures adopted with regard to Ireland had been directed solely to the maintenance of the land system. They had tried the drum-head court martials; they had tried Orange ascendancy; and they had tried packed juries. But they had been obliged, not by the force of the Irish people, not by the opinion of Europe, but by the common sense of the English people, to abandon all these various schemes to obtain a settlement of the Irish Land Question, and now they were driven back upon the Irish Constabulary to maintain that system. They knew that as soon as—he would not say that the force was disarmed— that land force was about to be disarmed, that the landlords would consent to just Land Laws. But from the way in which their overtures for free discussion had been received, they could not hope that their efforts would meet, as yet, with success; but as soon as they could obtain an assurance that this armed force would be removed there would be no necessity for its employment. It was not that the Irish Members had any sympathy with such scenes as had been enacted that night. But this was the only means by which they could enforce their case upon the House. The moment that the Irish landlords, who now relied upon the policemen as they formerly relied upon a packed jury, knew that the armed Constabulary was no longer to be employed to enforce their unjust claims, that moment would the Irish landlords consent to do a final act of justice to remove the present unjust and oppressive land system. It was by means of the land system that the Irish landlord had fattened upon the marrow of the Irish people. They could

  315
  not let this question rest where it was. It was the kernel of all Irish questions. What they asked the Government was to do justice to the Irish people, and to rely upon a civil force for the maintenance of peace.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he had been satisfied to sit that night supporting the Government throughout every division. He could not approve of the course taken by his hon. Friend opposite. He wished to say a word with regard to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary. He must also bear testimony to the admirable courtesy and fairness with which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had conducted this debate, and he desired to add his acknowledgments to those which he had received from every side. He might also bear testimony to the impression of candour and fairness which the conduct of the hon. Member for the City of Cork had left upon his mind. With regard to the statement made at an earlier hour that morning, the hon. Member gave him the impression that he was endeavouring to put the Committee in possession of the facts at his disposal. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had admitted that it was impossible, with regard to the Vote at present before the Committee, to take any course finally but to accept it; but he must express the hope that at some future time, however, the Constabulary Force would be organized on a proper police basis. With regard to the Land Question, he must say that he was as earnest as any hon. Member in the desire to see a thorough reform take place in that direction.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that it appeared to him that discussion had gone on for some time, from suspicion and distrust of the Irish Members on the part of the Government and some other Members of the House. It had been again and again attempted to push the hon. Member for the City of Cork into a corner, and to make him utter words which he did not wish to do. He merely rose for the purpose of saying that if there had been a little more trust and a little more candour exhibited towards the Irish Members, in his opinion, that scene would have come to an end long since. The sooner it was brought to an end the better would it be for them
  316
  all. He wished to add his testimony to the admirable good temper displayed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland throughout these trying scenes.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 20; Noes 84: Majority 64. — (Div. List, No. 144.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he begged to move that the Chairman do now leave the Chair. As much had been said on the question of continuing or not continuing that discussion upon the Constabulary Vote, he should like to ask what the object of the discussion was? The object of the discussion was, as he understood it, to impress the importance of that question on the attention of the Committee. It was quite true that a great deal had been said upon these Benches upon the subject of the Irish Constabulary; but he hardly thought that the discussion had been of such a character as would be considered satisfactory by Irish Members. He desired to point out that they had not had any assurance that the Government recognized the force of their objections to the Constabulary, and that they had given no pledge that the Constabulary should be organized upon a proper footing. It had been said from the Treasury Benches, and from other Liberal Benches, that this Vote could not be refused, and that as much had been admitted on the other side; but he, for one, never acknowledged that that was the case. What he had said was, that he had desired to see the Constabulary reduced one-half, and its arms taken from it, and the force upon a footing of proper police. He stated that his reasons for that were, that the moment it was clone the cause of agrarian outrage would be removed. The Government had expressed its desire to continue the police force on the ground of necessity for the security of the peace. He was acquainted with a large number of the tenantry of Ireland; and he could unhesitatingly say that if the police force were disarmed, and its number reduced by one-half, he would answer for the peace of Ireland for the next three months. That might seem a ridiculous proposition to anyone who was unacquainted with Ireland. The fact was, that peace and order were not maintained in Ireland now—a social war now

  317
  prevailed in Ireland—and he thought it was not unworthy of that House to consider measures which the Representatives of the Irish tenantry stated would preserve peace and order in Ireland. Of course, hon. Gentlemen might consider that that was not a subject worthy the attention of English Members. But this was a matter which struck at the root of the difficulty that arose between English and Irish Members. This was the most worthy subject that had been brought before the notice of the House during the whole year. The question now was, whether they should be afforded an opportunity of discussing this subject further. The Government had taken up a position which he hoped to see them recede from before that discussion ended. He hoped to see English Members act in accordance with the promises made by them at the last General Election to their constituents. He trusted that something would be done with regard to this question further than merely silencing the Irish Members. English Members should consider that if a majority of the English representation, or even a minority, entered upon a particular course, such as that upon which Irish Members were embarked, no Government would consider itself justified in refusing to listen to their complaints. The Government would certainly feel that Members who had entered upon such a course must be backed up by the feeling of their constituents, and they would endeavour to comply with the views they put forward. But when a course of action was taken by Irish Members it was not met in that way by the Government. Certainly, public opinion in Ireland would approve of the course which the Irish Members had adopted. It would insist that these Votes should be discussed at the fullest length, so long as a ray of hope remained that it might result in some concession from the Treasury Bench. The Treasury Bench, so far from making any concession, had withdrawn another concession which it had previously made. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had told them that if the law were left as it was at present it would be an injustice. It should be remembered that the assertion came from a man who had more to do with the administration of the law in Ireland than anyone else. Therefore,
  318
  until they had some declaration from the Treasury Bench as to the course it would pursue to prevent injustice, it was their duty, so long as they could see any hope of effecting good, to endeavour to protect their constituents in Ireland from the injustice to which they would be subjected. It was perfectly well known in Ireland that, for the last 20 years, all the forces of the Government had been brought to bear upon the maintenance of law and order; but it had not succeeded in preserving human life. But within the last few years the National Land League had done more to preserve law and order in Ireland than the Government with all the forces at its disposal. He maintained there had been less sacrifice of life that year, through the action of the Land League, than there had been in any previous year, when all the forces of the Government were brought to bear for the preservation of peace. If the Land League were to withdraw from Ireland their withdrawal would be marked by the blood of the landlords. The action of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on this subject would render it more difficult than ever for the Land League to control the action of the people. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he frequently exerted his utmost influence to restrain the action of the people, and had strained his influence to the utmost limit in endeavouring to keep them from committing violent outrages, which had been frequently counselled, but which he had always endeavoured to prevent. "Was it not reasonable to say that if, under those circumstances, outrages occurred in Ireland, those who were responsible for them were Her Majesty's Ministers, who would not take the advice of the Representatives of the Irish people. They had a double reason for insisting on the continuance of this discussion; for the right hon. Gentleman who was responsible for Her Majesty's Government would throw the blame on him. If outrages occurred in Ireland, they would have to defend themselves against the calumny which attributed these outrages to their agitation. In his opinion, the blame ought to rest upon the shoulders of the men who refused to take the advice which was tendered them. It was their clear right, as he maintained, to carry on this discussion so long as

  319
  they saw any prospect of obtaining any result. It was not only their right; they were forced to do it, and they considered themselves justified in doing so. If they did not take this course, the persons who sent them to Parliament might ask what they did there, and what they did say, unless they opposed to the utmost of their ability what they believed to be the cause of the present state of things in Ireland. He certainly thought they would be unworthy of their position, and liable to those charges being made against them, if they, in any way, departed from their principles. The action which had been taken on this question was sure to meet with the utmost approval of his constituents, and the Government should remember that in opposing the Constabulary Vote the Irish Members represented a considerable majority of the people. It had been asked, what did they expect by this discussion? He expected that the result would be that the Government would come forward and give an assurance that the Constabulary in future should not be used in an objectionable way. If they did that they would withdraw from this opposition; otherwise, they could not allow this question to rest. What the Irish Members asked was, that the Government should disarm and reduce the personnel of the Irish Constabulary. The Irish Members would not be contented unless some declaration of this kind were made by Her Majesty's Government. These were two objects that were of great importance to the Irish people, and he thought they were of sufficient importance to justify the Irish Members in availing themselves of the present opportunity of continuing the discussion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTthought it was satisfactory that at last they should have got a definite statement as to what the meaning of this opposition was. The former statements which had been made were somewhat vague, and they had failed to obtain from the hon. Member for Cork a definite statement of the meaning of this protracted discussion. But now the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) clearly asserted
  320
  that the discussion was to be continued until Her Majesty's Government undertook to disarm the Irish Constabulary.
  MR. DILLONrose to Order. It was very important, in a discussion like this, that an hon. Member should not allow his words for one moment to be misconstrued. What he had stated, most distinctly, was that they ought to continue the discussion as long as there was any hope of obtaining from Her Majesty's Government a declaration that they would either disarm or reduce the Irish Constabulary. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted that he (Mr. Dillon) had stated that the discussion would be continued until the Government disarmed the Constabulary. He never made such a statement at all.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTaccepted the explanation of the hon. Member for Tipperary. He gathered from him now that one of the objects of the discussion was to obtain a declaration from Her Majesty's Government that they would disarm the Irish Constabulary. [Mr. DILLON: And reduce it.] Yes; and reduce it. Now, these were two objects which Her Majesty's Government could not concede; and the hon. Member for Tipperary must know as well as anybody that it was a pledge which it was impossible for them to give. The hon. Member said that until such a declaration was made it was necessary that the Irish Members should continue on the course upon which they had already embarked, and that they should continue this exercise of their right to the obstruction of the ordinary Business of the nation. He understood the Irish Members to say that they were taking this course in the interests of their constituents, who, when they went back again to Ireland, would be certain to ask them what it was they had been doing in the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) insinuated that he had been exercising a restraining influence over his constituents, and that there was every chance that Her Majesty's Government would discourage or interfere with that restraining influence which he and his Friends were exercising over their constituents. Now, he (Sir William Harcourt) was not going to enter into this or other cognate topics in reference to matters of Parliamentary procedure; but what he understood the hon. Member for Cork City still recom-

  321
  mended as the proper course to be taken in regard to this subject was that Parliament should paralyze the hands of the Government. Certainly, it was distinctly and clearly the object of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) to paralyze the hands of the Government, and to obstruct them in obtaining the necessary means for carrying on the government of the country. If he was incorrectly quoting the language of the hon. Member for Tipperary, the hon. Member was present, and could correct it.
  MR. DILLONwas sorry that he was compelled once more to rise to Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had invited him to correct the language he attributed to him, if he had not accurately reported it. Now, what he (Mr. Dillon) had stated was, that the Parliament and the people ought to obstruct bad laws.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he now understood the hon. Member for Tipperary to confine himself to bad laws, and to the disarmament and reduction of the Irish Constabulary. The question was very distinctly put by the hon. Member for Tipperary—Were the Irish Constabulary to be disarmed, or not? That was a clear and definite principle, on which he thought the people of this country—indeed, the people of England, Ireland, and Scotland—had already come to a conclusion. He was very glad, even now, at 11 o'clock in the morning, to find that they were not any longer dealing with a vague matter, but that there was no doubt as to the object of the Irish Members. They had, at last, raised a clear and definite issue in the House of Commons—namely, whether the Irish Constabulary were to be disarmed, or not. That was the object they were fighting for. The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) clearly put that as the issue of the discussion; and, if it was to be continued on this footing, they now knew what they were fighting about. That was the question upon which the House of Commons was called upon to pronounce its opinion; and he (Sir William Harcourt) left it to the House and the country to judge whether Her Majesty's Government were right or wrong in the matter.
  THE O'DONOGHUEremarked, that when the right hon. and learned Gentle-
  322
  man rose, he had attributed certain words to his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). His hon. Friend had distinctly repudiated those words. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the meaning which he extracted from the words of the hon. Member for Tipperary was, that the debate was to be continued until a pledge was extracted from the Government that the Irish police would be disarmed. Now, what his hon. Friend said was that he thought the debate should be continued until they had impressed upon the English Members the necessity of disarming, or, at any rate, reducing, the strength of the Irish Constabulary. Notwithstanding the denial of his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary went on, evidently determined to deliver a speech which he had made up his mind he would deliver.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTbegged the hon. Member's pardon. He had entirely accepted the statement of the hon. Member for Tipperary. No doubt, he did attribute, in the first instance, to the hon. Member for Tipperary an assertion that the debate was to be continued until the Irish Constabulary were disarmed; but he had altered that word "until," and substituted that the discussion was to be continued for the purpose of obtaining from Her Majesty's Government a declaration that they would disarm the Irish Constabulary.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he quite understood all that; but, nevertheless, it appeared to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had continued his argument in a manner that was not at all justified by anything that had fallen from his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary. Now, he did hope that the Government would not persevere in insisting that the Irish Members should give them a pledge that the debate was to terminate at any particular period. That was a pledge which they could not give; and, as had already been said by a great number of Members, what they really desired was, that there should be a full and free discussion. All those who had been Members of that House for any considerable time must know that there was a period beyond which talk could not go. It required no great astuteness to

