Sitting of 30 August 1880

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES—Class III.— LAW AND JUSTICE, Vote 33; Class V.— COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES, Vote 3; CIVIL SERVICES—REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, Votes 1 to 5; NAVY ESTIMATES, Votes 15 to 19.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—Consolidated Fund, £13,614,207.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading —Mulkear Drainage District [319]; Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) [219], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended —Third Reading—Registration of Voters (Ireland) [150]; Irish (Relief of Distress) Loans Amendment*[317], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  IRELAND—RELIEF OF DISTRESS-RELIEF WORK IN TYRAWLEY.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, What was the amount of money for relief works presented for at the baronial sessions held in the baronies of Gallon, Carra, and Tyrawley respec-
  638
  tively, at the sessions held in those baronies last month; if he could state how much of the said amount has been sanctioned for each barony; and, whether, should the works not be proceeded with immediately, he is in a position to state that the Board of Works will sanction them as soon as the work of the harvest is over?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The amount presented and voted at the baronial sessions in the three baronies named by the hon. Member was £12,600 odd. That expenditure was not authorized by the Board of Works and the Local Government Board, as they did not think it desirable to interfere with the harvest. Whether those authorities will sanction them afterwards must depend on the state of employment at the time.

  NAVY—ARTILLERY—MEN-OF-WARS' BOATS.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether experiments which have lately been carried on at Portsmouth show that boats supplied to men-of-war are not capable of standing the concussion caused by the firing of very heavy guns; and what do the Admiralty propose to do in the matter?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I suppose the hon. and gallant Member refers to the recent trial of the heavy guns of the Neptune. It was thought probable that the concussion of the guns would injure the boats of this vessel, and a trial was made on this point with an old boat. It was found that when placed within a certain distance of the line of fire of the guns considerable damage was done to the boat, but that it was quite possible to place it a position where no damage could result, and orders have been given accordingly with reference to the boats of this vessel.

  FISH MARKETS (METROPOLIS)— CONDEMNED FISH.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that during the month of July last the Fishmongers' Company ordered the destruction of more than ninety tons of fish as being unfit for human food; that this loss was mainly due to the utter inadequacy of the fish market accommodation in London; whether he is aware that such

  639
  inadequacy arises from the fact that no new market can be established within seven miles of the City of London without the consent of the Corporation of London, and that the Corporation claim to prevent, and have repeatedly prevented, such establishment; and, whether, having regard to the fact that this claim is founded upon charters granted at a time when the limits of the Metropolis were coterminous with the City, the Government are prepared to advise the cancellation of such charters and to support any measure introduced by the Metropolitan Board of Works, or other responsible authority or persons, for the establishment in London of markets for the people?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL: Of the condemned fish mentioned by the hon. Member, 75 tons came by land carriage, which fish is much more liable to be spoiled than that brought by sea. The remaining 18 tons were brought to market by water carriage, and of this quantity 12 tons were taken from a vessel which had lost her ice. It is stated that the bad condition of the fish was in no way due to the inadequacy of accommodation in Billingsgate Market —which, I am informed by the Corporation of the City of London, would suffice for double the quantity of fish now coming into London for wholesale purposes—but simply to the heat of the weather and to the large catch of fish which occurs in the month of July, and which, not finding a ready market, soon becomes stale and unfit for food. On the other hand, it appears to me to be quite possible that greater facilities of market might enable a greater sale, and an earlier and readier distribution of the fish. Increased quantities of fish are now being brought to Billingsgate by sea, and a large class of specially-built steam vessels has been, and is in the course of being, constructed for the purposes of this trade. As regards the chartered rights of the Corporation, which have been, in certain respects, expressly confirmed by the Metropolitan Market Act, 1857, the Corporation maintain that they have not been exercised prejudicially to the inhabitants of the Metropolis; and they deny that they desire to prevent the establishment of new markets when really required. The Secretary of State will, of course, be glad to consider well-founded representations
  640
  on the subject. The question will certainly arise when the Bill of the hon. Member himself, which has been before the House this Session, comes to be seriously discussed.

  THE NEW MINT—PURCHASE OF SITE.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasurer, whether, having regard to the fact that in 1871 this House declined to sanction the purchase of a site for the Mint on the Thames Embankment at an estimated cost of £80,000, the Government still propose to facilitate the passing of the City Lands (Thames Embankment) Bill, the chief object of which is to acquire a site in the same place for £254,475; and, whether, having regard to the fact that when the present negotiations for purchase were initiated a pledge was given to the House that no binding step in such purchase should be taken without an opportunity being afforded for the fullest Parliamentary discussion, Her Majesty's Government can afford such opportunity at this period of the Session?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: In reply to the Question of my hon. Friend, I have to state, as I have already done, that the Government felt' itself bound by the acts of its Predecessors to facilitate, as far as possible, the passing of the City Lands Bill, as it was upon their suggestion that the value of the proposed site for a new Mint upon the Thames Embankment, along with that of the old Bankruptcy Court in Basing-hall Street, was submitted to arbitration. The Bill simply authorizes the sale and acquisition of the site, and in no way commits Parliament to its purchase. It would, of course, be impossible at the end of the Session to afford a proper opportunity for the full discussion which should take place before Parliament sanctions the purchase of the proposed site; and therefore, as I stated on a previous occasion, the Government at once determined not to ask during the present Session for a Vote of the sum that would be required to effect the purchase. I see, however, that the Bill appears on the list of Public Bills this morning as having been dropped; and although I am informed that it is intended to place it upon the Paper again, I can conceive of no useful purpose that would be answered by doing so now.

  THE NATIONAL DEBT— RETURN. 4TH APRIL, 1879 — VALUATION OF TERMINABLE ANNUITIES.
  MR. BRADLAUGHasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he would explain why, in the Annual National Debt Return made pursuant to the order of this House, dated 4th April, 1879, the valuation of terminable annuities differs from that given in the Finance Accounts; and if he could further explain why the £2,000,000 lent to India without interest is deducted as a good asset from the National Debt, when, in point of fact, it has been stated by the Secretary of State for India that there is a great deficit in Indian Finance, and consequently little hope of repayment of that £2,000,000?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The National Debt Return, dated April 4, 1879, was moved for by a private Member, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Mr. J. G. Hubbard), and he desired the valuation of the Terminable Annuities to be made open the assumption that interest is at the rate of 3 per cent. The Finance Accounts give the valuation adopted by the Government, which assumes 3¼ as the rate of interest. That is the cause of difference between the two accounts. Private Members obtain Returns framed in accordance with their own views; and I am afraid that these Returns will frequently be found in apparent conflict with the former Official Returns, for which the Government is responsible. As regards the second part of the Question, the law as it now stands makes India responsible for the £2,000,000 loan, and it must therefore appear as an asset, until the Government shall have made a proposal affecting it. The account is the account of the National Debt as it stood on the 31st of March last, when there was no intention, expressed or implied, of remitting the debt.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION IN IRELAND.
  MR. LITTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will give directions to the Board of Intermediate Education (Ireland), to take steps to enable them to make a Return in their annual Report (1), specifying the names of the managers or head masters of each School;
  642
  the number of pupils who presented themselves for examination from each School in the several grades; distinguishing those over age, those under 15 years of age, and those under 14 years of age; and (2), Particulars of the several Schools inspected, so as to secure accuracy of returns as regards attendance, and a due observance of the Conscience Clause?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am afraid I cannot give a definite Answer to my hon. Friend. I find there are objections made by the Board to the Returns, which would be of no real advantage to the schools which would be put in competion with one another. If the hon. Member asks the Question early next Session I may be able to give him a more satisfactory Answer.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE MURDER OF MESSRS. CADENHEAD AND CARTER.
  EARL PERCYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any, and if any, what steps had been taken to inquire into the circumstances attending the murder in South Africa of Messrs. Cadenhead and Carter, while travelling under the protection of letters addressed to all persons of influence in the region traversed by them both from the Sultan of Zanzibar and from H.M. Consul, Dr. Kirk?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Messrs. Cadenhead and Carter were employed by the Belgian International Association; but Dr. Kirk, Her Majesty's Agent and Consul General at Zanzibar, was instructed by the Foreign Office to render all assistance in his power to the expeditions sent out by the Society, and he has done so; but he was not able to insure protection or safety to these gentlemen or to any other British subjects travelling among the savage tribes in the interior of Africa. Dr. Kirk has reported by telegraph that the Sultan of Zanzibar has sent a force to the scene of the murder, under the command of Lieutenant Mathews, E.N., an officer who has been allowed to take temporary service with His Highness. Dr. Kirk will, without doubt, endeavour to obtain the fullest information respecting the unfortunate occurrence; but, as far as it is known, the territory where the murder took place is not under the authority of the Sultan of Zanzibar.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS—REFRESHMENTS FOR STRANGERS.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether during the Recess he will make arrangements to provide a refreshment bar for visitors to the Speaker's Gallery and other strangers, so as to reserve the present one for the use of Members only?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,in reply, said, the First Commissioner of Works, would, in the Recess, consider that matter.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANhoped that during the Recess the arrangements for providing refreshments for the Ladies' Gallery would also be improved.

  IRELAND—LOANS TO HARBOUR BOARDS.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If he is prepared to grant loans to all harbour boards situated in scheduled districts in Ireland at 4 per cent, and on the same terms as he has granted loans to the harbour authorities at Galway and elsewhere?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: With respect to the hon. Member's Question, I have to state that the loans for Galway and Sligo Harbours referred to in it were loans made on exceptional terms, on account of their being partly in the nature of relief work, provided for giving employment to the poor in the distressed districts. The conditions under which those loans were made could not apply in other districts; and I cannot hold out any hope of loans for the purposes named on exceptional terms. Any application for loans for such a purpose will be considered on its merits.

  INDIA—DESPATCHES AND PAPERS.
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for India, If the Despatch to India, dated the 18th of October 1878, can now be produced with the Despatches and Papers connected therewith?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, the Returns called for by the Despatch of the 18th of October 1878, were not yet completed. There had been great delay in their transmission from India. The attention of the Government had been again drawn to
  644
  the subject on the 2nd of July. The Returns, he was informed, had proved extremely troublesome to prepare.

  PARTY PROCESSIONS—HOME RULE RIOTS IN GLASGOW.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention had been called to the disturbances created by persons, alleged to be Orangemen, at a public meeting of Irish citizens of Glasgow held on the 14th instant; whether it is correct that the persons who created the disturbance were arrested at the same time as some of those who in self-defence protected themselves; whether the magistrates convicted the persons who had been attacked on the 16th; whether the same magistrates released and discharged the persons who created the disturbance, and against whom the police gave evidence showing them to have created and begun the disturbance; whether the magistrates refused to send the cases before the sheriff; whether the magistrates proceeded under the Prevention of Crimes Act; whether such Act applies to such cases; whether the convicted men are men of good and orderly lives; whether he will undertake to have the cases reconsidered; and, whether he will reverse or modify or otherwise revise the sentences of long imprisonment passed on these persons?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: This transaction is one of the numerous examples of the mischievous effects of these foolish Party processions; but in reference to the Questions of the hon. Member I think, so far as I can see, my answer to all must be in the negative. The best thing I can do is to read an extract from a communication I have received in reference to this from the Procurator Fiscal in Glasgow. He says—
  "It appears that Saturday the 14th August was the day appointed for the annual demonstration of the Home Rulers which had previously been advertized. A procession started from Glasgow Green, all wearing green ribands and green sashes; and after marching through the streets, preceded by several brass and flute bands, arrived at Maryhill, a northern suburb of Glasgow. In the course of the march an Orange flag was displayed by some person in the street. It was an Orange neighbourhood, and the appearance of the flag had the effect of throwing the procession into a state of great excitement, At that time it appears a pane

  645
  of glass was broken by a man in the street; but whether by a processionist or an outsider was not known. The Superintendent of Police directed this man's apprehension, on which the processionists proceeded to his rescue, and with flag-poles, staves, and sticks, assaulted the police, and endeavoured to prevent them doing their duty. A reserve force of police on duty in an adjoining station, on seeing the disburbance, came to the assistance of the first body. The assault on the police increased with the augmented numbers, and for 10 or 12 minutes there was a very serious disturbance. The' police officers were very severely handled, but they succeeded in making 20 arrests. While the prisoners were in the hands of the police there was a disposition to effect a rescue on the part of the processionists. The officer on duty, therefore, directed that they should be taken to the station by a quiet route. The processionists followed for some distance, but afterwards marched back to Glasgow Green, where they separated, apparently with the intention of dispersing. While on the Green, however, a disturbance, the origin of which is unknown, arose among a smaller body of processionists. The police interfered to quiet the commotion, and were again assaulted by processionists or persons wearing party badges, and by persons not so dressed. Half-a-dozen persons were arrested there for assaults on the police, and one person was arrested for assaulting two civilians. At this place several constables had their heads cut and their helmets smashed in. They were disabled for duty. The place where the assault was committed formed a part of the Central district of the Glasgow police. All the persons apprehended by the police were brought to trial, and disposed of by the magistrates. There is no foundation whatever for the suggestion that the magistrates refused to send the cases before the Sheriff. On the contrary, the police proposed that the cases should be disposed of by the Sheriff, and the information was sent to his office for the purpose. The charges, however, were laid for mobbing and rioting; but as their was no evidence of combination or of action for a common purpose, the Sheriff to whom the cases were submitted was of opinion that it would be more expedient that they should be dealt with summarily in the Police Court. The arrests were made without reference to distinctions of class. With regard to the character of the men, I have to state that none of them are known to the police with the exception of one, who will be tried for an assault to the danger of life. I may state, however, that I am informed by the Superintendent of Police, who saw the disturbance in the northern district, that many of the processionists on their return were inflamed by drink and by the speeches which had been delivered at Maryhill."
  That is all I know of the matter. If it is correct, the arrest of these people was not on account of an attack by other persons outside the procession, but on account of an attack by people in the procession itself on the police. I do not think, therefore, that it is a case in which I can interfere.
  MR. BIGGAR: From the conflicting nature of the reports with regard to this procession, I wish to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman whether or not he will cause an independent inquiry to be made into this transaction; because, as a matter of fact, my information is thoroughly opposite to that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: If the hon. Member lays before me any reason for thinking that the information of the Procurator Fiscal is unfounded, of course it will by my duty to make further inquiry; but without that I cannot accede to it.

  THE PRISONS ACT, 1877—PENSIONS TO OFFICERS.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether it be the fact that the Treasury intend to alter the practice hitherto pursued of granting pensions to officers transferred by "The Prisons Act, 1877," from the local prison service, to that practised under "The Superannuation Act, 1854;" and, is the change one which can be reconciled with. "The Prisons Act, 1877," sec. 36, which secures to existing officers their offices by the same tenure and upon the same terms and conditions as if the Act had not passed?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The practice with regard to pensions of prison officers before the passing of the Act of 1877 was guided by Section 15 of the Act of 1865, which provides that the Justices may grant to an officer, "having regard to his length of service," an annuity "not exceeding two-thirds of his salary." As this provision leaves the amount which may be granted to the discretion of the prison authorities, it was thought desirable, in order to prevent future misunderstanding, to lay down at once a definite rule for calculating pensions in future. With regard, therefore, to pensions, or portions of pensions, payable in respect of services before the passing of the Prisons Act of 1877, which are chargeable on local funds, the Treasury has addressed a Circular to the local authorities with a view to ascertain what amount they will be prepared to pay in each case. With regard to pensions, or portions of pensions, payable in respect to

  647
  services after the passing of the Prisons Act which are chargeable on Imperial funds, the Treasury will calculate them on the same terms as the pensions of the rest of the Civil Service—namely, l–60th of salary and emoluments for every year of service, under the Superannuation Act of 1859. In the event of the local authorities declining to settle the amount payable by themselves, the Treasury will assess that portion of the pensions also on the same terms as those of the rest of the Civil Service. My hon. and learned Friend will see, therefore, that there will be no alteration of the terms and conditions of the tenure of their offices by prison officers in respect to pensions.

  IRELAND—THE DUNMANWAY LAND LEAGUE—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.
  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 Dunman way 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: Sir, having made inquiries with regard to this matter, I am informed the police were not stationed at the door. The constable in charge of Dunman way was for a short time standing about 30 or 40 yards distant from the door. I am not aware that the police had any orders to take down the names of the persons attending the meeting; but individual policemen are at liberty to take private notes at meetings for their own information, if they think fit to do so.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BELFAST WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether or not his attention has been called to certain reports in the Belfast newspapers in which are stated that the master of the Belfast Workhouse has been found guilty of about 130 serious
  648
  offences, under the Poor Law Regulations, within the last four years; whether he has been found guilty of receiving goods from contractors which were inferior to sample; whether or not he has been unable to account for the disappearance of 468¼ yards of linen from the workhouse; what steps, if any, the Local Government Board took, after an inquiry on oath, as to the missing goods; if it be true that the master orders and receives goods frequently without the knowledge or authority of the guardians; if it be true that leaves were torn from certain books of the union and destroyed respecting the missing linen; if it be true that the guardians of the Belfast Union have suspended the said master from duty three times, and is at present under suspension, on the grounds of incompetence and general misconduct, and that the Local Government Board have failed to confirm either of the suspensions; and, if it be compatible with efficient workhouse management for the Local Government Board to retain this gentleman in office in the face of the said several averments?
  MR. W. E. FOESTER,in reply, said, the conduct of the master of the Belfast Workhouse had for some time been under consideration, and was the subject of correspondence between the Local Government Board and the Board of Guardians as to his continuance in office. The result of the consideration of the Local Government Board would be communicated to the Board of Guardians at the next meeting, which would take place, he believed, this week. Under the circumstances, the hon. Member would see it would not be right for him to anticipate that decision.

  AFGHANISTAN (MILITARY OPERATIONS) — ADVANCE OF GENERAL BURROWS—LATEST TELEGRAMS.
  SIR H. DEUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to a letter published in the "Times" of August 28th, from Major Leach, V.C., an officer on General Burrows's Staff, dated Khushk-i-Nakhud, July 18th, in which appeared the following passages:—
  "You will have seen by the telegrams that our expedition to Girishk has ended so far in a

  649
  way which my previous letters may have led you to a certain extent to anticipate—an action with the mutinous troops of our ally and nominee, Shere Ali, the Wali of Candahar.
  "On the 5th, as Ayoob Khan's advance from Herat had passed beyond the phase of 'idle rumour,' and was beginning to cause a stir among the numerous malcontents at Candahar, a brigade under General Burrows* * * moved on Girishk. Our instructions were to support the Wali's troops should Ayoob Khan attempt to force them, to prevent his crossing the Helmand; and, lastly, to confine our operations strictly to the defensive, and on no account to cross the river. These instructions assumed that the Helmand at Girishk was ford-able at one or two points only; that the Wali's troops could be relied upon to give us timely information of any such crossing being contemplated; and that supplies would be plentiful.
  "As I have hinted in previous letters, the supposition as to the Wali's troops was, under any circumstances, a sanguine one, as sinister reports as to their disaffected state had been only too prevalent for some weeks past.* * * To prevent a crossing it was necessary that we should be able to patrol efficiently a considerable distance both above and below our point of observation at Girishk and be independent for information of our 'friend' the Wali. For supplies we had to depend entirely upon his cooperation.
  "Our force was strong enough, assuming that all went well, but weak for vigorous and energetic action, and sadly crippled by the large quantity of baggage, animals, and followers,"
  and, whether any explanation has been received from the Viceroy, and can be laid upon the Table, of the reasons which induced the Government of India to order the advance of General Burrows in co-operation with allies known to be of doubtful fidelity, and to leave Candahar with an inadequate garrison at a time when the nearest reinforcements could not be brought up without a month's previous preparation; or, if no such explanation is now in the hands of the Government, whether the India Office will instruct the Viceroy to furnish it by telegraph before the discussion of the Appropriation Bill?
  MR. PUGHinquired whether the information from which the order for the advance of General Burrows's force was given by the Commander-in-Chief, was of such a full and trustworthy character respecting the force of Ayoob Khan, the disaffection of the Wali's troops, and the supplies available, as it should have been; and, if not, who was responsible, and whether the necessary inquiries would be made?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The hon. Gentleman, the Member for
  650
  Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), has already asked this Question in a great variety of forms, with an evident desire of placing the responsibility of the disaster in connection with Ayoob Khan on the Government of India. I am only able to repeat the substance of the Answers which I have already given on previous occasions. The advance of General Burrows was ordered by the Government of India after consultation with Sir Donald Stewart, and with the advice of the Commander-in-Chief. I am not at present, but I expect that I shall shortly be, in possession of the reasons which induced the Government of India to think that the course which they took was, under the circumstances, the most advisable. I do not see that the view which is taken by the hon. Member is in any way strengthened by the long extract which he has quoted from the letter of Major Leach; and I do not think it is possible to form an accurate opinion as to how far the responsibility is to be divided between the Government of India and those who were in command on the spot until we receive much fuller information than we have at present in our possession. I am quite willing to admit that part of the responsibility does fall on the Government of India; but I must again remind the House that Lord Ripon is not responsible for the amount of the force which was left at Candahar; and it was an important question for consideration in what way the force could best be employed in view of the advance of Ayoob Khan. No doubt it is open to the hon. Member, as to any other Member, to criticize what has been done after the event; but I may ask the House what would have been the opinion in this country and in India if the considerable force which was left at Candahar had remained inactive, while Ayoob Khan's force overran the country, or made a flank march, as appears to have been expected, for the purpose of making an attack on Khelat-i-Ghilzai. With respect to the mutiny among the Wali's troops, some despatches, though not full despatches, were received by the last mail, and I have given directions that all the information relating to this subject shall be immediately laid on the Table. With reference to the Question of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), I have already stated that the amount of Ayoob Khan's force was ap-