  323
  see that there was a close connection between the opposition of the Irish Members to this Vote and the Irish Land Question. The great body of the Irish tenant farmers were threatened with the loss of their holdings, and the Committee was now asked summarily to vote for the maintenance of the force that was to be mainly employed in assisting the Irish landlords in carrying out evictions. They declined to do this, and they believed that in taking this course they were giving to the Irish farmers the best proof they could of their loyalty and devotion to their cause. The Committee should recollect that, although they were sitting there in the Metropolis of England, they were the Parliament of Ireland; and, notwithstanding what a few evenings ago an hon. Gentleman on the opposite of the House asserted—which hon. Gentleman he now saw in his place—there could not be the slightest doubt that they who sat there represented the people of Ireland. Even at that moment, although the Irish Members were numerically few, they were a much fairer representation of the Irish people than hon. Gentlemen who sat on the other side of the House. There were at that moment in the House some 25 or 30 Irish Members. Well, then, there was nothing extraordinary in the course that they were taking. No doubt, it might be true that things of this kind did not take place in former years; but the Irish people were not represented then. Their representation was utterly inadequate; and if it had been what it was now, what was now taking place would, in his opinion, have occurred years ago. They now possessed enlarged constituencies, freer constituencies than they had in former years, and the result was that the House saw there a body of Members resolved, no matter what the inconvenience might be to themselves, to insist upon a full and fair discussion of every question relating to their country.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he only rose in consequence of an observation that had fallen from the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon). Judging from the remarks of the hon. Member, it would seem that there had been a complete misunderstanding as to the meaning of the language he had used. The hon. Member represented him as
  324
  having, a few days since, expressed his opinion that the law as it stood was injurious to the best interests of Ireland. Now, on the occasion referred to, he had expressed no opinion whatever on that matter. In the course of that discussion he had ventured to call attention to the irregularity of the proceedings, and to the extent to which hon. Members were misrepresenting the speech of his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Accordingly, he simply quoted the language which his right hon. Friend used a night or two before—namely, that if the Irish landlords pressed their rights to an extreme limit, and so as to cause a great amount of injustice—which, however, his right hon. Friend did not anticipate—it would be necessary for Her Majesty's Government to obtain further powers to maintain order; and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had contended that as this event was extremely unlikely to occur, it was simply wasting the time of the House to discuss what his right hon. Friend said might happen if a very improbable event were to arise. Passing, however, to the matter now under discussion, the hon. Member for Tipperary now declared that the debate should be continued until the English Members and the English public were properly impressed with the views of the Irish Members as to the desirability of disarming the Irish Constabulary. He further gathered from the speech of one hon. Gentleman that he was of opinion that that force should be reduced by one-half. Now, if this persuasion of the British Members and British public was the real object they had in view, he would suggest to the good sense of the Irish Members that the discussion should be taken at once when they had the day before them and the reporters present, instead of being deferred until 9 o'clock in the evening, when, after a few hours, the reporters would disappear, and the arguments of the Irish Members opposite must, therefore, fail to reach most of those whom they desired to convince. He, therefore, advised them, without any further waste of time to discuss the question at issue.
  SIR EDWARD REEDwished to say a word or two before the discussion closed. He desired to point out to the Irish Members the position in which the

  325
  House was placed. They had been told two or three weeks ago that a night was to be fixed for the discussion of the Constabulary Vote. The night selected was Monday last, and he had made his arrangements to be present, although at great personal inconvenience, to listen to the discussion on the Irish Estimates. He came down on Monday for the purpose of discussing these Irish Estimates, and particularly the Constabulary Vote, which was, no doubt, a Vote of extreme importance, and deserved to have full consideration. The English Members accordingly came down on Monday night with the conviction that it was desired to enter into a full and free discussion. But what happened? Instead of the Estimates being discussed, the hon. Member opposite to himself attached so much importance to this discussion that he preferred to raise a discussion upon a couple of words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and they employed the whole of the evening in discussing a subject which had no bearing on the Irish Estimates at all. Then they came down on Tuesday to discuss the Irish Estimates, or to hear them discussed, and again they were not allowed to enter into Committee for the statements. How could they be expected to entertain any sympathy for hon. Members who represented Ireland if they were to be treated in this manner, and if they were to be brought down there night after night for the ostensible purpose of discussing Estimates, and were then to find that the Irish Members themselves refused to have them discussed, and systematically obstructed their discussion? That was the position in which the Irish Members had placed the House. The English Members were interested in the question as well as the Irish Members. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had made an appeal to them to go into the discussion without further waste of time; and he (Sir Edward Reed) saw no reason why they should not go forward now with the discussion. He urged this appeal as an English Member who was anxious to retain his sympathy for Irish questions, and his respect for Irish Members. He asked them to allow the Committee to discuss the Irish Estimates without further waste of time.
  MR. MARUMhoped he would be permitted to say a word or two in reply to the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed). The hon. Member asked them to proceed with the consideration of the Estimates; but he (Mr. Marum) thought it was unreasonable, after the protracted debate which had already taken place, that they should be called upon now to proceed with the discussion of the important questions that were involved in the Irish Estimates, especially in the absence of those who, on the part of the Irish Party, had charge of the Estimates. The question now before the Committee was the question of adjournment, and he thought it was not unreasonable that they should ask for the postponement of the debate until 9 o'clock, when, in accordance with Constitutional practice, they could enter upon the real discussion of the Estimates. As a new Member of the House of Commons, he must confess that his experience had not favourably impressed him with the manner in which Business was conducted. Although he was a new Member, yet he had been in many deliberative Assemblies before; and he did not think the proceedings of the House of Commons during the last few hours were calculated to raise the House in the estimation of the country. He was not afraid of the verdict of public opinion when it was fairly brought to bear upon the attitude of hon. Members on that side of the House. He was not a bit afraid of the public opinion of Ireland, nor was he afraid of that which would be entertained in England also upon the entire transaction. He thought the English people would see from what had transpired that the people of Ireland were not without their grievances, and that, in insisting upon bringing these questions fully before the English public, they were simply doing their duty. If, in so doing, they put the English Members and Her Majesty's Government to inconvenience, he was very sorry for it. Personally, he confessed that it was with very great regret he acted, and that he and his Colleagues found themselves obliged to trespass so much upon the patience of the House; but they had come there pledged to bring these grievances fully before the House of Commons, and were they to go back and tell the Irish constituencies that they

  327
  were virtually giving up their functions? If they returned to Ireland now in their present position they would be obliged to say that in the Session—and it was not a very short one, for they were now in the fourth month of it—they had been able to obtain nothing whatever for Irish interests. All they were doing now was in vindication of Irish sentiments, and endeavouring to impress them thoroughly upon the English people; and he entirely repudiated any idea that they were actuated by factious motives. The Obstruction had not been initiated by the Irish Members; it had been commenced on the other side. Human nature was human nature, and if they found, as they had done, that this kind of treatment of Ireland was going on year after year, and that for the last six years all the Irish Land Bills were voted down by brute majorities—["Order!"]—hewithdrew that word—he did not mean to use any expression offensive to the Committee collectively, or to hon. Members individually, and would substitute the words "overwhelming majorities"—and if he found that this course was still persevered in, he thought it was only right that they should take advantage of every Form of the House in order to enable them to obtain a full and free discussion of the Irish Estimates. His own opinion was that the House should adjourn until the Irish Party were sufficiently refreshed to go through another night. It was only fair, for they were a small number opposed to a very large number, and he appealed to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland to afford them a fair opportunity of discussing their grievances. Of course, they were well aware on which side victory would lie. They prided themselves upon being the first Assembly of Gentlemen in Europe; and, regarding the House in that light, he thought that what he asked was not unreasonable, and that there should, at any rate, be an adjournment until the evening. The Irish Party would then be ready to enter into a full and fair discussion of these important Estimates, the importance of which could not be conceived or thoroughly appreciated by English Members. He admitted that law and order must be preserved in Ireland; but, at the same time, after the action of the Government, and the manner in which they had been thwarted in "an-
  328
  other place," it was not unreasonable that they should wish to have a certain understanding as to what was to be the course taken in the matter. This, he said, was a question of mere adjournment, and he would reserve his observations upon the main issue—namely, the Constabulary Estimates—until that subject was properly and actually before the Committee. He begged to remind them that he had not yet an opportunity of stating his views upon the nature of the so-called civil administration of Ireland, which was, in reality, military rule.
  MR. LITTONhoped that the Committee would allow him to read two or three lines he had received from one of his constituents in the County of Tyrone. The gentleman in question wrote to him as followed:—
  "Sir, I have been charged by a number of your supporters to tender to you their sincere thanks for the very efficient and manly speech which you delivered in the House of Commons last evening."
  That was not the part he wished to call attention to, but rather to what follows:—
  "It is high time that the English Government and the English people should learn that the self-designated Irish Parliamentary Party do not represent the opinions of the Irish people."
  There were two dashes under the words "do not."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was utterly at a loss to understand what it was that the Irish Members wanted. If there was really anything serious in the Estimates which they wanted to discuss, he gathered now that they wanted some declaration from Her Majesty's Government of their intention to disarm and reduce the Irish Constabulary. He had listened with attention to the very able and important speech delivered by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), and it seemed to him that it was quite impossible Irish Members could desire Her Majesty's Government to make any more straightforward and plain declaration. The right hon. Gentleman was a most important Member of the Cabinet, and a most important Member of Her Majesty's Government; and he presumed that the right hon. Gentleman spoke in the name of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman showed them what it was they had already obtained from

  329
  Her Majesty's Government in the state of the Disestablishment of the Irish Church and in regard to the Land Question. This Land Question formed in Ireland a real grievance, and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland pointed out that the Government recognized it as such, and that they hoped to be able to remedy it. But, he had said, Irish Representatives must know very well that while there was discontent—-while that grievance existed and was keenly felt—the Government could not permit the disarmament of the Constabulary; but when peace and contentment prevailed in the country then they might adopt the desired measure. This was an important statement from a very important Member; and if it did not satisfy Irish Members it really seemed to him that nothing would. They could not expect the Government to go farther than this. He agreed with what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster that the concession of free election to the Irish people, until there was contentment in the Island, was profitless, and that, until the people were content, the concession of real trial by jury was without avail. Free elections had only tended to the greater disturbance of the people, and they would remain disturbed and discontented until they had a satisfactory Land Act. The land grievance was a great and substantial one, and the Government had given them to understand that they hoped to be able to deal with it, and that they hoped the day would come when the land would be held by the people. This he took to be the gist of the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If the land of Ireland belonged to the people, and there were several hundreds of thousands of proprietors, the Irish would be really content and not become more Conserva-vative; and when that time came the Government would be able to disarm and reduce the Constabulary, and put Ireland on a footing and equality in this respect with the rest of the United Kingdom. Until Ireland was content, however, all must agree that the people, who were prone to be moved by great excitement, must be kept down by a large and efficient force of some kind. If there was to be justice to Ireland it was only at the hands of Her Majesty's present Government that it could be ex-
  330
  pected; therefore, he was at a loss to understand what object Irish Members opposite could have in opposing them, and obstructing the progress of Ways and Means as they were now doing.
  DR. CAMERONsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee for any length of time, but desired to congratulate it on the good temper which had characterized the present debate. He had seen a good number of all night discussions; but he must confess that on no previous occasion, having come down fresh to the House in the morning after an all night Sitting, had he found the Committee to be in such a ratiocinating frame of mind—if he might borrow a happy phrase imported into the discussion by an hon. Member who had spoken a few minutes previously—as it was at present. There was one thing, however, which struck him—namely, the effeminacy of the Committee on the present occasion as compared with its character on the occasion of previous protracted debates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) had said something about hon. Members who had not breakfasted. Well, they knew that a gentleman on the other side of the Atlantic had suddenly leapt into distinction by neither breakfasting, dining, nor supping, for 40 days. These were the days for great acrobatic, muscular, and physical feats and exhibitions; and he did not see why, if a man could go without food for 40 days, that House could not do without sleep for an equal period. They must adopt some such remedy. Let hon. Gentlemen who had been up all night now go home, and those who had not, but had come in fresh this morning, continue the debate. It did not appear to him to require very much knowledge of the subject to enable hon. Members to take part in the debate. The order of proceeding seemed to be to move that the Chairman leave the Chair, and that he report Progress alternately. The officials also should be considered; and hon. Members, remembering that these persons had been tied to their seats more strictly than they had themselves, would do well to make some arrangements whereby they could obtain a little needful refreshment. The Leader of the Irish Party would return, after the requisite number of hours' sleep, refreshed and able to carry on the debate not until 9 o'clock at night, when the consideration of the Burials Bill in Com-

  331
  mittee was proposed to be taken, but until 9 o'clock to-morrow morning, and for 40 days further if necessary.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he never could listen to the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Kirkcaldy Burghs (Sir George Campbell) on any Irish subject without remembering the great services which, 11 years ago, he rendered Ireland, especially on the Land Question, by a most admirable book he published on that subject after a visit to the country. Anything, therefore, that he said on Irish subjects deserved to be listened to, although sometimes his speeches were not made in such a friendly spirit as his book had been written. They might accept the hon. Gentleman's utterances in a friendly spirit. He told them he took the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) as representing the views of the Government on the Irish Land Question, and he urged them to be content with the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He (Mr. Gray) had had the pleasure of listening last night to that admirable and eloquent speech, and were he thoroughly convinced that the right hon. Gentleman really spoke as representing the views of the Government on the Irish Land Question, he, for one, would be very well content not to push this discussion any further. But he had also listened to a portion of the speech of the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law), and subsequently to the speech of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington), and he was bound to say that it was his opinion that if they had been treated to an all night Sitting, with a prospect of the debate being continued at greater length, it was, so far as the Irish Members were concerned, because of those two speeches. So far as he could gather, it was distinctly understood, before the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) on Tuesday, that the opposition to these Constabulary Votes would not be pushed by the Irish Members to any extreme limit, but that they would content themselves with a simple discussion on the subject; that they would not, as they had at one time intended, endeavour to push the opposition to the Votes to an extent that every section of the House would deem an undue exercise of their privileges. That was their attitude, he believed.
  332
  He had only been in London a day or so; therefore, he could only speak from hearsay; but he believed that was their attitude, until it was modified by the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, which had certainly created a most unfavourable impression amongst the Irish Members. He was one of those who, at 4 o'clock in the morning, adopted the advice of one of the Treasury Whips and, because of the probability of an all night Sitting, had gone home to bed. He only came down a few moments ago; therefore, as far as he was concerned, had he any observations worth offering to the Committee on the subject of the Constabulary Votes, he was now in a position to offer them as well as he would be at any other moment. But he did not think it was reasonable that they should be asked to go on with the discussion now. The moment before he left the House to seek his bed, he listened to a precisely similar appeal from the Government to that which he had just heard, that the discussion might be commenced at once. That was at half-past 4 or 5 o'clock. At that time nothing was said about the reporters being present, or about the Irish Members having their speeches reported. The Government had said—" Here we are ready to listen to you; why don't you go on with the discussion?" Well, they were not prepared to discuss the Vote at 5 o'clock in the morning. They were prepared to resist to the last a system of organized relays on the part of the Government for the purpose of putting down the Irish Representatives. Notwithstanding the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Tyrone (Mr. Litton) and the deserved laudation which the hon. and learned Member had received, he claimed that 30 hon. Members from Ireland were more representative of the country even than the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom he was ready to grant was a host in himself. But there had been on the part of the recognized Representatives of the Government an attempt to put down hon. Members who represented Ireland in that House on the present occasion by an organized system of relays. An arrangement had been made whereby a certain number of Members were sent home to bed whilst others had been obliged to remain on duty during the night in order, at any