  651
  proximately telegraphed from Teheran by Mr. Thompson; but, as appears from the accounts we have received, the political officers with Generals Primrose and Burrows were very imperfectly informed with regard to the particulars to which the Question relates. No doubt inquiry will be made as soon as possible as to whom the real responsibility rests upon. While on this subject, the House would, perhaps, like to hear a telegram which was received late last night from General Roberts. It is as follows:—
  "Khelat-i-Ghilzai, Aug. 23.—The force under my command arrived here this morning. Authorities at Candahar having stated on the 17th inst. that they have abundant supplies, and can make forage last until September I, I halt tomorrow to rest troops, and more especially the transport animals and camp followers. The force left Ghazni on the 16th, and has marched 136 miles during the last eight days. The troops are in good health and spirits. From this, purpose moving by regular stages, so that the men may arrive fresh at Candahar. I hope to be in heliographic communication with Candahar from Robat, distant 20 miles, on the 29th. I am taking the Khelat-i-Ghilzai garrison with me, making the fort over to Mahomed Sadik Khan, a Toki chief, who had charge of the place when we arrived in 1879. The present Governor, Sirdar Shernidil Khan, refuses to remain. Wo have met with no opposition during the march, and have been able to make satisfactory arrangements for supplies, especially forage, which at this season is plentiful. The cavalry horses and artillery mules are in excellent order. Our casualties to date are—one soldier, 72nd Highlanders, one Sepoy, 23rd Pioneers, one 2nd Sikhs, two Sepoys 3rd Sikhs, dead. One Sepoy 4th Goorkhas, two Sepoys 24th Punjab Native Infanty, duffadar 3rd Punjab Cavalry, missing; six camp followers dead, five missing. The missing men have, I fear, been murdered. I telegraphed from Ghazni on the 13th, and from Oba-Karez on the 18th of August."
  A telegram has also been received to-day from the Viceroy, which repeats the above message word for word, but omits the last short sentence "I telegraphed," &c. It adds that the message came vid Chaman.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLLFintimated that in consequence of the unsatisfactory Answer he had received from the noble Lord with regard to the events which had occurred in India two months ago he would call attention to the affairs of India upon one of the stages of the Appropriation Bill.

  BRAZIL.—BRITISH CLAIMS.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs,
  652
  If he is yet able to make any satisfactory statement as to the settlement of British Claims on Brazil?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As has been stated, in answer to previous Questions in the House, there are counter-claims brought by Brazil against Great Britain, and the claims and counterclaims have to be treated in connection with each other. The Brazilian Government is investigating the Brazilian counter claims, and Her Majesty's Government have recently received information that the investigation is progressing. Some delay has been caused by the pressure of other business in the Brazilian Legislature; but Her Majesty's Government hope soon to learn the result.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY.—CONSTABULARY OF COUNTY DOWN.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the constabulary of the County Down have been ordered for a fortnight's drill; that such is of a purely military character; at whose cost is the travel and transport from one part of the county to another; and, whether the Government intend to put a stop to the military organization of the Irish Constabulary?
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers the Question, I would like to ask him if the Constabulary are not reviewed in the Fifteen Acres in Phoenix Park far oftener than the military—namely, once a week?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I really cannot answer either of these Questions. As regards the last, I have no doubt it is the case; but if the hon. Member will put his Question on the Paper, so as to give me an opportunity of making inquiries, I shall be able to answer him more precisely. As to the first Question, I heard it for the first time by the Notice of the hon. Member, and have had no Report on the subject.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING—RULE OF THE ROAD AT SEA —COLLISION BETWEEN THE"CITY OF MECCA"AND THE"INSULANO."
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If any reply has come yet from the Portuguese Government to the representations made by Her Majesty's Go-

  653
  vernment on the subject of the violation of the International Sailing Code, by the Lisbon Courts in the collision case, "City of Mecca" and "Insulano;" and if Her Majesty's Government are prepared to insist on the matter being submitted to International Arbitration, or what other steps they propose to take in order to remedy the injustice?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Portuguese Government have as yet returned no reply to the representations of Her Majesty's Government upon this subject. They have, however, been pressed for an answer; but until it has been received, and has been duly considered, Her Majesty's Government will not be in a position to state what further steps they will take in the matter.

  CHARITABLE LOTTERIES.
  MR. ANDERSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that the Treasury or the Home Office have interfered to put down a chapel lottery, under the guise of an art union at Dowlais; and, that being so, if he will similarly interfere to put down similar lotteries connected with religious and other institutions in Ireland, where they have prevailed far more extensively than in Wales?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I would ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question in the absence of the Attorney General.

  ARMY—COURTS MARTIAL.
  MR. CALLANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in accordance with the statements made by his Predecessor in office, and in view of the expense and inconvenience of the prolonged inquiry into "The Wimbledon Marking Scandal," he purposes taking the necessary steps to re-cast or modify the course of procedure in Courts Martial?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Member I have to state that alterations in the procedure of Courts Martial have been recommended by a Committee, and are now under consideration.

  RAILWAYS (IRELAND)—THROUGH FARES.
  MR. DILLONasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is within
  654
  the knowledge of that department that through rates and fares between stations on the Southern Railway, and the Great Southern and Western Railway, were in force during the recent Show at the Royal Agricultural Show at Clonmel, and that these through rates and fares have been summarily stopped by the Great Southern and Western Company, thereby practically closing the Southern Railway for traffic purposes, and throwing a large charge on the baronies of Slievardagh and Middlethird, in the County of Tipperary, who have guaranteed a rate of interest amounting to about five per cent. on £62,900 of Baronial Guaranteed Shares of the Southern Railway Company; and, whether the Board of Trade propose to take any steps to compel the Great Southern and Western Railway Company to give through rates, fares, and facilities to the Southern Railway Company, in accordance with the ordinary practice of all Railway Companies?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, he was not aware of the relations between these Companies; but, if either of them had any cause of complaint, such as was alleged in the Question, the best course would be for them to apply to the Railway Commissioners, who had jurisdiction in the matter.

  THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— THE REGULATIONS.
  MR. CALLANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he will have any objection to place upon the Table of the House Copy of the Rules and Regulations of the Royal Irish Constabulary, a copy of which is supplied to every County Sub-Inspector of Royal Irish Constabulary?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I believe a similar Question has been often asked in former years, and the Answer has been that the book, which contains detailed directions with regard to the duties of the police, is of such a technical and confidential nature that it renders its publication objectionable—in fact, would render the discharge of their duty at times more difficult.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS —THE COMMISSIONS.
  MR. STAVELEY HILLbegged to ask the Attorney General a Question, of

  655
  which he had given private Notice, Whether he could give the House to-day the names of the Commisioners whom it is proposed to nominate on Wednesday next for the Commissions to inquire into corrupt practices at the places to which Commissioners would issue, as it would be satisfactory that the names should be known before the discussion came on?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said that eight Commissions would be appointed, and that their names would be mentioned in the Motion brought before the House. He proposed to move for the Commissions on Wednesday next. The names of the towns and the Commissioners would be as follows:—1. Gloucester.—John Bridge Aspinall, Q.C; William Robert McConnell, Francis William Raikes. 2. Canterbury.—Arthur Charles, Q.C.; Albert Venn Dicey, Robert Samuel Wright. 3. Chester.—Arthur Hammond Collins, Q.C.; Alfred Tristram Lawrence, Frank Lockwood. 4. Macclesfield. — Charles George Merewether, Q.C.; John Shortt, Albert Childers Meysey-Thompson. 5. Knaresborough. — Charles Marshall Griffith, Q.C.; Henry Mason Bompas, Q.C.; Charles Crompton. 6. Boston.— James William Bowen, Q.C.; Richard Henn Collins, William Alexander Lindsay. 7. Oxford.—Lewis William Cave, Q.C.; Hugh Cowie, Edward Ridley. 8. Sandwich.—William Haworth Holl, Q.C.; Richard Edward Turner, Erancis Henry Jeune.

  AFGHANISTAN—MILITARY STORES.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he will furnish the House with a complete Return of all guns, rifles, ammunition, and military stores of all descriptions, which have been handed over to the Ameer of Afghanistan, or left behind by Sir Donald Stewart in his withdrawal from that country?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: As regards guns, the following are the figures given in the Viceroy's telegram of the 22nd inst.:—Four 18-pounder smooth bore iron guns; two 8-inch howitzers; 12 9-pounder breech-loaders; 22 7-pounder and 4-pound mountain guns, Afghan make. As to stores, we have no information.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. BOURKEinquired, Whether the Government proposed to make any statement with respect to Foreign Affairs before the end of the Session; and, also, whether they would give any information with respect to the proposed Naval Demonstration in the Adriatic? If it were inconvenient for him to answer now, he would give Notice for tomorrow.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE,in reply, said, his noble Friend Earl Granville intended to make a statement in "another place," in continuance of his previous statement on the subject.
  MR. BOURKEsaid, what he meant to ask was, whether any statement would be made in this House? He knew that hon. Members on both sides of the House were very anxious that such a statement should be made. It would be more convenient probably for hon. Members to wait until they heard what the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs said before they determined as to what course they would take in this House.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, his hon. Friend the Under Secretary would be fully prepared to make the same statement, if desired, in this House as was to be made by the noble Lord in "another place."
  MR. CALLANasked, whether an opportunity would be given for discussing the statement?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONreplied that favourable opportunities would, no doubt, arise on the stages of the Appropriation Bill.
  MR. COURTNEYasked how it was proposed to distribute the Business tomorrow? It was understood that the discussion on South African affairs would be then taken, and he wished to know how the Morning Sitting would affect that understanding?
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEasked on what day the Report of the Burials Bill would be taken, supposing the South African discussion should make it impossible to take it to-morrow?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONtrusted that it might be possible that evening to get through not only the Irish Constabulary Vote, but the remainder of Supply; and if they were

  657
  successful in this, they should take the Report of Supply to-morrow at 2 o'clock. He hoped that the discussion of the policy of the Government in reference to the Transvaal and the subject of Sir Bartle Frere's supersession would both come on at this stage of the Public Business. If the discussion should be concluded at the Morning Sitting—as he hoped it might be—the Report on the Burials Bill would be taken at 9 o'clock. If they found themselves unable to carry out this arrangement, the Report on the Burials Bill would be taken at the earliest possible opportunity.
  In reply to Captain PRICE,
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that he should be inclined to bring forward the Navy Estimates at any hour that night, so as to have the Report to-morrow.

  THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE—THE ORGANIC STATUTE.
  In reply to Mr. MONK,
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Organic Statute relating to the Ottoman Empire had been received, together with a despatch from Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice. This despatch would be at once laid upon the Table; but the presentation of the Statute would be delayed until the Government should be in possession of all the Protocols, as it would be well to append the Statute to the documents.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL.
  In reply to Mr. CALLAN,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that this Bill would be forwarded by the Government whenever a fitting opportunity should present itself.

  CORRUPT PRACTICES AT ELECTIONS—ISSUE OF COMMISSIONS.
  In reply to Mr. WILLIS,
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that the Attorney General would move on Wednesday for power to issue Commissions to inquire into the prevalence of corrupt practices in those places where the Judges had reported that they were prevalent.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  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. PARNELLsaid, that he found that their position with reference to these Constabulary Votes had been somewhat misunderstood, and he wished to recall to the recollection of the Committee the statement which he made at the conclusion of Business, when Progress was about to be reported upon this Vote on Friday morning last. The statement was this, that he had found the almost unanimous opinion amongst Irish Members to be that the Constabulary Estimates were of such a character that no undertaking or understanding could be entered into with regard to them. They also felt that the result of resuming the discussion on Friday evening would not be satisfactory for their purposes. At the same time, he felt no moral doubt that if Progress was then reported, and the discussion resumed at the commencement of the Monday Sitting, that that would be deemed a sufficient discussion. He would draw the attention of the Committee to this statement, for he had seen it extensively stated in the newspapers that they had entered into an engagement to close the discussion that night. That was the thing they had always avoided doing. They found that they could not do it, for they felt that it would be adopting the principles of the cloture with regard to Irish discussions, and there was no precedent for such a course. He wished, however, to state his belief that the discussion that evening would be sufficient to enable them to come to a division upon the Estimates. He wished also further to say that subsequently to a speech which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland delivered on Tuesday, the Irish Members aban-

  659
  doned their intention to use the Forms of the House to oppose the Vote. Up to that time, he admitted, that they all considered, in view of the entire absence of any statement of the right hon. Gentleman to the effect that justice would be accompanied by mercy, or that if Parliament were called together to renew the Coercion Act, that it would also be called together to prevent the injustice to Irish tenants—he felt it would be their duty to use all the Forms of the House against the Vote; but after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland on Tuesday last, they considered that two nights' discussion would be sufficient for the purpose of putting the ground of their? opposition to these Estimates before the English public. Perhaps he might also refer to the criticism upon their opposition which was made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). He seemed to think that they would have been justified in doing what they did on Thursday night, or rather on Friday morning, and if they had determined to use all the Forms of the House against these Votes for the purpose of entirely opposing them; but that they were doing an exceedingly disgraceful thing in using the rights of the minority for the purpose of only obtaining another day's discussion. He would remind the hon. Member for Northampton that this was a question upon which the Irish Members were responsible to their constituents alone for their actions. When they did come to a determination to take a certain course with reference to these Votes, he considered, and his hon. Friends with whom he acted thought, that they should do all they could to secure that action being successful. They desired a second night's debate upon those Constabulary Estimates; and they had, therefore, gained the object for which they initiated the struggle of Friday morning. Now, what he wished to do was to make certain suggestions or propositions to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with reference to the administration of the law in Ireland during the ensuing autumn and winter, and particularly with reference to the use he might have to make of the police force in that country. No one could deny that the right hon. Gentleman stood in a most unparalleled position with reference to this Vote, and to the pros-
  660
  pects before him in the coming winter. He had said publicly, on his authority as a responsible Minister of the Crown-— responsible for the good order and government of Ireland—that the late Bill for Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) was necessary in order to prevent the Government from being under the necessity of using the powers of the police for the purpose of assisting landlords to work injustice. He qualified that statement by a further one, that a very small minority of the Irish landlords had committed injustice, or were likely to commit injustice; but, at the same time, the fact remained that the right hon. Gentleman was now asking them for a sum of money which he anticipated he would be obliged to use for the purpose of working injustice to some, at all events, of the tenants in Ireland, and for the purpose of defeating the object of the Legislature as defined by the Land Act of 1870. He had further given them on Tuesday last to understand that, if he found that the landlords compelled the Government, to any great extent, to use the law for the purpose of working injustice, and if he found that he could not enforce the law by the ordinary means at the disposal of the Government, he would apply to Parliament for fresh power, and ask Parliament to pass a Bill which would obviate the necessity the Government were under of working injustice. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman how he proposed to undertake to inquire into these matters, and what practical steps he proposed to take' in order to obtain the information which would be necessary to ascertain whether the landlords were likely to commit injustice? Perhaps he was also entitled to ask him upon what principles he would proceed in making those inquiries? Would he consider that a landlord was inflicting injustice upon a tenant if the tenant was in a state of starvation, and was turned out upon the road without any shelter or means of support? Would the right hon. Gentleman consider that a landlord was working injustice if he found that a tenant had been paying a manifestly high rent for many years, and that the attempt to pay this high rent for many years had left the tenant in such a position that it would be absolutely impossible for him to pay the rent in the current season and leave

  661
  enough for him to support himself during the rest of the year? Of course, the right hon. Gentleman could only give them a general assurance; but it was obvious that it would be necessary for him to adopt some practical machinery; and he thought the Irish Members were entitled to have the views of the right hon. Gentleman, in respect to these matters, fully stated. He would also ask him whether he would undertake to inquire, so far as he could, into the merits of the cases of eviction where he was asked for police assistance to enforce the process of the law, previously to affording such assistance? It was obvious to everybody that such an inquiry by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would be a very material caution to the bad landlords, as it would show them that their proceedings were being watched by the responsible authority; and that, if the responsible authority, on the one hand, was obliged to assist them in evicting their tenants unjustly, yet, on the other hand, the occurrence of that injustice was known to the right hon. Gentleman, and formed one of the grounds which would induce him to apply to Parliament for a Bill to protect the tenants from that injustice. The knowledge that that was likely to occur would have a very important effect upon public opinion among the landlord class in Ireland. If the Irish landlords once knew that acts of injustice inflicted by the minority amongst themselves were likely to lead to fresh legislation—were likely to lead immediately to fresh legislation, giving the tenantry of Ireland further protection against acts of injustice — he felt convinced that the public opinion of the landlord class would set itself in motion with a view of preventing those acts of injustice, and preventing the minority, whether large or small, from so using the law as to compel the Government to put a stop to their actions. He would ask the right hon. Gentleman, also, whether he would consent to lay upon the Table of the House a Return showing the number of such cases where, in his opinion, after making such inquiry, the enforcement of the law had been attended by practical injustice to tenants, and further showing the circumstances upon which such opinion was formed, and also giving the names of the landlord and tenant in each case. Further, he would ask him
  662
  whether he would agree—and he looked upon this as a most important point— whether he would agree largely to limit the practice of charging the cost of extra police upon particular districts or baronies? With the permission of the Committee, he would beg leave to be allowed to say a few words with regard to this matter upon which the Government had informed the House, in reply to his question, that they had power. He was informed, upon good legal authority, that there was considerable doubt whether the Government had power to charge the cost of the extra police drafted into a district on the report of apprehended disturbances, or apprehended riots, or past disturbances, or crimes—there was doubt whether power existed in the Government, under the 4 & 5 Vict., to levy the cost of such extra police upon the districts or baronies into which they might be sent. He hoped that before the conclusion of these debates to hear from the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland some explanation as to the method of procedure by which the extra cost of such police was now levied upon the ratepayers. Under the system in force up to the expiration of the Peace Preservation Act, the cost of the extra police was levied in a particular way, and it was possible for the ratepayers, upon whom the charges were levied, to traverse them, and to take the opinion of the Courts as to their legality. But he was informed that there existed no such mode of testing the legality of the charges under the present system. He believed that Grand Juries, or other bodies by whom the rates were levied, might levy a rate for the cost of such extra police, and that the ratepayers were absolutely unable, and had no power whatever, to take the opinion of any of the Courts in the Kingdom as to the legality of the charge; in other words, the rates were levied and were collectable by the whole force of the police, and yet the people who had to pay them had no possibility of obtaining the opinion of the Courts upon the legality of such levy. The way in which those rates were levied would scarcely be believed with reference to any part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland in the 19th century. A police officer was sent down, and placed himself, with his iron hut,

  663
  upon a vacant piece of ground, and levied the rate for the maintenance of himself and his men upon the inhabitants of the district or barony in which he might be. He thought that when they were asked for money, for the purpose of inflicting upon the people of Ireland further hardships, he was entitled to have some assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they would use this power with the greatest possible circumspection, and that they would largely diminish the number of cases in which this tax was to be charged upon the unfortunate people in the starving districts. In reply to a Question put earlier in the Session to the right hon. Gentleman, asking him whether the police tax had not been levied upon certain Crown lands or districts, and whether three-fourths of the people were not upon the Relief List, the right hon. Gentleman said that that was the case, and that that was one of the reasons which induced the Government not to renew the Peace Preservation Act. But it now turned out that the Government had precisely the same view in respect of levying the cost of extra police under the 4 & 5 Vict., as they had under the Peace Preservation Act, although the rate was to be levied for purposes not contemplated when that Statute was passed. The purpose of the Statute of the 4 & 5 Vict, was plain to anyone who read it; it was for the purpose of enabling the Government to charge the cost of extra police upon certain districts, when it was found necessary to remove a portion of the force from one county to another. The Government now turned round and claimed the credit, on the one hand, for not renewing the Peace Preservation Act, and, on the other, declared that they had precisely the same power for levying this rate under the 4 & 5 Vict. Speaking from his own experience, he should say that this tax was one of the most odious that had ever been collected—he would go further, and say that it was one of the least possible utility. It might be said that the tax would be inflicted because it was found that outrages had been committed, and that great difficulty existed in the districts amongst the people to give evidence and facilities for the purpose of obtaining the conviction of the offenders who had committed such outrages. He would ask Her Ma-
  664
  jesty's Government whether they intended to levy this tax from motives of revenge, or from a desire to alter the existing state of things? If they proposed to do so from a desire to alter this state of things and to change this disposition, which, he admitted, did exist amongst the people in the districts of Ireland where agrarian outrages were committed, and where there was a desire to shield a criminal from justice—if they acted in this way for the purpose of changing the feelings of the people, he might take it for the moment that if they were likely to succeed by this course of action, then they would be justified in pursuing it. But what had been their experience in reference to the infliction of these Acts upon the people in districts where crime was committed? Had it ever brought about a more favourable state of feeling amongst the people? Had they found that the districts, where the criminals were sheltered before, had changed their opinion, and become desirous of delivering up the criminals? Had they not rather found that many men who abhorred outrage and murder, when they found that those who were innocent were made to suffer for the guilty, had become exasperated with the Government—which was so far unable to govern the country except upon the most rudimentary principles'—as to confirm them in their desire to shelter the criminals? This blood tax, for it was nothing else, was really one of the relics of barbarism in Ireland. It had not produced the effect it was intended to produce, and it did not make it more easy to discover the criminal; on the contrary, the feeling produced was only one of exasperation and disaffection against the Government in Ireland. He would ask, in view of these circumstances, whether Her Majesty's Government could not give the Committee some assurance that whatever might be the powers they possessed, they would be used with the greatest possible discrimination and discretion, and that they would largely limit the number of cases, in which districts were taxed under the old system for the support of extra police force? For his part, he would say that if the Government showed that they were going to administer those excessive powers which they possessed in Ireland, but which they had not in England, moderately