  333
  cost, to put down the Irish Members. This was a device which had never succeeded, and never would succeed, and which only provoked Members like himself, who would not be inclined to go any great length, or to resort to extremes, unless they were driven to it. When the Irish Party were attacked in this way they could not endure it. Human nature was human nature and would resist it. The Irish Party would have its own sense of having been treated unfairly, besides which it would have the sympathy of the outside public. ["No, no!"] Yes; he was confident that the public would side with them when the tactics of the Government were understood, and when it was seen that it was sought to overwhelm them by numbers. But if the Government were determined to try the test of physical strength, the Irish Party would accept it, and would beat them in spite of anything they might say. It was perhaps nothing to boast of, but it was nevertheless the fact that they had accepted the test of physical endurance before, and had beaten the Government. They had beaten determined organized relays before, and they would do it again. He would much rather have nothing to do with such a contest, however, even if successful, for he did not think there was much credit or advantage to be gained from it by either Party. More than this, he should regret to see such a contest engaged in, and to find the Irish Party bitterly at war with the present Government, because he believed the intentions of the Government were good, and because he was convinced that they were anxious to do as much good for Ireland as they could. The Irish Members would not, however, consent, at the dictation of the Government, to allow the discussion of the Estimates to come on when they knew that the Government had resorted to an improper and unconstitutional practice—had sent half their Members home to bed in order that they might come, later on, refreshed, and relieve those who were now in attendance. One hon. Gentleman who had made an appeal early in the morning for the discussion of the Estimates was now calmly reclining in his bed; why should he not have an opportunity of discussing the Estimates? Why did the Government want to rush them through during the
  334
  absence of hon. Members who had done battle during the night, and who were relying on those now in the House to watch their interests whilst they were availing themselves of the opportunity of taking a little physical rest? The tone and temper and credit of the House was being wasted by perpetuating this contest. The Irish Members, at any rate, would continue the debate for a considerable number of hours more, and the idea—if such were entertained—of attempting to suspend some of them was ridiculous. If the Government tried it they would be committing an act of folly which would only recoil on themselves. He did not believe they would attempt it. If they would give a reasonable opportunity for discussing the Estimates to-night, he was sure the debate would not be prolonged beyond reasonable limits. It would be ill-advised of them to so continue it. He did not believe in the possibility of putting an end to the arming of the Constabulary at the present time; but what the Irish Representatives desired was to draw the attention of the English public to the matter, and of the public beyond the limit of the British Empire. Their object was in the future to be able to deal more effectually with the matter. None of his hon. Friends were so Quixotic as to imagine that by keeping hon. Members up for a certain number of hours they would bring about the disarmament of the Constabulary tomorrow or the next day. What they said was, that to ask them to take the discussion of the Estimates now in the absence of their Parliamentary Leader and a number of their Friends was unreasonable, and a request with which they could not comply. If the Government would adjourn the debate until to-night, they would save a considerable amount of Government time and avoid a contest, which, while it would not serve the Irish Party, would be far from serving the Government.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, an hon. Member had just made an appeal to him on the subject of a speech recently delivered by him. He could assure the hon. Member that nothing was further from his intention than to modify or minimize in any way what had been stated by his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, that there had been a good deal of discussion as to the speech of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but, whatever were the exact words that he had used, there could be no doubt as to the meaning of them. They were all aware that the hon. Member for Tipperary had been speaking to his constituents lately in not very guarded language. The hon. Member was, however, perfectly consistent. Whilst he was in Ireland advising the people of Ireland to march to meetings, to arm themselves, to drill themselves, and not to allow the cattle to remain "unmolested on the land," he was, at the same time, in addressing the House, asking other hon. Members to consider the question of disarming and reducing the Constabulary. Well, they all knew what was only too likely to be the effect in Ireland, on the one hand, of inciting the people to prepare for a state of insurrection, and, on the other hand, of disarming and reducing the force by which this state of insurrection was to be met. The crisis was a very serious one, and it seemed to him to be the duty of the hon. Members occupying the Conservative Benches to give Her Majesty's Government all the support in their power. He would not, as had been done by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed), appeal to the Irish Members. He should rather appeal to the Government to remain perfectly firm in this matter. That was not the time for narrowly criticizing the action or the words of Her Majesty's Ministers; but if he did venture to criticize them, it would be to point out that the Government had been, if possible, a little too conciliatory towards Ireland. He did not say this in any spiris inimical to Ireland. He was very fond of Ireland, having spent some of the happiest days of his life there; but he had learned this lesson with regard to it—and the more he saw of the country the more he knew it to be true—that it was no true kindness to Ireland to treat her in too conciliatory a spirit when threats of insurrection were being loudly uttered. But real kindness to Ireland was to govern her, not only with justice and fairness, but also with firmness.
  MR. FOLEYsaid, he did not think the observations they had just listened to were calculated to increase the orderly nature of the discussion. Last night he
  336
  had understood that it was agreed they were to have another night to consider this question. As there were many hon. Members who had devoted their time to the study of these Estimates, and who were worn out by the long night's debate, he thought it was not unreasonable to urge on the Government the desirability of postponing the debate. It was unfair to impose on other hon. Members, who had not made these specific Votes their study, the obligation of discussing them. There were other Votes which he was prepared to consider, and which could be well taken on to-day. The offer that had been made to the Government was made in perfect good faith; and he did not believe that if the Estimates now objected to were taken upon another night there would be the slightest irrelevant discussion. The exercise of force was not the way to overcome the opposition of Irish Members.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, the hour-five minutes before noon—was a little beyond his ordinary time for going to bed; and, as he was about to depart for the purpose of taking a little rest, having considered the position of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and other hon. Members who had been there all night, before leaving, he wished, for the last time, to try and throw oil on the troubled waters. It was perfectly true that there was an understanding come to during the night —most of the hon. Members who had come down so fresh and happy were in bed at the time. He was not. The first request of hon. Members opposite—the Irish Members—was that they should have one more night given to them to discuss the Estimates. Very well; what happened? One more night was offered them. The whole point at issue was this —and he claimed the attention of hon. Members opposite, having taken their part in this question — what was the meaning of "a fair discussion?" Did "one night" mean one night? or did it mean one night, and, perhaps, one night more, or more than one night? That was the whole point; and he believed that, at the present moment, Her Majesty's Government would be glad to give a night—in fact, they had said so. Everyone would be glad. And they could separate amicably now, if hon. Gentlemen would agree not to report Progress tonight when the Estimates came on. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, it was open to

  337
  anyone to raise an objection. No doubt, the hon. Member who said "Oh !"had not been up all night. He was, perhaps, fresh, whilst others were not. Would hon. Members opposite stand to what they asked for first—namely, one more night to discuss the Estimates? As he understood it, the Government were willing to allow them another night; but on the plain, simple understanding that if it was found impossible to finish them by 1 or 2 o'clock in the morning, hon. Gentlemen would go on discussing them, without moving to report Progress, until they were disposed of. This, he thought, would be a fair offer; and he would appeal to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—if that hon. Gentleman was in his place—whether the conditions were not such as he could accept without humiliation. The arrangement he referred to was very often made when it was proposed to adjourn a debate. The Government yielded on the understanding that the debate should conclude in one more night. It would be quite possible for hon. Members in this one more night to say all they wished to say on the subject of the Constabulary Vote. Irish Members said, and said with truth, that it was a desirable thing to awaken English opinion on the subject; and they wished to do it. Well, they would more effectually awaken English opinion, and better induce Englishmen to read what took place, if they made few instead of many speeches. A man, when he took up a newspaper to read a debate, would much rather read one speech from each Member than 10 or 20. If the speeches were too numerous, he did not read them all, because he found that, although they were very excellent speeches, there was a certain sameness about them. If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland, therefore, wished to arouse and awaken English opinion on the subject of this Constabulary Vote, they could easily do it. In fact, they had done it, by the speeches they had already delivered. They would be able to effect their object much more surely by taking only one more night than by going on, drivelling out these long speeches over and over again. Some hon. Members might say that they wished to go on until they convinced the Government that the Irish Members were in the right, and Her Majesty's Ministers were in the
  338
  wrong—until they convinced the Government that they ought to change their policy. No doubt, if this was seriously put before the Government, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would tell them that they would have to sit until January, or something like that. He thought the Committee would bear him out, if he said that the right hon. Gentleman did not intend to be convinced just now, and did not intend to change his policy; and, when a man said that—when he said—"If you talk till Doomsday, I shall not change my opinion"—why did they persist? Why did they not say—"Well, we are in the right, and you are in the wrong; but we are not going to talk till Doomsday?" The right hon. Gentleman might be in the wrong, and the Irish Members might be in the right; but he would say to the latter, in the words of practical, common sense—"In the interest of your country, and in the interest of common sense, accept the thing you asked for at the commencement of the debate—namely, one extra Sitting."
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, he had heard with surprise the suggestion of the hon Gentleman, that they should enter into an agreement in the House to conclude the debate that night, or at one more Sitting. He ventured to say, notwithstanding what had fallen from the hon. Gentleman, that such an agreement was never entered into publicly in the House of Commons within living memory. Such an agreement would be unconstitutional, as restraining the freedom of debate. He knew it was a very common thing, and a very rational thing, for there to be an understanding on this subject between hon. Gentlemen in charge of measures and hon. Gentlemen opposed to them. Understandings of this kind were very frequently entered into between the occupants of the Front Treasury Bench and Irish Members. He had seen it take place on more than one occasion; and, so far as he knew, there had never been reason to regret it. But for hon. Members to come forward, and for the Government to come forward, to enter into such an agreement as that proposed, not only by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), but by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law)— [Mr. LABOUCHERE: The proposal came from the Irish Members themselves."]—

  339
  he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) was not aware of that, though he had remained in the House the greater part of last night— certainly up to 3 o'clock. So far as he was aware, although he heard additional time asked for, he had never heard any restriction placed on the amount of time which should be allowed. Even supposing an additional night had been asked for, how frequently had he seen the same thing requested by Liberal Members during the last Parliament; and then, when a night was granted, a second night was asked for and obtained. For his part, the discussion, if continued at another Sitting, would be brief. He had nothing to say in addition to what he had said before—no wish to prolong the discussion uselessly; and he did not think any wish to so prolong it existed in the minds of hon. Members around him. They took into account the feeling of English Members, and were perfectly aware that it was not desirable to do anything that would exasperate English opinion against them. But they did not believe that English opinion would be exasperated against them for claiming full and fair debate on this question. They were too anxious that these discussions should lead to a satisfactory conclusion in the removal of this military element from the Constabulary Force to do anything which would look like Obstruction to the English people. They had asked for some additional time to discuss these Estimates. They had asked for it last night, under circumstances in which similar concessions had been frequently made, on subjects of far less importance, and without the slightest hesitation. They repeated the demand now. They had only really had some five or six hours before them in which to discuss these matters; and they had asked for more time, solemnly declining to enter into any agreement as to the precise time they should occupy. They would not set this precedent to English, Scotch, or Welsh consituencies. Give them the privilege of reconsidering the Vote. Trust to the honour of the Irish Members not to prolong the debate. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes, trust to their honour. ["No, no!"] He should like to know what they had ever done that was dishonourable? He saw an hon. Member, third from the end, on the second Bench opposite, who cried "Oh, oh !"when he said to them,
  340
  "Trust to our honour." Let that hon. Member, and every other hon. Gentleman calling himself a Liberal—-returned by Irish votes for an English constituency—tell them what they had done to-day, yesterday, or any other day, that disentitled them to have trust placed in their honour. They had done nothing but stand upon their Constitutional rights. They were there to discuss this solemn question of an armed police with the English and Scotch Members; and they would discuss it. They would debate those unfortunate and unjust Land Laws if they remained in the House for a fortnight. At present they had no intention of resorting to such an extreme measure. All they asked was that reasonable time should be given for the discussion of this matter. Sufficient time had not been allowed. If it were now granted, he would say, again, their honour might be trusted. It had never failed; and he would defy any hon. Member to point to a case in which it had failed. They would show English opinion that the right way of uniting the people of Ireland with the people of England was by doing justice to them, in the present instance, by giving them no more than the customary and ordinary means of keeping the peace.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had been present all night, during the whole of the debate, and he must congratulate them upon the singular good humour that had characterized the discussion. The hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken had got rather warm; but, no doubt, the Committee, having been good humoured up to this point, would remain so to the end, however far off that might be. The hon. Member had said they did not wish to establish a new precedent; but what was proposed was absolutely no new precedent at all. He would appeal to the late Leader of the House (Sir Stafford Northcote). Be-sides, he had some little experience himself; and he could say that, over and over again, he had heard the Leader of the House, and the Leader of the Opposition, in warm debates that had sometimes gone on for two, or three, or more nights, come to a sort of understanding as to when the discussion should terminate. He had known the arrangement openly stated and admitted by the supporters on each side—and it was just such an understanding that was now

  341
  being asked for. If there was to be another night's debate they would under stand that that would close the matter. There was nothing more usual than such an understanding. If the so-called "Third Party" was a Party at all, it was an organized Party with a Leader and with discipline, and nothing would be easier than for it to enter into this agreement. It was what frequently happened in Parliamentary debates; and, as his right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary had said, it would be almost impossible for Party debates to go on unless there was this kind of understanding arrived at occasionally. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that there was no desire on the part of the Government —and he might have said on the part of the Ministerial side of the House, or the Front Opposition Bench, or the hon. Gentlemen behind it—to refuse another night's discussion, if there was an understanding that that night's discussion would end the matter. It was only fair that they should have this understanding, or else, as he had said over and over again, they would be in the same position in the end as they were now. They could not altogether forget the line of argument of some hon. Members on the opposite side. One hon. Member had said that the object of his Friends was to continue the discussion until they obtained their object. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) said as much as that. Well, however persistent the Irish Members might be, the Government, he could assure the Committee, were not likely to change their action on this important matter. Indeed, he would put it to hon. Members from Ireland whether it would be possible for any Government to be worthy to govern Ireland or England, or any other country, if it were to allow its action on one of the most important administrative matters that could be conceived to be influenced merely to get a debate finished? Over and over again they had stated that they could make no such pledge as that whi6h was demanded of them. They could not give any sort of pledge that the Constabulary would be disarmed. They had said repeatedly that they were very sorry—he did not suppose there was a Member in that House who was not sorry—that it was necessary to have an armed Constabulary
  342
  in Ireland; but for them to state, or to be expected to state, or give any sort of pledge, that they intended to disarm the force, would be one of the most unworthy acts they could possibly commit. Well, they had to remember that this had been demanded of them, and demanded within the last two or three hours. Therefore, they could not separate this request for another night from the statement that the debate was to continue until a pledge were exacted from the Government. The result of the whole matter was this—that if they could get from the Third Party—the Irish Party—some sort of understanding which was almost universally obtained by either of the two great Parties from the other, that if another night were given the discussion would be allowed to terminate, that day would be given. This was no new precedent, but was thoroughly in accordance with Parliamentary precedent.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had hitherto abstained from taking part in the discussion, because he believed he could do more good by holding his tongue. But, after what the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had said, he wished strongly to confirm his statement, not only from his own experience whilst he had the conduct of affairs, but also from what he remembered ever since he had had the honour of a seat in Parliament. Nothing was more common, and nothing had been more generally recognized, in the proceedings of Parliament, that when a discussion had gone on for a certain time, and it was desired that that discussion should be adjourned and taken up again, that an understanding of an honourable character should be come to between those interested in the matter— an understanding that the discussion should close on the next occasion on which it was resumed. He had known this done on the occasion of the most important debates that had gone on, perhaps, for several nights. Perhaps it had been after one night, perhaps after several nights. The House must trust to the honour of the Irish Members. There could not be the slightest doubt whatever that if the Irish Members stated it was their wish to enter into an honourable agreement that the debate, as far as they were concerned, should be closed, that the House might place most

  343
  implicit confidence in them. He had had occasion to have some serious discussions with the Irish Members who sat in the last Parliament; but he knew perfectly well, although they were very troublesome to deal with, that whenever a question of honour arose, he could rely as implicitly on the honour of the Irish Members as he could upon that of any Member of the House. He had, therefore, no doubt that any understanding of that sort entered into by them would be fully carried out and thoroughly maintained by those who made it. With regard to the question whether this discussion should be adjourned, to be taken up again later on, or whether it should be proceeded with now, that was a question upon which he had no desire to express an opinion either one way or the other. He would leave that to be settled by Her Majesty's Government and the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If Her Majesty's Government and the Chief Secretary appealed to the Committee now in the exhausted state of the Members of that House, he thought such an appeal might fairly be met, and that they should, at any rate, have some interval for repose and refreshment. The right hon. Gentleman had felt it his duty to remain here throughout the night; and if he was still willing and able to go on, then he (Sir Stafford Northcote) thought the Committee ought to support him; if, on the other hand, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government were satisfied that arrangements might be made for the comfort and convenience of the House that would not involve that necessity, he certainly should not be indisposed to accept such an arrangement. At the same time, he did not see that there was any necessity for their continuing to go on wasting their time in discussions of this sort. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was, however, the person who ought, principally, to be considered in the matter. He hoped the Committee would arrive at some satisfactory conclusion; and he would repeat his own conviction that, if any arrangement could be entered into, they might trust implicitly to the honour of the Irish Members.
  THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, he had risen to make a proposal which he thought might bring the discussion to a conclusion, and to which he did not
  344
  think the Government could object. Nothing could be more remarkable throughout the discussion than the manner in which the landlord party had repudiated the notion that the Irish police were wanted for the protection of the landlords' interests in Ireland. What he, therefore, proposed was that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland should give them an undertaking that the police should not be used for the purpose of evictions. If the right hon. Gentleman would do that they would not press him for any immediate disarmament.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmust admit that he was somewhat surprised at the proposition made by the hon. Member. From the very beginning—and the hon. Member ought to know it — he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had said that the law must be carried out as it stood. He had said that over and over again, and only a day or two ago he added that, under certain circumstances, they ought to make another effort to change the law. if there was any fear of the landlords misusing their power, though he did not suppose they would. True, this discussion had now been going on for a long time; he and other hon. Members had been up all night; but the hon. Member really could not suppose that he regarded the interests of Ireland as of such little importance that he could for one moment think of accepting the proposition just made.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDbelieved there would be a general disposition to place implicit reliance upon any word of honour that might be given by the Irish Members. He was anxious, therefore, to hear what the hon. Member for the City of Cork had to say upon the subject. Two or three hours ago he had himself made a direct appeal to the hon. Member for the City of Cork. That appeal had not been responded to; but he certainly did entertain a hope that the hon. Member for Cork had not abdicated his position. He had a strong conviction of the courage and consistency of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon); but he must say that he should greatly prefer, in the interests of the public, to see the Leadership of the Irish Members in the hands of the hon. Member for Cork. He, therefore, asked the hon. Member for Cork to make a statement in answer to the clear intimation

  345
  which had proceeded from the Treasury Bench.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he had listened since 10 o'clock in the morning to that very interesting discussion, and in the course of it he had heard a most extraordinary epistle read by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the County of Tyrone (Mr. Litton). The writer of that extraordinary epistle seemed to intimate that he represented the people of Ireland; and he (Mr. Biggar) thought that the Committee should be put in possession of the name of the writer, so that they could judge for themselves the amount of authority the epistle possessed. He had heard the appeal which had been made by the hon. Member for Cardiff (Sir Edward Reed). The hon. Member asked the Irish Members to make a concession, because he had been put to inconvenience in attending to hear the debate. Now, he thought that all the hon. Member did was not to come down and listen to the discussion of the Irish Estimates, but to come down there in order to support the Government, whether they were right or wrong, for the hon. Member was a thick -and-thin supporter of the Government of the day. He (Mr. Biggar) knew perfectly well what the hon. Member and other hon. Members meant, when they said they came down there to hear the discussion. The hon. Gentleman had not attempted to combat any of the arguments, either in regard to the question of adjournments, or the questions involved in this Constabulary Vote. Now, what had taken place in regard to this Constabulary Vote, and what had been the course pursued in reference to it by Members for English and Scotch Radical constituencies? They had invariably voted for the Government in favour of imposing an unconstitutional system upon Ireland. They had been in the habit of voting in favour of giving grants of large sums of money without discussion at all, at a late hour in the evening. He felt it his duty to say what he thought of those hon. Members, because he had gone a little out of his way and incurred some slight unpopularity in voting for a proposition made by one of those hon. Members: and he must say that, except upon general principles, he thought the vote he gave upon that occasion was very much thrown away. A discussion of a few hours had now
  346
  taken place, and a really important question had been raised. It could not be alleged there had been any Obstruction, for during all the time that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Edinburgh (Mr. Lyon Playfair) had been in the Chair, he had not called a single Member of the Irish Party to Order. He never held out that the observations of any Member of the Irish Party were irregular in the slightest degree. The real question at issue had been adhered to with remarkable closeness in what had occurred. Before the House met at 4 o'clock in the afternonn, the Government had made arrangements to carry these Votes through by brute force. He (Mr. Biggar) was himself warned in the Lobby that such was their intention. At half-past 1 o'clock in the morning the hon. Member for the County of Louth (Mr. Callan) moved to report Progress, because the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland was absent from his place, and neglected to answer a certain question put by the hon. Member for Louth. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) might say that he had always protested against late Sittings, and, in the last Parliament, had supported every Motion for adjournment after half-past 12, when the question of voting public money was concerned, because he held that all such matters should be discussed in the light of day. It was of no use for hon. and right hon. Members to allege that they were now in the light of day, for they were not in the light of day in regard to this matter, seeing that Her Majesty's Government ha dused their brute force to command the majority.
  MR. MAGNIACrose to Order. He asked if it was consistent with the proper conduct of Public Business to apply to that House such a term as "brute force."
  THE CHAIRMAN: I hardly think that the hon. Gentleman means to call this House a force of brutes.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw the word, and say "physical force."
  SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, the expression substituted by the hon. Member was far more offensive than the other. Were the Government supposed to have used physical force in the matter?
  MR. BIGGARwould withdraw the words "physical force," and substitute the words "physical endurance." Some hon. Gentlemen were really so exceedingly thin-skinned. At the same time, he had

  347
  not intended to use the expression which had inadvertently dropped from him; and he was sorry that he had applied it to any Party collectively. They had been asked to do a certain thing—to enter into an arrangement, or an understanding, that they would close the debate at a certain time. Now, if the Government had said at 1 o'clock in the morning—"It is evident you have not discussed this question to such an extent as is desirable, and we think you are justified in entertaining the opinion that the debate should be adjourned; and we will, therefore, allow it to be postponed until a future Sitting. We will not ask from you a distinct pledge, but we shall expect you to condense the discussion into one Sitting. "No doubt, if such a proposition had been made, it would have been received with pleasure by the Irish Party. But what was it that was done? First of all, Her Majesty's Government used this system of physical endurance for a very long time, and then they came round with an offer or suggestion to postpone the consideration of the subject until a future Sitting, with a bona fide pledge, and with an understanding to try and finish the discussion in a single Sitting. The understanding asked for was that they would not report Progress, but that they would continue to carry out the principle against which he had always protested—namely, the principle of voting large sums of the public money, and of discussing important questions at a late hour of the night. He thought the Government were entirely in the wrong, and that what they ought to do, if they wished to be reasonable, was to allow the Chairman to leave the Chair, or to report Progress, and leave it to the honour of the Irish Members not to prolong the discussion further than they considered absolutely necessary. That was what the Government ought to do, if they wished to obtain reasonable support from the Irish Members. The Irish Members had acted upon the principle laid down by the highest authority in this House with regard to the question of Obstruction—namely, that it was not legitimate to obstruct the Business generally, but that it was perfectly legitimate to obstruct bad measures. In that case he contended that they had not only obstructed a bad measure, but that they had not obstructed at all, be-
  348
  cause all the discussion that had taken place was thoroughly pertinent to the question at issue. Now, the discussion of last night up to 1 o'clock was entirely confined to the general principle of the Vote, and what they intended to do afterwards was to go into the question of detail; and although the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might say, as a general rule, he would not agree to the proposal laid down by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), at the same time, he might agree to certain alterations in discussing the details of these Votes. That was a perfectly reasonable expectation. So far the right hon. Gentleman had not heard what the proposition was which it was intended to make, nor what arguments were likely to be used in support of it. On Tuesday last the right hon. Gentleman made a speech which had been corrected to-day by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law); but the only difference between the two was that the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a trifle more explicit than that which was delivered by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Biggar) had not the smallest hope or idea that anything would be said by the right hon. Gentleman to bind himself or pledge the Government to any particular course; his promises were confined to very vague generalities, and they might be meant to be beneficial, or to indicate an intention of amending the Land Act without, however, making any material alteration in it, or they might mean anything. If the Government would agree to report Progress, or give the Irish Members next Monday night for the consideration of this Vote, he thought it was very likely that the discussion of this Constabulary Vote might be got rid of for the present. At the same time, he wished it to be understood that he had no authority to speak for anybody but himself, and he might be mistaken as to what might occur; but he hoped that the Government would trust an important section of the House, who represented a very large part of Ireland, and he had not the slightest doubt in his own mind that the Irish Party, who, really represented the interests of the Irish people, would carry out any undertaking of the kind that might be come to.
  MR. PARNELLwas sorry that he had not responded earlier to the invitation of his hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold). He had wished, before doing so, to see how the matter was going. He had now had an opportunity of consulting with many of his Friends; and he found that their opinion was almost, if not entirely, universal, that the Constabulary Estimates were of such a nature that they could not enter into any undertaking or understanding with regard to them. And now with regard to the question of another Sitting. He very much feared that a 9 o'clock Friday Sitting would not end satisfactorily to either Party; but he was free to say that he had no moral doubt whatever that an arrangement might be come to if the Government could see their way to giving a full Evening Sitting for the discussion of these Estimates—a discussion in which he would hope that some of the English Members would join, and give them the benefit of their opinion on these Votes; for it had been one of the most painful things to the Irish Members, and one of those matters that made them feel almost hopeless, to see the alacrity with which the English Members refused to join in any debate, and accused the Irish Members of obstructing the Business of the House, simply because they were desirous of bringing their grievances under the consideration of the House. Unfortunately, they had found themselves thwarted and hampered by the want of co-operation manifested by the English Members. He had now a question to put, which was this—He felt sure, and had no moral doubt whatever, as he had already said, although he should not and could not enter into any understanding or agreement—but he had no moral doubt that if the Government could see their way to affording another Evening Sitting, that the time thus given up would be sufficient for the discussion of the Constabulary Vote.
  MR. D. GRANTtrusted, after the words they had just heard from the hon. Member for Cork, that Her Majesty's Government would be able to see their way to agree to the proposition he had made. He trusted so for this reason— that they would thus manifest their readiness to listen to the complaints and proposals that the Irish Members had to make; and if the Irish Members
  350
  failed to keep the understanding upon which it was agreed to adjourn the debate, then it would be made quite clear to the House that the object they had in view was one of simple Obstruction. He, therefore, hoped that the proposal made by the hon. Gentleman would be found acceptable on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and that the debate would now be adjourned.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he had not caught the whole of the observations of the hon. Member for Cork; but, from what he had gathered, he understood them to amount practically to that which he had previously said they ought to accept — namely, an honourable understanding that if the discussion was deferred now, the debate would be closed within a reasonable time at the next Sitting. He thought, under these circumstances, unless the statement of the hon. Gentleman of the confident anticipations he had expressed were disavowed or dissented from by those who had taken part in the discussion, the Government would feel that by accepting the proposal they were accepting one that would be adhered to, and would permit them to come to the decision, at which, some time ago, he understood they were prepared to come. He had no wish to offer any advice to the Government in the matter, because he felt that this was a case in which they ought to be the best judges, and one in which the House ought to support them in whatever conclusion they came to. Certainly, the impression made upon him by the remarks of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was one that would practically amount to an honourable understanding which would be adhered to.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he should certainly not feel called upon to take exception to the formal statement which had just been made by the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). He could quite understand that the hon. Member might object to give anything in the nature of a pledge or an absolute undertaking in reference to anyone who sat on those Benches; neither could Her Majesty's Government for those who sat on their Benches, and generally followed their lead. He was quite willing to accept the offer made by the hon. Member, in the confident expectation that, in the conclusion he wished to arrive at, he would be supported by