  665
  and justly, he should he very glad to use any influence he might possess with the people of those districts, both publicly and privately, to prevent the commission of outrages and murders. He had always felt himself that agitation in Ireland was a most unpleasant course for them to adopt. He had always regretted that circumstances should be such that, when their times and seasons of distress occurred, they should be accompanied by attempts on the part of ignorant persons to revenge themselves upon those whom they supposed had brought about that distress, by inflicting pain upon animals. But he considered that the existence of such outrages in Ireland had been much exaggerated. They must recollect that in Ireland, in the old times, the people had, from time to time, endeavoured to resist the oppression to which they were subjected by maiming the cattle, simply because they had no other way in which they could make their wrongs known. But now public meetings and other constitutional means of expressing an opinion were open to them, and they had not the same reason for maiming cattle in the manner described or for committing other outrages. He believed that during the last century the practice of maiming cattle had enormously diminished. The facilities which were now afforded to the people to meet together in public and to express their grievances constitutionally and publicly, and the power of combination which had been taught to them, had been largely instrumental in reducing the number of outrages both upon cattle and upon individuals; for, practically speaking, there had been but very few outrages upon individuals. He had no reason to suppose but that these outrages would still further diminish, and would eventually disappear altogether. The tenantry of Ireland were able to win this battle without inflicting injury upon animals or upon their landlords, and he was convinced that they would win in the long run. He would further ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the event of his finding it unnecessary to call Parliament together for the purpose of obtaining further powers for protecting life and property in Ireland—if that on the other hand the landlords were, to any material extent, making use of their powers so as to force the Govern-
  666
  ment to support them in their acts of injustice, he would summon Parliament for the purpose of passing a Bill which would relieve the Government from the necessity of being obliged to support injustice? The way in which the right hon. Gentleman put the matter on Tuesday was scarcely fortunate. He told them, as he had previously done, that if he found the ordinary law insufficient to enable the Government to protect life and property, he would call Parliament together to obtain additional power; and, he added, that in the event of his finding that the landlords of Ireland were, to a great extent, compelling the Government to assist them in working injustice, he would also bring forward a Bill for the purpose of preventing the occurrence of such injustice, that was to say, some kind of Land Bill. He would put it to the right hon. Gentleman that the effect of that declaration was to tell the Irish tenantry that unless they committed outrage and murder, and rendered it impossible for him to administer the ordinary law of the land, he would not bring in a Land Bill for their benefit, notwithstanding that the Government might find that any minority of the landlords of Ireland were using their powers unjustly. If he put it in this way, he would announce to all whom it might concern that, whether he was able to govern Ireland by the ordinary method of the Constitution or not, and if he found that the landlords of Ireland were, to any extent, compelling the Government during the coming autumn or winter to enforce the law in such a way as to work injustice, he would call Parliament together for the purpose of passing a Land Bill, he would free himself very much from the imputations cast upon him, as he thought very rightly, by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) and the, other hon. Members who had spoken from the Conservative Benches, in critizing his speech of Tuesday last. In conclusion, he would say that although it would appear that the Government intended to carry out the decision of their Predecessors with regard to the maintenance of that Constabulary force, still, he must say, that he felt as confident as he was of his own existence, that if that force were abolished, the necessity for the majority of changes in the Land Laws would disappear. Some people had said that it was the landlords,

  667
  and the state of the Land Laws, which rendered the Constabulary necessary. He would rather put it the other way, and say that it was the Constabulary that made bad landlords in Ireland. If landlords knew that for the enforcement of their rights they had just as much assistance from public opinion, and the forces at the disposal of the Crown, as they would have in England or Scotland under similar circumstances, it would be found that that enforcement of rights would be limited in the same way as they were in this country. The deplorable necessity that existed of frequently bringing before Parliament that question would cease, and a mutual arrangement would follow between landlords and tenants with regard to their respective rights in the land. The Government, unfortunately, proposed to adopt a different course—they proposed to keep that large military force of highly-trained men in existence. They had adopted, or proposed to adopt, a new method of armament; they intended giving buckshot instead of bullets for short ranges. The Government had not, in any one respect, intimated that the force that was maintained for the carrying out of what was acknowledged to be bad law was to be reduced in the slightest degree. On the contrary, the present large numbers had been increased. The force which the right hon. Gentleman had sent for the purpose of carrying out the evictions was larger than that sent by his Predecessor, and thereby the right hon. Gentleman had taken upon himself a grave responsibility. If the result was that during this autumn or winter hardships and suffering were being imposed upon the poor tenants, the right hon Gentleman the Chief Secretary would have taken upon himself a grave responsibility both as regarded the peace of Ireland and the future relations between the two countries. He (Mr. Parnell) could not conceive of anything more calculated to turn the mind of the people away, and prevent them from assimilating themselves as was desired to the English system, than the harsh enforcement of the English Law. If the result should be that large numbers of evictions took place, and were followed by violent resistance to the police in carrying them out—a course which, he must confess, he thought less criminal and less objectionable than assassination of
  668
  landlords, or houghing of cattle—then the right hon. Gentleman would have a responsibility which he thought no public man would desire to have. He had just one more observation to make. They had the employment of police at all public meetings. He had attended, he believed, every one that had been held with the exception of those held during the electoral campaign. He did not refer to the meetings of the electoral campaign, but of those of the land agitation. A large force of police, numbering from 80 to 300, attended with their rifles, bayonets, and a plentiful supply of ammunition, He would ask what, in the name of conscience, did that intimate? As far as he knew, there had not been a single riotous or disorderly proceeding, not a single instance in that series of 150 large public meetings, at times when the minds of the people were certainly very much agitated and excited; and yet, whenever he went to a meeting, he saw flanking the platform a body of Constabulary, numbering 50, drawn up in battle array. For what purpose were those men stationed there, or was there any purpose? Their services had never been called into request, and the only reason that he could suggest was that they were there for the protection of the Government shorthand writers, and that, not from the violence of the people, but simply to protect them from disturbance while taking notes. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman that that attendance, at those meetings, of the police force—which was composed of the sons of farmers—wasono great reason in favour of their becoming demoralized from the point of view of the Government, but not from his (Mr. Parnell's) point of view. He had often been struck with the intense interest those fine young men took in the speeches, which were called revolutionary by some people, which had been made at so many of those meetings. He could not but think that if the right hon. Gentleman wished to keep the Constabulary force from having any sympathy with the Land League, it were far better that he should not allow them to attend those meetings. Considering the fact that there had been no breach of the peace at the 150 public meetings to which he had already referred, he was at a loss to understand why the Government should insist upon that absurd exhibition of force which had been initiated by the late Conservative

  669
  Government. He could, of course, understand that when the present Government came into Office, the right hon. Gentleman was naturally guided by the officials of Dublin Castle; he felt, no doubt, that it was not necessary to make a hasty change; and, being absorbed by his Parliamentary duties, had not the time to examine the question. He (Mr. Parnell) believed, however, that when the right hon. Gentleman went into the question and the statement that he had then made, he would find that there was not the slightest reason for the practice to which he had alluded; and that, in the future, the land meetings might be held without the presence of a large force of the Constabulary. One reason suggested for that force being present was that the Government found it necessary to send shorthand writers to take notes of the speeches, and that the police protected them. In regard to that, he would say that the right hon. Gentleman would find, when he inquired into the matter, that no real attempt had ever been made to ill-treat those shorthand writers. He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that if it were made a point of honour with the promoters of the meetings, that if the Constabulary were kept away, the Government shorthand writers should be treated courteously, and with proper regard to the usuages of war, he would find that no sort of rudeness would be offered to any of those men. He did not wish to detain the Committee at greater length. He had endeavoured to put certain practical matters before them which, he believed, required to be considered before that Vote was put from the Chair.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had heard one part of the hon. Member's speech with very great pleasure. [Mr. WARTON: Oh, oh!] He was surprised at that interruption from the hon. and learned Member opposite. He should have thought any hon. Gentleman would have heard with pleasure the statement of the hon. Member (Mr. Parnell) that he would use his influence in the coming winter to prevent acts of outrage either to man or beast.
  MR. WARTONsaid, as the Chief Secretary had referred to him, he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that when the hon. Member stated that he would use his influence, the promise was given under a condition.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member for the City of Cork had also remarked that the present Government had carried out the law more sternly than it had been carried out before. Now, what he had done was this— where he thought there was likely to be resistance, he had sent what he thought would be an overpowering force. He considered that he had acted more humanely in doing so. The present Government had not introduced buckshot; but he approved what had been done by his Predecessors. He then came to a rather important question. He was sorry that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) was not then in his place, but he saw his Colleague was there. He was not in the slightest degree reluctant to answer questions, nor did he doubt that he generally made matters clear; but judging from recent experience, he found his answers so twisted and so interpreted, not according to plain English in which they were spoken, but according to some sort of interpretation that might be put upon them by some other person, consisting of terms which he did not employ, that he really felt hesitation in making any answer at all. The hon. Member asked whether the Government would undertake to inquire, as far as they could, into the merits of all cases of eviction where the police were used? He had information at present with regard to every case of eviction of this kind; but he could not undertake that his own opinion with regard to the evictions should be enforced. That would be exercising a dictatorial power which he had no right to exercise. He could not undertake to give a Return showing the cases where, after making inquiry, the law was attended with practical injustice. He had great hopes that the evils would not occur; but, as he had stated some time ago, he had taken steps to ascertain the character of the different evictions. The hon. Member then asked him the principle on which he should define injustice. He had no objection to do so. The principle was laid down in the Compensation for Disturbance Ireland Bill —that there should be an inability to pay, not merely through long thriftlessness, but from the circumstances of the time—in fact, from the failure of

  671
  the crops—want of reasonableness on the part of the landlord, and a willingness to come to reasonable terms on the part of the tenant. That was his definition of injustice. Then the hon. Member asked—Supposing we find that there is not disturbance enough—and he was delighted to find that, while encouraging agitation to obtain a legal result, the hon. Member would use his great influence to prevent individual outrage—to necessitate the introduction of the Peace Preservation Act, were they going to do nothing? The hon. Member also asked whether the Chief Secretary would summon Parliament if unreasonable and harsh evictions took place? It was no part of his duty to summon Parliament. He hoped—he was more hopeful now than he was a week or two ago—that he should not have to bring in a Peace Preservation Act. He could only repeat what he said on Tuesday. He had then stated that it would be a serious duty of the Government to consider what their action should be, and also that he, for one, should not be the instrument for carrying out the law under those circumstances. He was not able to pledge the Government on a doubtful and speculative result; but he should inform his Colleagues if the state of things referred to by the hon. Member came about; he should inform them how serious he thought it was, and if he was convinced that the law was the means of inflicting injustice, he should not be the instrument of that law. At the same time, he must say he did not expect this. One or two isolated cases of injustice would not be sufficient. They did not alter the law because of individual hardship; the injustice should be to some appreciable extent—an extent giving reasonable cause for alarm. He was asked to limit the practice of charging districts for extra police. The hon. Member was under the impression that the Government was doing what was done in this matter under the Peace Preservation Act. [Mr. PARNELL: In a different way.] They were not doing the same thing. Under that Act the whole of the cost was levied on the people, and without delay. It was very different now. He could not bind himself as to the way the power should be used. It was a power which might be abused so as to inflict great injustice. It would
  672
  not be used for the purpose of revenge, but to deter. As to the land meetings, the hon. Member said 50 to 100 police attended these meetings. There was in that statement great exaggeration. The hon. Member had said that land meetings turned the people's attention to agitation by meetings rather than to agitation by means of individual outrages. There might be some truth in that; but he was sorry to say that had not been his experience. From the very hard and disagreeable work he had had to do in watching the progress of crime from day to day, he regretted to find that land meetings had been followed very soon by outrages. If the hon. Member carefully read the speeches made at some of those meetings, he would see that the language used was not only a natural incentive to political agitation, but in many cases an incitement to individual outrages. He would appeal to men of influence and character, who must know that the case was as he stated, from the cases of murder and maiming which had occurred. He was entirely of opinion that, as in England and Scotland, so in Ireland, meetings within the limits of the Constitution ought to be permitted to be held, and that no one in such cases had any business to interfere. But there were meetings and meetings. There were meetings held merely for the purpose of passing resolutions. Then there were meetings which were ostensibly held to protest against some proceedings of the law, but which really went very much further than protesting. For example, there were meetings held to protest against evictions, when people went in hundreds and thousands. In such a case, especially if the people marched in order and were organized, and if they were told that it was no longer illegal to be in possession of arms, then there was considerable danger to the public peace, and the police were bound to appear in such force as to prevent violence. [Mr. PARNELL said, that such meetings only occurred at evictions.] But everyone knew that meetings held for the purpose of intimidation were illegal. He would only say, in conclusion, that, in one respect, the Government were in a very different position now from that which they occupied six or seven weeks ago. That was, that one great ground upon which the Government had brought in their Bill was the

  673
  great distress prevalent from the failure of crops. Now, it appeared that the crops had not failed, but, on the contrary, were abundant. But he would have no one suppose that there was no distress, and that there were not many farmers in a sorrowful condition. But he would say that their position was much more hopeful and less dangerous than it was six or seven weeks ago, when the potato crop had disappeared and out-door relief was being largely given. Still, there was great distress, which would require great forbearance on the part of the landlords. He thought there would also be great discretion required on the part of the leaders of the people. They must wish, as much as he did, that their agitation should not be marked by any violent outrage against individuals which would cause general disgust and set public opinion decidedly against them. His position was a most unenviable one. Whatever was the result, he knew he should be blamed impartially by both sides; he should be called, at the same time, weak and tyrannical. The Government must, however, do its best to keep order, and to discourage any injustice by those possessing property as respected those who were occupiers. They were trying to administer the country with an even and firm hand. He did not know whether they should be told they had done the right thing; but they had, at least, the satisfaction of having meant to do so.
  MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had not had the slightest intention of taking part in that debate; but he was sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not think his interference uncalled for after the remarks which had fallen from him. So far as he was himself concerned, whatever remarks he (Mr. Plunket) might have made upon that subject he was prepared to stand by. With regard to what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to his Colleague (Mr. Gibson), he was prepared to treat those observations with the perfect good humour that he was sure his right hon. and learned Friend would have shown if he were then present; and he claimed the indulgence of the Committee while he said a very few words. The Chief Secretary had now referred to a criticism by his right hon. and learned Colleague of a speech that the Chief Secretary delivered some time since. His right hon. and learned Colleague
  674
  had already explained to the House how the misunderstanding arose but, after the speech that they had just heard, he thought it would not be out of place if he were to relate the circumstances again. At the time that the Chief Secretary was speaking, he (Mr. Plunket) was conversing both with his right hon. and learned Colleague and with—then present—the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach); and they were saying that what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman as to the Irish landlords generally was of so reasonable a character, that it did not call for any reply. But, whilst this private conversation was taking place, observations of a different character seemed to have been made, which had not reached their ears; and as soon as the right hon. Gentleman sat down, his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gibson) replied to some other remarks of the Chief Secretary in a short speech. His right hon. and learned Friend, having subsequently informed himself of those portions of the Chief Secretary's speech, which he had at first failed to catch, made, on the following day, a further criticism on them, which the Chief Secretary stated to be a misrepresentation of his meaning. It must be well-known that, so far as there was any misrepresentation, it was not intentional; and it must be remembered that misrepresentations came, not only from that Bench, but from other parts of the House also. They had then heard an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman which was much more satisfactory, and which was expressed with that clearness and force which usually characterized the statements of the right hon. Gentleman. No one in that House listened with greater pleasure to the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman than he did; but he was bound to say that when he, on that particular occasion, had employed the words "injustice" and "harshness" in a sense in which they ought not to be employed, it was not a matter for surprise if some confusion should arise. He did not wish, however, to re-open that controversy, and he would not further refer to that collateral issue; but, as he was an Irish Member, although not one of the Third Party, perhaps he might be allowed to say a few words on the subject then under discussion. They had

  675
  just heard from the right hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had assured the Committee that on his return to Ireland he would do all in his power to prevent the occurrence of outrages of a serious character. He was not present when the hon. Member made the statement; but, if that were so, and the hon. Member for Cork was able to induce his Colleagues to assist him in the execution of that undertaking, he would only say that it was one of the happiest promises for prosperity and peace in the immediate future of Ireland that had been made for many a day. He accepted that promise most readily, and he hoped that, not only the hon. Gentleman, but his Colleagues also, might be succesful in their efforts in that direction. But the hon. Member for Cork had also said that if the landlords of Ireland behaved as well as the landlords in England, and if public opinion in Ireland regarded these matters as jealously as in England, there would be no necessity for an armed constabulary. Now he (Mr. Plunket) did not want to rake up the whole controversy again; but he was prepared positively to assert that, although they had been listening now for many months to general charges against the Irish landlords, not a single case had been brought forward and proved in that House. Further, a Bill had been brought forward by Her Majesty's Government which was supposed to be grounded on the same foundation— namely, the course taken, and likely to be taken, by the Irish landlords; but he repeated that not one single charge against the landlords had ever been brought forward and sustained. He had had a much closer and more intimate experience of Ireland than many of the hon. Members who brought forward these charges. He utterly denied them; and he must remind the Committee that whenever they were brought to the test, they had never, in a single instance, been substantiated. They faded away the moment they came to be investigated. It was a very easy matter to make these general charges; but he ventured to assert that when they had before them the Reports of the Commissions now sitting in Ireland, they would find very little excuse indeed for them. Indeed, he had heard it said, on good authority, that certain gentlemen who
  676
  went to Ireland as members of those Royal Commissions with preconceived opinions against the Irish landlords, were now astonished to find how baseless were the imputations which had been so often made. All he asked was that public opinion would suspend its judgment against the Irish landlords until they had more decided and clear reasons for condemning that class than had hitherto been brought forward, and until they had better ground to go upon than that which had been put forward in support of the Government Bill. He would not now go into the question of the usefulness of the police at public meetings; but he believed that even some of the most distinguished Members of the Third Party would themselves sometimes have been in a difficult and disagreeable position if it had not been for the presence of the police at those meetings. As far as the present situation in Ireland was concerned, the accounts which he had heard from it were certainly, in some instances, accounts which gave grounds for the most grave and serious consideration of the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but if agitation was really to cease—he did not mean fair and ordinary agitation such as might be justifiably carried on, but that kind of agitation which was always followed, as the Chief Secretary told them, by outrages in the localities in which it arose—if that kind of agitation was going to be laid aside, he believed that many of the apprehensions that were entertained in regard to what would take place in the coming autumn and winter would be found to be as baseless as all the other accusations which had been made against the Irish landlords for their conduct in the past. He joined with the Chief Secretary in believing that there would be a good harvest, and that there were reasonable grounds for hoping that a good harvest would, if agitation did not counteract it, have an immense effect in smoothing away the existing excitement, and in greatly diminishing the number of those outrages which filled every Member of that House with feelings of abhorrence. He could promise the right hon. Gentleman that both sides of the House would fairly and impartially consider and judge the action which he would adopt in the discharge of the arduous duties which it was now his painful duty to perform; and he could assure the right hon. Gen-

  677
  tleman that in no spirit hostile to any class in Ireland, and in no spirit hostile to the Government entrusted with so great and difficult a task, would the Irish landlords endeavour to thwart or counteract that policy which the right hon. Gentleman had, with so much clearness, laid down that evening. On the contrary, he would find them desirous, as every true Irishman ought to be, in the present state of affairs in Ireland, to cooperate with him in every possible way in order to remove the traces of wild and reckless agitation, and also to avert such great national calamities as that which fell upon the people of Ireland last year, and the effects of which, it was to be hoped, were now passing away.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, that hon. Members who sat upon the Benches below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House had been challenged to say a word or two upon this Vote. There was no one in that House, although his capacity to help might not be great, who more deeply appreciated the condition of Ireland, and more heartily sympathized with her woes, than he did. While he had been sitting there listening to the debate he had had brought to his mind the appeal which was made the other night to hon. Members on those Benches by one or two of his hon. Friends on the other side of the House. They asserted that nobody had spoken a word of sympathy for Ireland from that part of the House. There were several reasons why they had abstained from addressing the Committee on Friday, and certainly a lack of sympathy for Ireland was not one of them. He could say this with confidence, not only for himself, but on behalf of many of his hon. Friends. Perhaps, however, it would be better that he should confine his observations to what he felt personally, for fear that he might express unworthily what was felt by other hon. Members in that part of the House. He was bound, then, to say that what he thought on Friday, and doubtless a good many other Members thought, was that there was a premeditated intention to prolong the debate by straining all the Forms of the House; and of this course he certainly did not approve. Passing that by, however, his second reason was that anything he had to say had been said already by hon. Members who were thoroughly conversant with
  678
  the matter, and who were able to express themselves with eloquence and power on the subject. In the third place, what principally weighed on his mind was that they had a Government in power in whom, until found wanting, they were bound to place the most implicit confidence and reliance that whatever could be done that was generous towards Ireland, and just towards Ireland, and that was, in fact, wise towards Ireland, would be done. He had no doubt that, if time were allowed, measures of that description would be introduced and passed for the benefit of Ireland. Therefore, unless a mere act of sympathy was required, there was no use in any one of them rising to express such feelings. They had not been restrained, by any want of sympathy for Ireland, from expressing their opinions; but they had been ruled by other considerations. He wished now to say a word or two in regard to the position of the Government and of the Chief Secretary. His right hon. and learned Friend who had just spoken had spoken with much justice and impartiality. But he had addressed the Committee from a point of view which was not adopted by the Radical Members. He wished, therefore, as a Radical Member, to point out to his hon. Friends on the other side of the House what the opinions were which he entertained. They had now a right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government who had already shown his intense desire to do what was right and fair in conceding the just demands of Ireland. He was ably seconded by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster). But what was the course pursued by the Irish Members? They were constantly putting pressure upon the Chief Secretary, who was a Minister who had accepted the most thankless Office in the Government, from a desire to do all the good he could to their country. No sort of sympathy was expressed for him in the difficult and arduous duties he was called upon to discharge. But, on the contrary, every kind of difficulty was thrown in his way. He (Mr. Hopwood) wished to be candid and to express freely what was passing in his mind. The Chief Secretary had already given unmistakable evidence of the sympathy he felt for Ireland and the Irish people; and he had intimated that if the Irish landlords manifested a disposition to strain the law, and to act