  351
  those who usually acted with him. He thought, at the same time, that the hon. Gentleman had used one word he scarcely intended. He understood him to say that another Sitting—an Evening Sitting for the discussion of the Constabulary Vote —would be sufficient to enable them to dispose of it. After the protracted discussion which they had had upon the question, and bearing in mind the fact that the Vote had been before the Committee for the whole of the week, and that they had not yet reached it, he thought the hon. Member could scarcely mean that another whole Sitting should be devoted to the Constabulary Vote. There were many points in the other Irish Estimates that the Irish Members wished to discuss; and he thought that, if any understanding of that sort were arrived at between them, it should include, not the Constabulary Vote alone, but, if possible, the whole of the Irish Estimates. On that understanding, he would be disposed to recommend the Committee to accept the suggestion made by the hon. Member.
  MR. PARNELLasked if the noble Lord could not take the other Irish Estimates at the 9 o'clock Sitting, so as to give a clear day's debate for the Constabulary Vote?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Yes, if it be convenient to the Irish Members; and whatever may not be disposed of to-night can be taken on Monday.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman who made the Motion that I should leave the Chair that it will be necessary to withdraw that Motion in order that I may report Progress.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Is it meant that we are not to take the Constabulary Vote to-night?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I understand is this—that the other Irish Estimates will be taken to-night in the hope that we shall be able to get through with them.
  MR. PARNELL: And the Constabulary Vote on Monday?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes; the Constabulary Vote on Monday.
  MR. DILLON: Under these circumstances, I beg to withdraw my Motion that the Chairman leave the Chair.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERmoved to report Progress.
  Motion agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again this day.

  CORN RETURNS BILL.— [BILL 277.]
  (Mr. Ashley, Mr. Chamberlain.)
  CORN RETURNS BILL.— [BILL 277.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BERESFORD HOPEreminded the Speaker that there was Notice of opposition on the Paper, and the hour was after 12.30 A.M.
    MR. PARNELLrose to Order. In the year 1877, when the House sat into the next day, the Speaker ruled that, in the interest of the Business of the House, as there was a doubt in the matter, he would resolve the doubt in favour of the Business of the House. In reference to the Report of the Irish Judicature Bill, which was an opposed Order, the Speaker ruled that it should be taken, notwithstanding what was commonly called a "block Notice" was on the Paper, and that the half-past 12 Rule did not stand against it. The Report stage of that Bill was, therefore, taken, and considerable progress was made with the measure during the day. He would ask the Speaker to follow the precedent he had already laid down, and rule, in the interest of Public Business, that an opposed Order could be taken.
    MAJOR NOLANcalled attention to the ruling of the Speaker on the occasion referred to. The right hon. Gentleman had considered that freedom of action in the matter remained with the House, and that, as it was near the end of the Session, the block Notice should not continue. The Government placed important Bills on the Papers, and in respect of all measures it would be useful if the half past 12 o'clock restriction were taken off.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have a very clear recollection of the occasion when that ruling was given. No doubt, the hon. Member for Cork is quite right in his statement; and, under the circumstances, we must consider that we can proceed with the Bill if the House thinks proper.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had no intention to speak upon the point of Order which had been raised; but he must remind hon. Members that the Committee had sat all night, and that it had to meet again at 2 o'clock that afternoon. Under the circumstances, the most convenient course would be that the House should now adjourn. He would move that this House do now adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(The Marquess of Hartinyton.)
    Motion agreed to.
    House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock P.M.

MINUTES.
Sat First in Parliament—The Lord Belper, after the death of his father.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading —Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Grain)٭(203).
Committee —Employers Liability (199–204).
Committee —Report —Drainage and Improvement of Land (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 4) ٭ (200).
Third Reading —Post Office Money Orders ٭ (197); Fraudulent Debtors (Scotland) ٭ (202), and passed.
Royal Assent —Consolidated Fund (No. 2) [43 & 44 Viet. c. 30]; Elementary Education [43 & 44 Viet. c. 23]; Metropolitan Board of Works (Money) [43 & 44 Viet. c. 25]; Courts of Justice Building Act (1865) Amendment [43 & 44 Viet. c. 29]; Census (Ireland) [43 & 44 Viet. c. 28]; Married Women's Policies of Assurance (Scotland) [43 & 44 Viet. c. 26]; Spirits [43 & 44 Viet. c. 24]; Drainage Boards (Ireland) Additional Powers [43 & 44 Viet. c. 27]; Bastardy Orders [43 & 44 Vict. c. 32]; Railway Construction Facilities Act (1864) Amendment [43 & 44 Vict. c. 31]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Artizans' and Labourers' Dwellings (Dublin) and Waterworks (Armagh) [43 & 44 Viet. c. clxxi]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 1) [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxii]; Tramways Orders Confirmation (No. 2) [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxiii]; Kinsale Harbour [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxiv]; Artizans and Labourers Dwellings (Scotland) Provisional Order (Leith) [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxv]; General Police and Improvement (Scotland) Provisional Order (Forfar Gas) [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxvi]; Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3) [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxvii]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Bethesda, &c.) [43 & 44 Vict. c. clxxviii].

FIJI—MR. CHIPPENDALE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKwished to ask the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies a Question of which he had given him private Notice. It appeared that a Mr. Chippendale employed some 40 or 50 Natives upon his estate in the Island of Fiji, and during the early part of this year he was arrested on a charge of having murdered one of them. The charge surprised him very much; but proceedings were taken against him, and if accounts received were correct they showed a very curious state of things existing in the Island. Mr. Chippendale was tried for manslaughter, but was fully and honourably acquitted. The father of that gentleman, who was unknown to him (Viscount Cranbrook), and who was a clergyman in a Northern county, had, and was supported by the Bishop of his diocese, wished him to ask, whether the noble Earl would ascertain the circumstances and nature of the charge, and of Mr. Chippendale's trial and acquittal? He would be glad to know what steps had been taken for the purpose of learning all the circumstances of the case?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY,in reply, said, he had no knowledge of the case except from statements made by

  55
  Mr. Chippendale's father, which he supposed that gentleman had sent to the noble Viscount and other noble Lords. When he received that statement he transmitted it to Sir Arthur Gordon, with a request that he would send to the Colonial Office all the particulars of the case. Until he received those particulars he could not say any more on the subject.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, that next Session he might probably move for Papers on the subject.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.—QUESTION.
THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he understood that the third reading of the Ground Game Bill was to be taken in the other House on the following day, and he thought it would be convenient to their Lordships to be informed when the second reading would be taken in their Lordships House.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he expected they would be able to take it on Monday or Tuesday.

EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY BILL.

  (NO. 199.) COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee upon the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, before your Lordships go into Committee, I wish to ask a question of the Government as to the position in which we are placed with reference to this Bill. It is quite unnecessary to dilate on the importance of the measure. That is universally recognized; and, indeed, all measures with regard to the relations between employers and employed are amongst the most serious that can be brought under the consideration of Parliament. Having, however, given Notice of an Amendment in Committee, I think it well to refer to some points connected with the introduction and progress of this Bill. There is this peculiarity about the measure that the importance of the subject is equalled by the difficulty of dealing with it. Having myself,
  56
  while in a responsible position, carefully considered the question, and submitted a similar measure for the consideration of Parliament, I was so impressed with the difficulties connected with it that I made up my mind that, whatever Ministry might attempt to deal with the subject, I would give them whatever assistance I could under the circumstances, and that if I differed from them on any points, I would certainly exercise the utmost forbearance. It is with that feeling that I make these remarks. These is no doubt about the sympathy which your Lordships must feel with British workmen in the dangers which they encounter in the fulfilment—I may say, in most instances, the admirable fulfilment — of duty; but, at the same time, whatever may be our feelings for the people and their suffering, we must not indulge that sentiment at the expense of the first principles of justice, when the interests and rights of other parties are concerned. Although I support the general policy of this measure, and have proved my feelings on the matter by not opposing the second reading, I am bound to say that there is much in this Bill which appears to me to be immature. This, perhaps, may be accounted for by the precipitation which has too often attended its conduct in the other House of Parliament. Its introduction to Parliamentary notice has been remarkable, and I think that point was adverted to on the second reading by the noble Lord near me (Viscount Cranbrook). The measure was not originally a Government measure. Although it is one which has for some time ranked among measures of first importance, and although the tone which the Government have of late assumed with regard to it shows that they deem it one of first importance, still it is a fact that the measure was originally introduced by a private Member in the other House of Parliament. It was adopted by the Government; but I conclude that it was not found, adequate, because it was read a second time under circumstances which I will not say are unprecedented, but which are of very rare occurrence. It was read a second time on an understanding by the Ministry that its being so read should bind the House to nothing but an approbation of its principle. That was remarkable; but when the Bill was in Committee the circumstance was explained by the fact

  57
  that a new measure was substituted for the notice of Parliament, and that was the Bill now before your Lordships, subject afterwards to considerable modifications, made, no doubt, in the other House. That is a state of circumstances which justifies our assuming that the measure has not been prepared with great care by the Government. An illustration of this is afforded by what occurred when the Bill was read a second time in this House. When the Bill was before the House of Commons an important Amendment was proposed by a supporter of Her Majesty's Government, and the Amendment was peremptorily rejected by the Leader of that House. In moving the second reading of the Bill here, however, the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack informed us, almost casually, that the Amendment which had been so rejected was about to be adopted by the Government. I do not object to the Amendment, because I think it a good one; but that, I repeat, is an illustration of the immature manner in which the measure has been prepared. These are circumstances which render it necessary that the Bill should be investigated and scrutinized with great care, if we at all desire to bring about a settlement of a difficult question. Whether the principle of common employment be wise or not it is not necessary to enter into at this moment. That principle has been, to a certain degree, adopted by Her Majesty's Government; and I am willing to accept the general line on which the measure is framed. That is a principle, however, on which it would have been extremely desirable to have had discussion in this House. The result of not discarding the principle of common employment is that you have been compelled to modify it, and the consequence has been that you have had to create a crop of limitations and exceptions. Now, your Lordships must be perfectly well aware that exceptions and limitations are exactly that part of legislation which demand the most careful scrutiny and deepest consideration. You have not rejected the whole principle upon which the custom rested; but you have departed from it to such an extent as necessarily to produce a crop of limitations and exceptions. We have, at the same time, evidence before us that the Bill has not been considered with the care and time which legislation under such circum-
  58
  stances necessarily requires. Allow me for a moment to briefly call attention to the manner in which the late Government proposed to deal with this subject. When we first considered it, we had the advantage of the labours of a Royal Commission, not on the entire question, but an important part of it, and of the labours of a Parliamentary Committee which had considered the main question —namely, the liability of employers. We prepared a Bill founded on the information which the Reports of those bodies afforded us. Very valuable information was contained in the Reports; but on several important points it was imperfect, and on that account we proposed that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. That Committee could have examined experts and given definitions; and, in that way, Parliament would have avoided the danger of applying general principles to different trades of great variety, where the principles applied would, according to circumstances, produce different results, some of which might even be dangerous. Events prevented the Bill of the late Government going before a Select Committee; but I much regret that Her Majesty's present Ministry did not follow the example which we ventured to adopt in referring the matter to a Select Committee. But, as they have not done so, the question naturally arises, how are we to remedy the evil? It appears to me that the best method would be to act on the suggestion embodied in the Amendment of which I have given Notice in Committee—namely, to limit the duration of the Bill—as that would give us an opportunity hereafter of profiting by the experience gained during the interval, and enable us, when the time again arrives, to legislate with more confidence, more information, and more advantage. The suggestion that I am prepared to make is, that if we pass this measure we shall limit its duration to two years. The advantage of doing so will be considerable. Both employers and employed would have experience of its working, and during the two years controverted points would, doubtless, be brought before the Courts. We have precedents for such a course in matters of importance; but I need not now allude to the precedents. These are the chief reasons which have induced me to place my Amendment on the Paper, and I