  679
  with injustice—or with harshness, as the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) conceived the distinction was important— then the Government would interpose and call upon Parliament to pass a measure to restrain them. This was taking a course which any wise statesman and legislator would feel himself called upon to take. But it was not enough for hon. Members opposite; and, instead of manifesting their sympathy with the Minister, they at once took a course which could only be calculated to add to his difficulties, if, indeed, they did not create new ones. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) had spoken admirably in the remarks he had made that evening, although he (Mr. Hopwood) felt bound to take exception to some parts of his speech. The hon. Member was more considerate in the line he had taken that night than he had been on some other occasions. The hon. Member said—"I will use my influence to prevent the breaking of the law." That was a remark which, no doubt, they would hear taken up and repeated again by others —his adversaries—with all sorts of meanings attached to it, until, probably, the hon. Member would find himself obliged to modify it. He would certainly be told that he was going to give up his duty to the Irish people for the sake of conciliating the base suffrages of a Saxon Parliament. That was an illustration of the position in which the Chief Secretary was placed. If he gave way to the representations made to him by one side he was sure to be immediately baited and beset by the other. If they wanted to drive a Minister from his place, that was the way to do it. He must say—although he did not wish to use language which might seem adulation towards a man before his face—that the course pursued by the Chief Secretary since he had occupied the Office had been most able, wise, and judicious. There was every reason to believe, if they would repose confidence in Her Majesty's Government, that whatever was wrong in regard to the state of Ireland now would be set right, if they would only allow the time necessary for doing it. But the conduct of a portion of the Irish Party certainly tended to create a disposition to regard every question connected with Ireland as a nuisance, rather than to look upon the
  680
  Imperial Parliament as the place where the difficulties and wrongs of Ireland should be discussed with calmness and moderation, and with a sincere desire to alleviate them. He did not say that the opinions of any Irish Member were to be stifled, or that his tongue was to be tied. Let every man speak out boldly, and he was sure that no Radical in that House would complain. But the course followed could not be so defended. The practice pursued now-a-days was not to be content with the words the Chief Secretary uttered. They said—"You have stated so and so; will you go a step farther, and say so and so?" If the Irish Members would excuse him for saying so, they were sometimes apt to produce irritation of feeling for which there was no necessity. The Minister said—"Under certain circumstances, we should feel it our duty to call Parliament together if we felt it necessary to do so in the interests of public order." And then the hon. Member for Cork got up, and asked—"In that case, upon what principle would you act?" What right had the hon. Member to ask that, unless he wished to embarrass the Minister by questions of that kind, and lead to a debate which would disturb and prevent any useful result from being obtained. For, of course, answers palatable to the hon. Member would be distasteful to others, and lead to further questions in an opposing sense. For himself, and those with whom he usually acted, he should be prepared to advise the Minister and to say—"Pray do not answer the question; that is not the way in which a responsible Member of Her Majesty's Government ought to be treated. He ought not to be called on. to pledge himself beforehand to pursue a particular course." He appealed to the right feeling of hon Members, and he was sure they would admit there was some justice in the appeal he made to them. Why should the Irish Members seek to tie the hands of Her Majesty's Government, and to alienate the sympathy and support of Members in that part of the House? They were desirous of setting all these difficult questions right, and they were convinced that they might be set right by discussion in that House. They felt that there were difficulties both there and in "another place." But the Irish Members could see for themselves how rapidly public opinion

  681
  was being educated in all these matters. The English people were beginning to recognize that there was a land system in Ireland which was different from that which existed in England. There might be a right, and there might be a wrong application of that system; but at present in England they had no experience of it. He was quite sure that the whole matter would be properly dealt with; but if they were to understand that all their earnest sympathy and all their desire to put matters right were not to be attended with some generous return, and to be received with something like gratitude, their good intentions were frustrated at once. He knew that Ireland had a great deal to expect yet before they could ask for her gratitude; but if the feeling did not amount to gratitude, it would be a pleasing support for those who sympathized with the wrongs of Ireland to find that the Irish Representatives were ready to listen to their views and to discuss them. In regard to the Vote now before the Committee, it was one upon which almost every Englishman felt that it was a monstrous thing that the police in Ireland should be of a military type. If the desire of the Irish Members in continuing this discussion was to awaken public opinion to this Vote, and to induce proper consideration on the part of the Ministry, and due deliberation for the future, then their purpose was an excellent one; but it had already been fully accomplished. He believed there was not a man in that House who was prepared to defend the force in its military form, except on the ground of hard necessity. If the Irish Members said that it was not necessary, then let them bring evidence to that effect to bear upon the question, and before next year had passed by they would find some change introduced, even if it were only of a partial or tentative character. He felt satisfied that in the irresistible march of public opinion upon the subject, it would not be more than a year or two before they would see the introduction of a distinct and radical change in the constitution of the Irish Constabulary Force. The way in which the Irish public meetings were attended by the police had been alluded to. Until within the last few years no policeman ever showed himself at a public meeting in England. Indeed, he was told by his superiors
  682
  that he had no business to go there, and that he ought not to go. That system had now been changed, for it was found that the English policeman was a pliant and useful representative of order in the interest of those holding the meeting, and they often requested his presence. That was a condition of things they desired to see in Ireland; but the circumstances must be the same, and they must be brought about by the same feeling which made every man in England in some degree the representative of order. He could assure hon. Members opposite that he was as anxious as they were to do full and ample justice to Ireland; but he was not prepared to dissolve the Parliamentary ties between the two countries. Short of that, if any question of the franchise, or of local government, or of any matter in which England had an advantage over Ireland arose, the earnest offices of himself and his Friends would be given in support of the Minister who should propose measures of reparation and equal legislation for the Irish people. If the Minister failed to propose them himself, they would be anxious, willing, and desirous of suggesting them to the serious consideration of the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was exceedingly glad that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had taken part in the debate. As he had ventured to tell his hon. and learned Friend in a private conversation, there was a certain feeling of irritation on the part of the Irish Members at the conspicuous silence which had been observed on the opposite Benches. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) thought he had already shown that he had as good a claim to be regarded as a Radical as any Member of that House. He only desired to obtain for his countrymen justice and good laws, the right of free and full debate, and the privilege of religious toleration, which, to his mind, was one of the most precious privileges of a nation's life. But his ardour as a Radical had been somewhat weakened by the fact that there had been an absence of readiness on the part of his fellow-Radicals on the opposite Benches to respond to the feelings of the Irish Members, and to manifest the same willingness to support them which the Irish Members always displayed when they saw that the English Radi-

  683
  cals had a decent case. He was glad for another reason that his hon. and learned Friend had spoken, because it afforded him an opportunity of answering the criticisms which had been urged, both in public and in private, with regard to the action of the extreme section of the Liberal Party. It had been found necessary to speak in terms of severe reproach of the course pursued by the Members below the Gangway on the Ministerial side of the House. The excuse generally made was, that the Ministry were friendly towards Ireland, and that, being friendly, the Irish Members were bound to abstain from putting anything like pressure upon them; but surely that was no reason why they should abstain from putting pressure upon the Government when there was a feeling of injustice. Take as an instance what occurred on Saturday last. It could not be imagined that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the Prime Minister, or any other Member on the Ministerial Bench was not in favour of conceding the rights of the Dissenters. The Irish Members were also in favour of the rights of Dissenters. Why, then, had pressure been exercised upon Her Majesty's Government? Why did they propose an Amendment the object of which was to make an essential, but probably a vital and a perilous change, in the Burials Bill? Pressure had been brought to bear upon the Ministry in reference to that Bill, and if that were right, why was it not right for them to exercise pressure in the case of the Irish Constabulary? It was only a question of degree as regarded the pressure. They did not press the Ministry too hard any more than did hon. Gentlemen opposite on Saturday press them so as to imperil the Bill that was then before the Committee. The degree of pressure must be regulated by the cause which one advocated. He fully acknowledged the justice of the contention on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite on Saturday; but would anybody say that their grievance was to be compared with that of the starving people whom they were there to defend. If hon. Members opposite thought it justifiable, on the part of the supporters of the Government, to exercise pressure on the Ministry on that occasion, they must admit that it was equally justifiable in the case of the
  684
  Irish Members on the present occasion. He would admit that they had every reason to be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland for the tone in which they had spoken in that debate. There were, however, one or two points to which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had referred, in which he was unable to agree with him. With regard to the charges brought against Irish landlords, the right hon. Gentleman said that they were general charges. He maintained that they were not general charges. He had offered over and over again to mention three or four cases, within his own constituency, in which the landlords had exercised what he considered to be the grossest harshness and injustice. He would not mention them because it would have the effect of drawing down the indignation of the Committee upon those individual landlords; but he was well aware of the particulars of those cases and could mention them if he thought proper to do so. The right hon. Gentleman also said that he thought they had been too severe in their remarks with regard to the Land Commissioners. He must say that he considered that a great mistake had been made both as regarded the Tory and Whig Commissions. Everything that he had heard made him feel that the right hon. Gentleman had not gone into the facts of the case. The Prime Minister had called the Tory Commission a sham Commission, and one fact seriously attracted his notice, and that was the utter want of any machinery in Ireland for bringing the facts before that Commission. It was not the case that the facts were not there; but the machinery was defective, and they were unable to make those facts known. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Prime Minister had constantly repeated, from those Benches, that it was a small minority of Irish landlords who were exercising harshness and injustice. It appeared to him that the right hon. Gentleman had gone out of his way in order to pay a compliment to the Irish landlords. Now, against that general statement he would put a particular one of the Prime Minister, to which he had alluded on a previous night. The gist of that statement was, that ejectments were increasing at an enormous rate,