  59
  regret very much that the Amendment was not circulated sooner. I sent it out early yesterday, and I had reason to believe that it would be in your Lordships' hands this morning.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconcurred in the regret expressed by the noble Earl, that his Notice of Amendment was not circulated sooner, so that their Lordships might have been made aware of the fact that so important an Amendment would be brought under the consideration of the House. He presumed that it had reached him as soon as any other noble Lord, and he did not see it till after he entered the House that evening. Therefore, a great majority of their Lordships must have been entirely ignorant that such a proposition was going to be made. When their Lordships got into Committee, he thought he should be able to suggest reasons by which the House, and he would venture to hope even the noble Earl himself, might be convinced that it would not be expedient to adopt the noble Earl's proposition. It would, of course, be premature to discuss the Amendment before it was moved; but he must at once state that this Bill had not been introduced in the other House by a private Member, but by Her Majesty's Government. The Government thought it convenient to introduce a Bill which, in a former Session, had been brought in by an hon. Gentleman then a private Member, but who was now a Member of the Government, because they thought it embodied the principle which ought to be adopted; but they did so, with full knowledge that it would be necessary to define and guard the application of that principle by detailed provisions, which could only receive a satisfactory form after full discussion and consideration during the passage of the Bill through the other House. The course thus taken was very similar to that which had been adopted by the late Government. In the Bill which the late Government introduced in the House of Commons in 1879, and in their Lordships' House at the beginning of the present year, they merely indicated the lines on which they proposed to proceed, leaving the detailed provisions of the measure to be supplemented and more perfectly formulated in its progress through Parliament. It was true that this year the late Government proposed, in that House, to refer that Bill
  60
  to a Select Committee; but their Lordships' House was not so full as was the House of Commons of Members having practical knowledge and experience in this matter. In the House of Commons there were a very large number of employers of labour in all branches of industry, and there were also Representatives of working men, who knew their views and wishes and wants upon these subjects. The House of Commons, therefore, was specially well qualified to discharge, in a Committee of the Whole House, those duties in reference to the present Bill which the late Government proposed should be discharged by a Select Committee of their Lordships' House. He ventured to say, with confidence, that there had never been a measure with which the House of Commons had taken greater pains, or which had been better considered in all its details, than that now before their Lordships.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, the late circulation of the Amendment of the noble Ear] (the Earl of Beaconsfield) was entirely due to an accident. The noble Earl yesterday gave him the Notice. When he came down to the House to attend a Committee, he handed it to his secretary with instructions that it should at once be given to the Queen's printer. The Queen's printer gave it to his boy to take to the printing office; but the boy put the Notice in his pocket, and forgot all about it. He regretted that the Bill had not been originally introduced in their Lordships' House, where it could have been sent to a Committee.
  LORD VERNONsaid, he must take exception to the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that the House of Lords had not the same amount of practical experience as the House of Commons with which to deal with these questions. He would remind their Lordships that the noble Earl below him (Earl Granville) was one of the largest employers of labour.
  LORD DENMANexpressed a hope that the Bill would be now withdrawn, and re-introduced early next Session, exactly in the form in which it came up from "another place."
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought it very unusual that so important an Amendment as that to be proposed by the noble Earl should be introduced without Notice; but he was bound to say

  61
  that the explanation of his noble Friend (the Earl of Redesdale) was perfectly satisfactory. He was not sure that the boy who had put the Amendment in his pocket, and forgot all about it, was not a very intelligent boy, who had endeavoured to dispose of the proposition in the best possible way. He was at a loss to understand why the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Seeing the elaborate attendance on the Benches opposite, he could not see why two or three days might not have been spent over the second reading of this Bill by their Lordships, and as many over the Committee. He did not think it necessary to dilate upon the merits of the Bill, after the luminous explanation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack; but it was not because he did not thoroughly approve of its principle. He believed, whatever his feelings or prejudice might be as to the arrangement come to, that it was likely to operate fairly as between the employer and employed. So far as regarded the interests represented in that House, he pointed out that he represented mines very largely; and, as they had heard, his noble Friend behind (Lord Brabourne) represented the large railway interest.
  Motion agreed to; House in Committee accordingly.
  Clause 1 (Amendment of law).
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONcomplained that the clause only gave compensation to the workmen, and did not consider the foremen and superintendents in the same employment. He should like to know whether foremen were to be considered workmen; and, in the event of an accident taking place under one foreman, in what position another one would be?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that all railway servants of every class came under the definition of workmen; but, as to other persons, the definition was taken from the Act of 1875—the Employers and Workmen Act. That Act excluded two classes of persons— domestic servants and those in the sea service—and it included all labourers, servants in husbandry, journeymen, artificers, handicraftsmen, miners, and all persons otherwise engaged in manual labour; but not clerks or persons employed in mental work only. He was of
  62
  opinion that foremen and superintendents, if they were engaged at all in the conduct of the practical operations of a business, would be included in the definition under the 1st clause.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONdid not consider the reply satisfactory. There was no reason whatever why the same protection should not be thrown round the foreman and the superintendent as around the private workman.
  EARL GRANVILLEsuggested that the noble Earl should move an Amendment, if he thought it desirable, upon the subject at the proper time. The Government would then consider the point.
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:— In page 1, line 7, after ("defect in") insert ("the condition of"); and after ("machinery") insert ("or").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 9, the omission of the words "stock-in-trade," which, as the Bill stood, were among those things for defects in which the master was to be made liable. It was possible that the term might bring in some things as to which the principle of the Bill would not apply, therefore he proposed its omission.
  Amendment agreed to; words struck out, accordingly.
  LORD BRABOURNE,in moving to leave out sub-section 3 of the clause, which was in these terms—
  "By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer to whose orders or directions the workman at the time of the injury was bound to conform, and did conform, where such injury resulted from his having so conformed,"
  said, their Lordships had listened to him with so much indulgence upon the Motion for the second reading of the Bill that he should be ungrateful if he occupied their time for more than a brief space, and, save as regarded his first and last Amendments, a couple of sentences would explain the rest. He moved to leave out this sub-section, because it extended the liability of the employer far beyond the point contemplated by the Select Committee of the House of Commons of 1877. That Committee based their Report upon this point upon the celebrated judgment in the American Courts, "Boston v. Farwell," which he

  63
  (Lord Brabourne) would ask leave to read to the House. These were the words—
  "When several persons are employed in the conduct of one common enterprise or undertaking, and the safety of each depends much upon the care and skill with which each other shall perform his appropriate duty, each is an observer of the conduct of the other, can give notice of any misconduct, incapacity, or neglect of duty, and leave the service if the common employer will not take such precautions and employ such agents as the safety of the whole party may require. 'By these means the safety of each, will be much more effectually secured than could be done by a resort to the common employer for an indemnity in the case of loss of life by the negligence of each other.'"
  The Select Committee recommended that liability should be extended; and he (Lord Brabourne) had never opposed its extension to cases in which authority had been delegated to superintendents. They added—
  "The fact of such a delegation of authority would have to be established in each case; but this would not be a matter of difficulty."
  Now, he (Lord Brabourne) contended that the sub-section went far beyond the views of the Committee, and would include many persons to whom there was no sufficient delegation of authority. It would, in fact, render the employer liable for the acts of any individual who could give an order in any capacity, down to the very lowest grade of persons in his service, many of whom he had never so much as seen, and some of whom might give orders expressly against his (the employer's) wishes. The late Government had referred their Bill to a Select Committee especially for the purpose of having it defined who those persons were who had sufficient superintending authority to make it fair that their employers should be liable for their acts; but this Bill would include everyone. The worst of it was, too, that whilst it would disturb all industrial employments, it really only touched the fringe of the subject, and dealt with about 3 per cent of the accidents which annually occurred. The vast majority of those accidents either proceeded from unavoidable causes or from contributory negligence on the part of the sufferer, and of those the Bill took no account. They could only be reached by a proper system of insurance. Upon this point the Lord Chancellor had hardly treated him (Lord Brabourne) fairly, when he
  64
  had said that in Germany employers were liable. He had not liked to contradict the noble and learned Lord at the time; but the fact was, that since 1865 the German law had made compulsory, in every mining district of Germany, a system of insurance against accidents, to which both employers and employed were obliged to contribute. Moreover, the noble and learned Lord had much under-estimated the probable or possible expenses to owners and employers of the proposed alteration in the law. Indeed, as far as mines were concerned, he had spoken in a contemptuous manner of the possible loss of ¼d. per ton. He (Lord Brabourne) should like to ask the owners of collieries present how many of them were at this instant making a profit of ¼d. a-ton? Moreover, he well remembered that when the Mines Regulation Bill—a valuable measure, no doubt—was passed, they were told that the cost of it would not be more than 2d. per ton at the outside; whereas it had since been given in sworn evidence, and was now generally admitted, that the additional expense imposed upon mine owners by that Bill caused an increase of 1s. to 2s. per ton in the working of the coal. The expense caused by this sub-section would be great, and the evil would not fall upon the employer alone. Suppose a man having authority over a gang of miners opened his lamp to light his pipe, against his employer's orders and authority, and caused an explosion by which 50 lives were lost. What happened now? It was a melancholy thing, no doubt, and no one grieved more than the employer, who was sure to suffer heavily in the injuries caused to his mine. In all probability, however, he subscribed largely to the widows and orphans, and public charity was never deaf to the appeals made on their behalf. But, if this Bill were passed, the employer might be liable for such a sum by way of compensation as might oblige him to close his works, and then not only 50 families, but 500 would be injured by the cessation of employment. In that, and in many other cases, the employer would not be in fault; he would have prevented the accident if he could, and he ought not to be liable for it. He (Lord Brabourne) had observed a letter from a Mr. Evans in the newspapers that morning, who represented himself as secretary to the Railway Servants Associa-

  65
  tion, and said that the workmen would be much disappointed if their Lordships did not sanction the Bill in the same shape as that in which it left the Commons. He did not wish to say anything disrespectful about Mr. Evans, or the association, of which he really knew nothing. From its very nature, and perhaps from the fear of offending employers, it kept rather out of sight, so that he (Lord Brabourne) could not speak as to its numbers or importance. But there were some400,000 railway employés, and Mr. Evans had no right to speak for more than what was probably a comparatively limited number of these, many of whom certainly repudiated him and his association. He (Lord Brabourne) deprecated the litigation which would be caused by the Bill as it stood, and therefore moved the omission of the sub-section.
  Moved, "In page 1, to leave out subsection (3)."—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that, on every conceivable principle, the persons named in the 3rd sub-section were persons in authority. He wondered how anyone could read it and not see that. The more the whole of the 1st clause was examined, the more it would be seen that this sub-section was necessary to carry out the principle of making the master responsible for the acts of those, and of those only, to whom he, directly or indirectly, delegated authority. The Amendment was opposed to that principle, and was, therefore, inadmissible. There was really no reason why an employer should not be just as liable for an accident caused by a sub-agent as for one caused by an agent. The obligation of the workman to obey the orders given him was in both cases the same.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK,in supporting the Amendment, said, the Bill of the late Government only imposed liability on the acts of persons whose authority was distinctly delegated from the master. In this case it was totally different, and it was proposed to include that "little brief authority" with which anyone might be charged at any particular moment, and not alone a regular delegation of authority, It, therefore, went beyond the recommendation of the Select Committee of the House of Commons. It was for the Court to determine the extent of the authority, and the amount of litiga-
  66
  tion to which it might give rise seemed to condemn it absolutely. They all knew that, in carrying out works, a man, having himself authority, might tell or order any workman to do something; but it did not follow that he had a delegation of that particular authority. For instance, a bricklayer might issue some order to a hodman, the execution of which might lead to an accident; and it would be the unfairest thing in the world to make the builder responsible for it. In fact, it would render an employer liable for the acts of persons who were in no way selected by him. Although the Bill had been carelessly drawn, yet, if the Government had said they would limit its operation in point of time, he would have left the resposibility with them. They had declined, practically, to do that. Such a Bill as that before them would, as he had said, make an employer liable for anybody in his employ exercising a little brief authority, and it was necessary to make a protest in the interest of capital, and, therefore, in the best interest of labour
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not agree with the noble Viscount's (Viscount Cranbrook) reading of the clause. He considered that if they left out the sub-section, they would, in fact, destroy the principle of the Bill. He must remind their Lordships that the principle of the Bill was to extend to employés the same right as others now enjoyed of holding the master liable for the acts of his agents.
  LORD DUNSANYwas of opinion that to adopt the clause as it stood would be to carry the principle to a dangerous extent. Half the work in colleries was performed by boys, and to them all adult workmen were "persons in authority," whose orders boys were bound to obey. Were employers to be liable for such orders given by men to boys?
  EARL FORTESCUEsupported both the Bill and the clause, observing that it was too often taken as a matter of course that accidents were unavoidable. His own opinion was that, after the Bill had passed, there would be greater security against the occurrence of accidents, in proportion to the amount of the responsibility which could, without injustice, be put upon the employers. It had been well observed that it was a great object in legislation to make interest as far as possible coincide with duty.
  LORD NORTONconsidered that the 3rd sub-section of the clause extended the principle of the Bill much too far, and, certainly, much further than originally contemplated. He agreed that employers should be held responsible for the acts of their directly appointed agents; but he could not admit the justice of making them liable for the lâches of those who might be called subordinate agents. The principle of the Bill should be to make the employer liable for any injury occasioned by himself directly or by an agent representing himself, and not an agent appointed by a sub-agent to whom he himself had not given authority.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, some of their Lordships were too much disposed to look at this matter from the point of view of the employer. Now, this was a Bill—and there was no harm in avowing it—introduced with the view of consulting the interests of the workman. What was the difference between an order of the master and an order of a foreman? The Amendment struck at the very principle of the Bill, the object of which was to give compensation to a workman for the injuries caused to him in his employment, and it could make no difference to him whether the injury was caused by an agent of the employer, or by a general superintendent working under him.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, the speech of his noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) had left on his mind a most unsatisfactory impression. He had heard with unfeigned astonishment the statement of his noble Friend that the Bill was introduced in the interest of the workman alone. Was the Bill intended to apply only to one single class in the community? That House never could for a moment agree to such a doctrine as that. As it would give rise to a monstrous injustice, it was their duty to adjust these matters, that justice might be done to both parties. He could understand that a superintendent was, as the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) said the other night, the alter ego of the master; but that could not be said of subordinate agents. In the case which had been put by his noble Friend (Viscount Cranbrook)—that of the bricklayer and the hodman — the hodman surely could not be described as the alter ego of the master, but of the bricklayer
  68
  whom he was supplying with materials. He could not help thinking that it would be a monstrous injustice to hold an employer responsible for the actions of such persons. The speech of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) had qnite convinced him that he ought to vote against the Bill, because he simply put it that every workman was entitled to compensation whenever there was an accident which caused him an injury.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the object of the Bill was simply to put an end to an injustice now existing, and to give the workmen the same compensation which they would be entitled to had they been strangers, but accompanied by all the restrictions the Government thought fair to prevent injustice being done to employers.
  VISCOUNT SHERBROOKEsaid, that the Judges, by introducing the doctrine of common employment, and by carrying it to the extent which they recently had, virtually relieved the head of an establishment from all responsibility whatever. The consequence was that people who had a remedy 40 years ago had none now. The only object of the Bill was to restore that liability on the part of the employer for acts for which he was justly liable. The clause did nothing more than give workmen that which they had previously possessed. He understood the object of the Bill to be not to absolutely undo all that had been done by the Judges with regard to common employment, but to give a workman a right of action if he sustained injury owing to the negligence of any person to whom the employer had delegated his authority. The head of the establishment would not, therefore, be saved from liability because he was not guilty of the negligence himself, and that was a principle which seemed to him to be perfectly intelligible.
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that the subsection had been most carefully prepared, so as to be applicable only to the workman who had conformed to the orders of his superior. The distinction it made was a very important one, and showed how strictly the Bill had been framed with a view of limiting its operations as far as possible. He sincerely trusted that their Lordships would agree to it, because, if it were rejected, it would greatly interfere with the principle of the Bill. While sub-section 2

  69
  was very general, the 3rd sub-section was limited in its application. It only applied to the case of a workman who was injured in carrying out the order of his superior, that superior being one who was authorized to give the order to which he had conformed.
  LORD PENZANCEsaid, that the Amendment, if carried, would destroy one beneficial effect of the Bill. The principle it embodied was that of delegation, and the employer would only be responsible under the sub-section if the workman received injury through obeying the order of the person to whom the employer had delegated his authority. He trusted, therefore, the Amendment would not be adopted.
  THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBERLANDbelieved that to make the employer liable for the acts of those who were very little above the workmen themselves, and perhaps not more skilled than they were, would have a very injurious effect upon men of small capital.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was evident that that portion of the clause was considered to more or less involve the whole principle of the Bill; and, as he did not speak on the second reading, he might be allowed to explain his views now. He approached the subject entirely unprepossessed on one side or another, and he confessed that he had been sorry to hear it suggested that the object of the Government was to promote the interests of one class more than those of another. ["Hear, hear!"] Why, the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) distinctly admitted that he moved the Amendment in the interests of capital, adding that those interests involved the interests of labour. In that general principle, of course, all their Lordships agreed. He thought that the observations of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kim-berley) had been entirely misunderstood. He (the Duke of Argyll) looked upon the Bill as a Bill in the interests of justice—simply justice. It was impossible, after listening to the luminous speech of his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor, not to feel that judicial decisions, setting up a doctrine of a most unjust character, had obstructed workmen in seeking compensation for injuries sustained in the course of their employment, and that obstruction it was the whole object of the Bill to remove in
  70
  certain well-defined cases. In the exercise of their discretion, the Courts had pursued to its logical conclusion some general and abstract rule, totally forgetful of other principles which ought to have been considered in each particular ease; and the result had been one which might be fairly described as absurd. The object of the Bill was to remove this doctrine of common employment in all cases in which accidents occurred in carrying out the orders of the employer. Having read the words of the clause, he asked whether anyone could say it was a just thing to forbid a man having a claim to compensation under the conditions laid down, by setting up the doctrine of common employment? Was it reasonable to interpose the doctrine where life was lost in circumstances such as those in which a boy was killed by an explosion of firedamp through a man erecting a bit of scaffolding which interfered with the ventilation, or miners were killed through the fall of a roof, the pillars of which they had been ordered to remove? In such cases the effect of the Bill would be simply to remove the application of the doctrine, and to give access to a Judge and a jury. It would be unjust to maintain the law in its present state; and he should deeply regret it, if the House should practically go against the principle of the Bill by throwing out this sub-section, when their Lordships had not divided on the second reading. It was said that their Lordships were the special Representatives of the interests of capital as against those of labour; but he denied that imputation. In the long controversies which arose on the question of factory legislation, there was far more obstruction in the House of Commons than in the House of Lords to legislation which was designed to save the working classes from the terrible consequences that unlimited competition had entailed upon them. He was sure that his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury), if he were present, would give his testimony in favour of the view he had expressed as to the general tendency of their Lordships' action in these matters, and that their Lordships had always been disposed to receive legislation of that description favourably. He believed that they would look at the present Bill with a desire to do justice, and that they would not sanction the omission of the

  71
  sub-section under discussion, forty doing so, he believed they would be doing a most unjust thing to the working classes.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORwas surprised to hear that a Vote which would really defeat the whole Bill was now proposed to be given, on the ground that the Government had refused to entertain the Amendment of the noble Earl the Leader of the Opposition (the Earl of Beaconsfield) for limiting the operation of the Bill to two years. What he (the Lord Chancellor) had said was, that when they came to it in Committee he hoped to be able to state reasons why that Amendment should not be adopted. It was an unusual and extraordinary thing, because such an answer had been given, and before the reasons for not acceding to such a proposition had been stated, to vote for another and a different Amendment which was really directed against the principle of the Bill. If he should not satisfy the Committee when the noble Earl's Amendment came to be discussed, the same majority, which seemed likely to support the Amendment now before the Committee, could doubtless carry the noble Earl's Amendment, whether the Government agreed to it or not.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he must again repeat that this was a measure in the interests of workmen, regarding whose welfare, it appeared that his noble Friend (Lord Brabourne) cared very little, if anything at all, so long as Railway Directors were safe.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he should have wished to have had the point more thoroughly examined by the Committee. The principle of common employment was invented by ingenious lawyers, and their Lordships must take care that they were not led to the other extreme by the arguments of other ingenious lawyers. At first, his opinion was against the sub-section; but, after the discussion, he was not prepared to vote against it. Having heard the arguments, he did not think it would be wise to throw out a sub-section the rejection of which would be interpreted as going directly against the principle of the Bill.
  On Question, "That the sub-section stand part of the clause?"
  Their Lordships divided: —Contents 49; Not-Contents 75: Majority 26.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (Z. Chancellor.)

  Carrington, L.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Churchill, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Emly, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-mare.)

  Derby, E.

  Leigh, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Granville, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Jersey, E.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Morley, E.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Nelson, E.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Penzance, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Robartes, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  London, L. Bp.

  Somerton, L. (E. Nor-manton.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Belper, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Blachford, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Sudeley, L.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Vernon, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Carew, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Beaufort, D.

  Combermere, V.

  Leeds, D.

  Cranbrook, V.

  Northumberland, D.

  Hardinge, V.

  Richmond, D.

  Hawarden, V.

  Wellington, D.

  Hereford, V.

  Melville, V.

  Abergavenny, M.

  Alington, L.

  Bute, M.

  Amherst, L.(V.Sohnes-dale.)

  Exeter, M.

  Ashford, L. (V.Bury.)

  Amherst, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Bagot, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Bateman, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Beaumont, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Borthwick, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Brabourne, L [Teller.]

  Coventry, E.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Durham, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont.)

  Ferrers, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Feversham, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Forester, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Gerard, L.

  Mount Cashell, E.

  Lamington, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Powis, E.

  Redesdale, E.

  Norton, L.

  Stradbroke, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Raglan, L.

  73

  Rowton, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Wimborne, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Teynham, L.

  Zouche of Haryng-worth, L.

  Trevor, L.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

  Sub-section struck out accordingly.
  LORD BRABOURNErose for the purpose of moving the omission of subsection 5, when—
  THE EARL OF DURHAMsaid, he had an Amendment to put before that of the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne), which was, to insert, in page 1, line 25, the word "public" before "railway." He feared that the provisions of the Bill would apply to tramways where only waggons were used.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the sub-section related only to railways on which there were signals, points, locomotive engines, and trains, and he did not see why it should not apply to such railways, whether they were public or private.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, he could not agree with the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD BRABOURNEmoved the omission of Sub-section 5—
  "By reason of the negligence of any person in the service of the employer who has the charge or control of any signal, points, locomotive engine, or train upon a railway."
  He begged to point out that the subsection was a sample of special or class legislation. No persons could be more emphatically engaged "in a common employment" than those enumerated, no one of whom could perform his duties without the co-operation of the others. But the liability imposed under this sub-section would be most unfair. Take an instance. A driver of an engine in a shunting-yard might tell his fireman to jump down and hold a pair of points; the fireman might take the wrong points, and the driver run off the rails and be killed. He had no remedy against the fireman; but if he killed the fireman or a third person, the Company would be liable through him, or, at all events, there would be litigation. The noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) had accused him (Lord Brabourne) of
  74
  being careless as to the workmen in whose interests the said Bill was introduced. Nothing that he (Lord Brabourne) had ever said, either in or out of that House, justified such a groundless statement. What he desired was to see it recognized that the workmen and their employers had a common interest, and those who talked of the interests of one as if they were opposed to the interests of the other, committed a grievous error, and were doing an incalculable amount of mischief to both. He moved the omission of the subsection.
  Moved, "In page 1, to leave out Subsection 5."—(The Lord Brabourne.)
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, he could not support the Amendment. The sub-section was clearly necessary, and to strike it out would be a direct negation of the principle of the Bill. In all the cases enumerated there was a distinct delegation of authority.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was glad to hear the remark which had just fallen from the noble Earl, which was perfectly correct.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that, under the circumstances, he would not put their Lordships to the trouble of dividing.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  LORD BRABOURNEmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 27, after ("workman"), to define the "legal personal representatives" of the workman, who were to have a right to compensation, by adding the words "as specified in the Act 9 and 10 Vic. c. 93"(Lord Campbell's Act).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) had misunderstood the effect of the clause, and he could not accept the Amendment.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Exceptions to amendment of law).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 11, after ("machinery") insert ("or"); and leave out ("or stock in trade.")
  LORD NORTONmoved, as an Amendment,
  In page 2, line 12, after ("condition") insert ("and unless the employer had not used reasonable care and caution in the selection and appointment of such person, or had not used reasonable care and vigilance in supervising him").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment as simply nullifying the whole effect of the Bill, and bringing back the present state of the law. The noble Lord opposite (LordNorton) should first have proposed to strike out Subsection 1 of Clause 1, as what he now proposed to do was covered by that subsection.
  Amendment negatived.
  LORD DUNSANYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 23, after ("knew") to insert the words ("or had reasonable means of knowing").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORopposed the Amendment.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Limits of sum recoverable as compensation).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYmoved, as an Amendment, in page 2, line 31, to leave out from ("exceed") to the end of the clause, and insert ("a maximum sum of one hundred and fifty pounds").
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought that the Amendment would be unfair both to the workman who earned more than £50 a-year, and to the employer, who would have to give an excessive compensation to workmen earning lower wages. The maximum prescribed in the Bill fairly represented the amount of the annual average wages of workmen of all classes during a period of three years; calculations had shown that that average amount, in the case of mines, would be £150. It was clear, therefore, that the hard-and-fast line proposed, while it would be unjust to those whose wages exceeded the average, would tend to suggest to juries a figure which would be above the mark in a large majority of cases.
  LORD DUNSANYdid not quite understand on what principle the noble and learned Lord had opposed the limitation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained, that if a particular maximum sum were fixed in the Act, juries would be likely, in most cases, to take that sum as the proper measure of damages. The practical effect would be to give £150 in almost all cases. Such a limitation would be too favourable to those who had suffered a less loss, and would unduly cut down the compensation which ought to be paid to those who suffered a greater. The principle of Lord Campbell's Act was that the jury should assess the damages on their own valuation of the loss sustained; and the principle of this clause, as it stood, was to fix a variable limit to that power, according to the rate of wages which the particular workman might have been receiving.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was informed by an Indian official that the widows of those killed in the Indian Civil Service received each a pension of £300 per annum.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKwas afraid the Indian official who gave his Lordship that information knew nothing whatever about it.
  LORD DUNSANYsaid, as a case in point, that the amount of compensation to be paid to the widow of a passenger killed while travelling in one of the workmen's trains was limited to £100.
  LORD BRABOURNEhoped the Amendment would be withdrawn, as there was some considerable difference of opinion upon the subject, the stating of a maximum sum in an Act of Parliament having a tendency to insure the granting of that sum in cases in which a smaller sum would otherwise been given. On the whole, it would, perhaps, be better to leave this clause as it had come from the other House.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Limit of time for recovery of compensation).
  On the Motion of The LORD CHANCELLOR, the following Amendment made: — In page 2, line 40, leave out ("six") and insert ("twelve").
  LORD DUNSANYinquired, whether six weeks was not too long a time to give a man to ascertain that he had received an injury, and if 12 months was not too long a time to allow his representatives to ascertain he was dead?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORconsidered six weeks a very short time to give a man, not, indeed, to ascertain whether he had received an injury, hut to make his claim for compensation on account of the injury which he had received. The 12 months' limitation referred to the time within which; in case of death, an action might be brought.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5 (Money payable under penalty to be deducted from compensation under Act).
  Clause 6 (Trial of actions).
  LORD NORTON,in moving, as an Amendment, in page 3, line 23, insert as new sub-section—
  "(1a.) At any time during the pendency of such action the Court may order the plaintiff to give such security as it may deem fit for the payment of the costs of such action, should any payment of costs he ordered;"
  said, his object was to put a check upon vexatious and unfounded actions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdeclined to accept the Amendment, as he was sure the noble Lord must see that it would be unjust to saddle working men with conditions of that kind, to which no other classes of litigants were subject.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 7 (Mode of serving notice of injury) agreed to.
  LORD BRABOURNEmoved, in page 4, after Clause 7, insert as a new Clause—
  "It shall he lawful for any employer and workman or workmen to mutually contract for the insurance of such workman or workmen against personal or bodily injury, and for such employer to deduct the proportion of premium payable by such workman or workmen in respect of such insurance from his or their wages; and it shall be lawful for such employer and workman or workmen to mutually agree upon the amount of compensation to be paid to such workman or workmen for such personal or bodily injury, or to his or their legal representatives, should the injury result in death, and in such case no claim shall be made under the provisions of this Act by or on behalf of such legal representatives."
  The noble Lord said, that insurance was, in his (Lord Brabourne's) opinion, the true solution of this question of accidents. All accidents could be reached
  78
  by a good system of insurance, whereas the Bill only reached a very small proportion, and imperilled discipline and good feeling in order to do so. The insurance system had been slowly but surely making its way, and it would be a most unhappy result if the Bill encouraged men to neglect the self-reliant and provident habits inculcated by provident insurance institutions, and rely upon compensation to be obtained under it by litigation. The mining interest showed in a marked manner the progress of the insurance system. In 1869 there were 12,000 members of the mining insurance societies. In 1879, out of 524,000 men employed in mines, no less than 117,000 were members of such institutions, the revenue was considerable, and, in cases of disablement, from 5s. to 8s. per week was paid to the sufferers; 5s. to widows, and a substantial amount to the family in case of death. He (Lord Brabourne) had already stated that the German Government had made that system compulsory. That he did not ask; but he did hope that Government would not discourage the system. He would ask the noble and learned Lord to answer his question on a previous night, as to the power to contract out of the liability created by the Bill, and he earnestly commended the clause relating to insurance to the favourable consideration of the House.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the clause related to two perfectly independent subjects, one of which was insurance. If it stopped there no such clause was necessary, as it would be open to the parties after the Bill passed, as freely as it was now, to make any arrangement they pleased with regard to that matter. He saw no reason why the existing system of insurance should not continue, inasmuch as workmen were liable to many accidents for which masters could not be held responsible, and for which, of course, they would still have to provide on their own account. The other subject of the Amendment was the limitation of the workman's right to compensation by express contract, as to which a question had been put to him by the noble Lord. His answer to that question was that there was nothing in the Bill which would interfere with any workman entering into a contract to take any personal risk, or to fix a compensation to be paid to him for any particular

  79
  kind of injury, short of death, which he might sustain. It was the unanimous opinion of the Committee of the House of Commons, presided over by his noble Friend (Viscount Sherbrooke), that, looking to the strength of the workmen's combinations, it would be better to leave the utmost freedom of contract to the parties; and, therefore, he thought that the provisions of the Bill, as far as freedom of contract was concerned, ought to be left as they were by the House. The existing law provided that, in case of death from injury, the compensation paid went to the widow and children of the man killed, and not in increase of his personal property. He was not aware that it had ever been determined that a man could, by a contract in his lifetime, bind his widow and children when they claimed, not through or under him, but under the provisions made directly in their favour by Lord Campbell's Act; and he thought it at least doubtful whether he could do so. The same rule would, he presumed, apply in the construction of this Act. The Government could not accept the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsupported the proposal to establish insurance funds, on the ground that such a system would impress the workmen with the consideration that they had an equal interest with their employers in preventing the occurrence of accidents. Beyond that, the principle was perfectly consistent with recent legislation, and he therefore trusted the Government would hold out some hope of dealing with it. This was a matter of great importance; and if a clause could be drafted which would meet the views of the noble and learned Lord, it would remove many of the apprehensions and objections felt by the employers with regard to the Bill. Several of the great Railway Companies, and in particular the Great Western and the London and North Western, now subscribed to such funds, and he should be sorry to see any plan adopted which might have a tendency to stop the flow of such liberality, seeing that the scheme had been successful in its working. He much feared that the effect of the Bill would be to check the operation of that valuable principle, by withholding from those funds, or diverting into other channels, large sums of money at present contributed to them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORcould not hold out any hope that the Government would consider this subject in connection with this Bill.
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that, after the debate which had taken place, it was evident that their Lordships would not be inclined to adopt the clause in its present form. He would be glad if the Government could frame a clause embodying the principle of insurance; but he was so far satisfied in having elicited from the noble and learned Lord the important declaration that there would be a power between masters and workmen to contract.
  Clause (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause 8 (Definitions).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved, in consequence of the carrying of the Amendment of the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne) early in the evening, to omit the definition of "a person who has superintendence entrusted to him," the definition being—
  "A person whose sole or principal duty is that of superintendent, and who is not ordinarily engaged in manual labour."
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, the Amendment was so very important that he would be glad if the noble and learned Lord would defer it until the Report.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the request of the noble Viscount a very reasonable one. It was the intention of the Government to ask that the Report might be taken to-morrow.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  LORD DUNSANYmoved an Amendment, to enable a number of actions arising from the same occurrence to be consolidated.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORthought the noble Lord could not have read the Bill, the 6th clause of which gave power to make rules for the
  "Purpose of consolidating any actions under this Act in a County Court, and otherwise preventing multiplicity of such actions."
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 9 (Commencement of Act), agreed to.
  Clause 10 (Short title).
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDmoved an Amendment at the end of the clause, providing that the Bill should continue in operation until the 1st of January, 1882, unless Parliament should otherwise determine.
  Moved, in page 4, line 44, add,
  ("And shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine."—(The Earl of Beaconsfield.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexpressed his conviction that it would not be expedient to adopt the Amendment. Their Lordships were legislating on a subject of great and general importance, and they had arrived at a considerable amount of agreement as to the principle and the provisions of the Bill. He did not believe that anyone seriously thought this legislation ought to be, or could be, of a temporary character. If the measure were passed, it would, like other measures, be subject to amendment, if experience should show amendment to be necessary; but no useful purpose would be attained by making it temporary. To make it temporary would be the same thing as to suggest that it was no settlement, and to to encourage an agitation for further changes which could hardly be in the interest of the employers of labour, for whom the noble Lords opposite seemed to have so much regard. Even if the principle of limitation were agreed to, two years would be an absolutely insufficient time to test the efficacy of the Bill. He did not expect that many questions of law would arise under the measure; but if any did arise, the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) must be sanguine indeed if he imagined that those points would be settled before the lapse of two years. The Amendment was also delusive, because, in another portion of the Bill, the parties were given 12 months to decide whether they should bring an action or not; so that if an accident happened on the 31st of December, 1881, and the parties took a year to decide whether an action should be brought or not, the Act would have lapsed, and their remedy would be gone. The reasons given in favour of the Amendment satisfied him that it ought not to be accepted. He knew that he
  82
  was in the presence of a majority which could carry it; but it would be a satisfaction to him if he could convince that majority.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, he was sorry to say that the reasons of the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) for opposing the Amendment had not satisfied him. The Party to which he belonged had accepted the Government Bill with doubt and hesitation, and, considering the character of the measure, he could not agree to the proposal that it should be a permanent measure. They desired a long and careful consideration, not only of the principle, but of the details, in order to enable them to arrive at an accurate conclusion as to the probable effect of such legislation. Although the measure came before them at such an advanced period of the Session, they thought it better that it should be carried on the responsibility of the Government. The objections of the noble and learned Lord to the Amendment would apply to any length of time which might be named. It would be easy to prove that any action commenced within the two years should not be affected by the termination of the measure. Suppose the postponed Amendment of the Government were adopted on the Report, and they omitted the definition of the words "person who has superintendence entrusted to him," questions would arise as to what was the meaning of the phrase; and it might be as advantageous to the workmen as to the employers that the question should be brought to the test in a Court of Law, and that they should have some instruction as to what was the meaning of the Act. Many questions would naturally come up in the course of two years, and it must prove of great advantage to have their attention called to what was going on during that period, and to the manner in which the Act as a temporary measure was working.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it might be supposed, from the argument of the noble Viscount (Viscount Cranbrook), that the experiment under this Bill could be conducted as if it were carried on in a philosophic manner by a chemist in a laboratory, and that while the Act was being put in operation, everybody was to look on quietly. That was a great mistake. The noble Viscount talked about the matter in that fashion, and yet he knew that the working classes were now

  83
  organized in a very formidable manner upon all questions affecting their interests. They had pronounced a strong opinion on the doctrine of common employment. Their opinion was that nothing could be more unjust than the whole of the Judge-made doctrines which had been laid down, and that the principle of common employment ought to be altogether abolished. Beyond that, a Bill was brought into the House of Commons by one of their own Representatives, providing for the entire abolition of the doctrine of common employment, and there were many men who were of opinion that it ought to be abolished altogether. It had been stated by his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor that the doctrine was hardly known in other countries. He asked their Lordships, considering all the circumstances of the case, whether it would be a wise or safe experiment that, after they had arrived at something like an understanding upon the important question of common employment, to throw the question open to fresh agitation at the end of two years? It would be a subject of vehement agitation amongst the organizations of the working men, which was not a desirable state of things. He denied that the Amendment would be in the interests of the employed, and he was sure it could not be adopted in the interests of the employer. After what had been said as to the abolition of the doctrine of common employment, altogether they had a measure in regard to which there was a real hope that it would effect a lasting settlement of the question. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Amendment, which he inferred was to be taken as a substitute for the Amendment which the Government had proposed to make, but which, at the suggestion of the noble Viscount, they had postponed to the next stage of the Bill. It was a very unwise proposition, and would have serious results if adopted; therefore, he should ask the House to vote against it.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELDsaid, the remarks of the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) and other noble Lords, were really in favour of the Amendment. The assumption of the noble Duke was that they were passing a measure which would satisfy neither the working classes, nor those who employed them. That being the case, it was extremely desirable
  84
  that both classes should have another opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. If the legislation, upon the whole, as seemed to be the case, did not satisfy either employer or employed, there could be no doubt as to the desirability of an Amendment like this, and the chances were that in a country like England, there would be much discussion upon the point; but "agitation," the term used by the noble Duke, was an exaggerated term to apply to what would be fair and reasonable discussion. If neither class saw in this measure the attainment of their views, it was clear that the passing of it for two years, by affording an opportunity for the consideration of the question, would not foment or cause agitation, but would prevent agitation. There were no reasons, therefore, in the view which the noble Duke took, that would justify the conclusion at which he arrived. The subject was one that very few were masters of; they all wanted information on many points. Phrases required to be defined, and they wanted to avoid the great injury that might follow from the application of general principles and mere theories to industry; and it was only by experience they could obtain the requisite knowledge. By fixing a certain period they would gain the advantage which must accrue from questions of this kind being brought into the Courts of Law, and the language of the Act receiving authoritative interpretation. He was persuaded himself that the Amendment proposed would operate beneficially, and that, instead of an irritating, it would have a soothing effect upon those classes most interested in the question. The noble Duke had talked of their discussing the question as if they were engaged in some philosophical laboratory, and he took no account of the passions and prejudices of their fellow-subjects. The Ballot Act furnished a precedent for the course proposed in this Amendment; and that was a question in which the country took a great interest, and the Party opposite, who introduced that measure represented that it was absolutely necessary, from the strong feeling in favour of it, that the settlement of the question should be final. When the Ballot Act was made a temporary measure, did it provoke those fierce assemblages of passion which the noble Duke imagined was to be the consequence of the Amendment now

  85
  proposed? On the contrary, the wisdom of the limitation had been acknowledged. There were many Liberals who, formerly in favour of the Ballot, were now opposed to it; while, on the other hand, many Conservatives now viewed it in a much more favourable light than they did at the time the Act was passed. What more reasonable than that the country should have the opportunity of revising their legislation with additional experience? The precedent of the Ballot ought to guide them to the acceptance of his Amendment.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the arguments used by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield) in favour of the Amendment would apply to almost any Bill on which a difference of opinion existed, or which affected different classes of persons in the country. It might be said that all such Bills should be tried for two years before they were made permanent measures. Unfounded assertions had been made as to the Bill having been insufficiently considered; but he thought this Amendment could not have been sufficiently considered by those who proposed it. The noble Lord had compared this Bill with the Ballot Bill; but the Bills were perfectly different. He did not think the Ballot Bill was the most brilliant instance of the necessity of having these Continuance Bills from year to year. The noble Lord seemed to think lightly of this Bill being a settlement, and said it was unpopular among workmen and unpopular among employers. It would be a happy medium which would be accepted by both parties, and the chance of its being so accepted depended very much upon its being of a permanent character. But if the question was to be re-opened in a year or two, both parties in the meantime would be trying to strengthen their position with a view to a change. Her Majesty's Government were not in favour of compulsory insurance; but there was a general opinion in favour of voluntary insurance being tried. Now, he could not conceive anything more inconvenient than to have this a temporary measure, the effect of which would be to render all attempts to enter into such arrangements completely futile. The noble Earl seemed to think that this Bill would, if enacted, become one of the laws of the Medes and the Persians. Nothing
  86
  of the kind. If it were passed it would be simply like other measures; and if it did not work satisfactorily, and was found to possess grave defects, nothing could be easier than to follow the usual Parliamentary course, and bring in a Bill to amend it. He hoped that their Lordships would not agree to what he could not help considering the crude suggestion of the noble Earl.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided: —Contents 72; Not-Contents 40: Majority 32.

  CONTENTS.

  Beanfort, D.

  Amherst,L. (V. Holmesdale.)

  Leeds, D.

  Northumberland, D.

  Arundell of Wardour, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Wellington, D.

  Aveland, L.

  Bagot, L. [Teller.]

  Abergavenny, M.

  Borthwick, L.

  Exeter, H.

  Braybrooke, L.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Amherst, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Byron, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Bradford, E.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Carnarvon, E.

  Dunsany, L.

  Coventry, E.

  Forbes, L.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queens-berry.)

  Forester, L.

  Gerard, L.

  Lamington, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Lovel and Holland, L. (E. Egmont.)

  Gainsborough, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Harewood, E.

  Norton, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Mansfield, E.

  Manvers, E.

  Raglan, L.

  Mount Cashell, E.

  Rayleigh, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Rowton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Powis, E.

  Strathnairn, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Templemore, L.

  Strange, E. (D. Athol.)

  Teynham, L.

  Tankerville, E.

  Trevor, L.

  Verulam, E.

  Tyrone, L. (M. Water-ford.)

  Cranbrook, V.

  Walsingham, L.

  Hawarden, V. [Teller.]

  Wimborne, L.

  Hereford, V.

  Windsor, L.

  Melville, V.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Alington, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Derby, E.

  Fortescue, E.

  Granville, E.

  Somerset, D.

  Ilchester, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Clarendon, E.

  Spencer, E.

  87

  Sydney, E.

  Methuen, L.

  Monck, L. (V. Monck.)

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Belper, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Blachford, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.) [Teller.]

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Calthorpe, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Carrington, L.

  Chesham, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Emly, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Ken-mare.)

  Vernon, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Preamble read, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 204.)
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.