  685
  and that if they continued during the remainder of the year at the same rate as in the first half of it, 15,000 persons would be left houseless and homeless. He would put it to his hon. Friends opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman, whether the prospect of 15,000 human beings being left houseless and homo-less was not sufficient to make every humane and generous-minded man stand aghast? It could not be that a small minority only were using their power badly, but that a large proportion of Irish landlords were doing so. If that were so, he contended, that they had a right to press the Ministry as far as they could to put forth all their powers in order to save those poor people from such a disaster. He thought he might well complain of what fell from the right hon. Gentleman sometime ago, when he referred to the outrages which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) loathed and detested as much as any man in that House. He rose to reply to the right hon. Gentleman, but was put down by the Speaker as being out of Order. He wished to say that he regretted that the Chief Secretary had thought it desirable to drag to the front the maiming of cattle, as against the tenants, when he had left out of sight the outrages which were committed by other persons and those committed on human beings. He had always endeavoured, when speaking on Irish questions, to avoid any single expression which might have the effect of exasperating the feelings of the people of the two countries. It had struck him that the tone of the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion was one of exasperation and retort, and he had felt inclined to say—"Allow me to read a list of outrages on women in England during the same period." If outrages on animals were a blot on Irish life, such outrages as those were surely blots on English social life. What would be thought if, in resisting some counterproposal, he, in order to strengthen his own proposal, should read out, amid the horror of his countryman, a list of brutal assaults on human beings, which were to be found in the annals of crime in this country? He did not wish to raise any such feelings, but he must say that he thought they might complain with justice that the right hon. Gentleman should have flourished those outrages in the face of the public opinion of this
  686
  country, which was so sensitive on that point. The right hon. Gentleman had placed a fictitious importance upon what was only a small portion of Irish life. With regard to the land meetings, the right hon. Gentleman had said that some of them were held at evictions, and that such meetings could only be supposed to lead to a breach of the law. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to have forgotten the fact that, out of 150 land meetings, only four had taken place on the scene of evictions. With reference to the attendance of the police at those meetings, the right hon. Gentleman had not, he thought, given them a satisfactory answer. His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that that attendance of police would have the effect of demoralizing that force from the English point of view, but not from the Irish point of view. He had tangible ocular evidence of the truth of that statement. He had just received a letter which began as follows:—"Sir, the Lord bless you," and then went on to say that they had there a large staff of constabulary, consisting of seven sergeants, three acting sergeants, and 72 men, all of whom were paid for out of the pockets of the poor starving tenants. The writer was not quite correct as regarded that; but he went on to say that 46 men were employed all the season on band-playing. He would not read the signature, but it came from the Royal Irish Constabulary, Phœnix Park. He had received another similar letter, marked "private and confidential," with which he would not trouble the Committee; but he thought there was sufficient evidence to show that the Constabulary were becoming demoralized. It had been said that the proper way to deal with the matter was first to remedy the grievances and then remove the police. He would say that it was his most emphatic and earnest conviction that a large portion of the police ought to be removed at once. He believed that the police, instead of preserving order really caused disorder, and that since they had taken the form of an army of occupation, the warmth of sympathy with English law had increased. The authorities, he was sure, ought not to allow the police to come within miles of the land meetings, as their presence was always the cause of irritation. He believed they were right in advising the

  687
  Government to take away the police, or, at any rate, the majority of them, to take away the rifle and the bayonet and the buckshot. He did not hesitate to say that they ought to be ashamed to think of discussing in that free Parliament the question whether the police should be supplied with bullets or buckshot. He was so convinced that the attendance of the police at the land meetings had the effect of endangering the peace, that he hoped, seriously, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would give them an undertaking that that attendance should be discontinued. The right hon. Gentleman said in the course of the debate the other night, talking about processions, that he intended next year to see whether they could not be put down. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) advised him strongly against that course. He remembered attending a meeting some years ago, presided over by a gentleman who afterwards sat in that House, and he heard him declare that he was pleased to be able to state that the Party Processions Act was dead and buried. That gentleman had been imprisoned for taking part in a procession, and he made that statement after he had been so imprisoned. He was confident that if the right hon. Gentleman attempted to put them down it would seriously affect, if not endanger, the peace of the whole of the North of Ireland. He was not in favour of such processions himself—in fact, he should much like to see them put down, but, at same time, he felt that it would be a most serious thing to attempt to do so. They must be allowed to run their course, and, no doubt, in time they would cease altogether; but to attempt to put them down would only have the effect of increasing disorder. Finally, he hoped that the English Members would consider the matter seriously before they agreed to allow the landlords to continue to have at their disposal a military force for the enforcement of their unjust claims upon the tenantry. The Irish Members objected to the country being governed by a military force instead of a civil one, and they looked forward to the time, which they believed was not far distant, when the present unsatisfactory state of things would cease to exist.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, it appeared to be supposed in some quarters
  688
  that the lengthened discussion on the present Vote had been raised by the Irish Members with the object of revenging themselves on the House of Lords for having rejected the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. But he could assure the Committee that the Irish Members would have brought the subject of the Irish Constabulary under the notice of Parliament and the country whether that Bill had been rejected or not. The opposition of the Irish Members to the Vote was, he might add, no sudden thought upon their part; it had, on the contrary, been long determined upon. The subject had been brought before the House last year, and had been discussed for seven hours, and the Irish Members had pledged themselves to bring it forward again and again until they succeeded in obtaining the end which they had in view—the conversion of the Irish Constabulary from a military into a civil force. The military character of the force was objected to on the broadest Constitutional principle, and because, as the force was constituted, it was one of the last and most effectual supports of an unjust land system. It was maintained for no other purpose, because all other laws, except the land laws, were respected in Ireland. The Irish Parliamentary Party could not, however, claim the credit of having been the first to lay before Parliament the complaints made against the force as it was now constituted. The complaints against its military organization originally came from a very different quarter. They came from the Irish Conservative Peers in the House of Lords and the Conservative Members in that House. The complaints were taken up and urged by the Conservative Peers on the grounds—namely, that the organization of the Irish Police Force was a violation of the Constitution, and that its military training rendered it unfit for the discharge of the duties of a police force— the detection of crime. To those two grounds another was added by the Irish Liberal Members, who contended that the Irish Constabulary system was a mode of supporting the Irish landlords in a position which, without its aid, they could not maintain. He did not know whether many hon. Members besides those who represented Irish constituencies knew the way in which the system worked. If not, they had only

  689
  to go to an ordinary Irish town and they would see, in the most peaceful times, men marching through the streets in broad daylight, with bayonets by their sides, or at night, even in undisturbed rural districts, walking two and two armed, not only with bayonets, but with rifles, and carrying several rounds of ammunition. Then they might be seen at race-courses, where there was not the slightest disturbance, drawn up, to the number of 50 or 100, in military array, armed with bayonets and rifles, and with an officer by their side who was, to all intents and purposes, a military man. Now, of what use, he would ask, was their presence in such circumstances? The only answer to that question was, that so unnecessary a display of force was, as it were, an announcement on the part of the Government that, no matter how peaceable the people might be, or how little danger there might be of any disturbance, still the people were under no circumstances to be trusted, and must, therefore, be treated in a way different from that in which the inhabitants of any other portion of the United Kingdom were treated. A policeman in Ireland was always armed, although in the streets of the village in which he was walking he might not expect to have anything more formidable to deal with than a drunken man; and the whole system gave to the Government of the country the appearance of a rule upheld by armed force. The Irish policeman, he repeated, was always armed with a bayonet and at night with a rifle, as he went through the country. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER: No, no!] He could assure the right hon. Gentleman that on whatever authority he founded the negative which he had just given him across the Table, it was not based upon the real facts of the case. He had heard it said that the Irish police did not wear bayonets when going on patrol. [Mr. PLUNKET: Hear, hear !] He was surprised at the want of knowledge displayed by the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin; but he supposed the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have drawn his inspiration from his experience of the City of Dublin. [Mr. PLUNKET: No!] Well, he was glad the right hon. and learned Gentleman had reminded him that in Dublin—which was, perhaps, one of the most turbulent towns in Ireland—the police did not carry
  690
  bayonets, and that they were able to keep the peace without the use of those deadly weapons. But if he turned to Limerick or Cork, or to any of the small towns in the counties of which those cities were the capitals—indeed, in all the Provincial towns in Ireland—the police were, by the rules and regulations of the force, obliged, when marching, to carry bayonets by their sides. He observed the Chief Secretary was about to consult some Gentleman who, he supposed, was a permanent official of the Irish Office; but he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that the fact was as he (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had stated. But how was the Irish police force governed? The Inspector General was invariably a military man; and when Colonel Dickson, who was a military man himself, and formerly a Member of that House, brought the subject of the organization of the force under the notice of the House, he pointed out that nothing could be more calculated to draw the men away from the proper performance of their civil duties, or to render them unpopular and inefficient for the purpose of the detection of crime, than that organization. How was the force officered? The officers were, for the most part, chosen from a different class from the men. They were selected by a competitive examination on subjects which afforded no sort of guarantee that they would be filled up for the detection of criminals or the repression of crime. In the case of all the other constabulary forces of the Empire, the officers were taken from the body of the men, and the result was that the men were encouraged to cultivate those qualities of ingenuity and tact in dealing with crime which led to promotion. There was, however, no such encouragement in the case of the Irish Constabulary, because only a very small share of the appointments in it were given to the men, who were not less intelligent than the English or Scotch police, and who were deprived of all the incentives which a hope of promotion would give, solely because it was deemed advisable by the Government of England that they should be kept up as a strictly military force. And how were the smaller appointments in the Irish Constabulary distributed? There was a competitive examination in reading, writing, and matters of that kind, and then there were a certain number of marks for general intelligence; but so

  691
  far as he could see the result showed that that was a quality which was usually found to be possessed in the greatest degree by those candidates who belonged to the right religion—for, although something like four to one of the men in the force were Roman Catholics, who were just as intelligent as their Protestant brethren, the numbers were reversed in the case of the non-commissioned officers, of whom by far the greater portion were Protestants. Was it not plain then that the force being maintained for the purpose of keeping up that last relic of ascendancy-—the Irish land system—it was thought necessary that the men with any authority in it should, as far as possible, belong to the religion of those who were in the ascendant. The Government dared not trust Catholic noncommissioned officers; and so nearly all the little posts to which he referred were given to Protestants, which, perhaps, was necessary if the land system of which he complained was to be maintained. But how, he would ask, was the Irish police force made responsible to Parliament? The Chief Secretary, of course, had a certain share of responsibility to bear in connection with it; but he should like to know how the question of responsibility was brought to the test whenever the force was brought into collision with the people, and the necessity of inquiry into the conduct of any of its members arose? The ordinary mode of proceeding in such cases was the most simple delusion that could be imagined. The Government appointed two barristers—one, probably, a Member of the Administration, and the other an aspirant to Office—who went down to the place where the circumstances to be inquired into had occurred. A short investigation was held into the conduct of the police on the occasion, and into the question whether the police authorities had acted within their right or not. Now, he should be sorry to say that any member of the legal profession in Ireland, whose duty it was to preside at such an inquiry, would conscientiously depart from what he thought to be the path of right and justice; but men who were Members of the Administration, or aspirants to Office, could hardly, in his opinion, be regarded as constituting a proper tribunal to deal with such cases, or one in which the Irish people could be expected to place much confidence. He
  692
  should like, in the next place, to be allowed to say a few words in regard to the Irish Constabulary in its capacity of a force for the ordinary purposes of repressing crime and the detection of criminals. It was on the ground of its inefficiency to perform those duties that the military constitution of the force had been attacked in the House of Lords by the late Lord Clanricarde, by the late Lord Donoughmore, and most powerfully of all, by that unhappy nobleman who afterwards lost his life by violence— he meant the late Lord Leitrim. On the occasion to which he referred, some observations made by Judge Keogh in relation to the Irish Constabulary were quoted, in which he said that the members of the force were the persons who ought to look after the crime of the country; and to the absence of the exercise of their proper functions in that respect, it was due that the perpetrators of so many offences against the law remained undetected. The police force in Ireland, the learned Judge added, was one of considerable magnitude, and one which, in a pecuniary point of view, entailed considerable expense; and that, although military display in that case might, in its proper place, be a useful thing, the Constabulary, if it directed its attention to it to the neglect of its primary duty—the detection of crime—would not be carrying out the object for which it was established. Baron Fitzgerald had given expression to similar views, which were also mentioned in the House of Lords, with respect to the action of the force in other parts of Ireland. Lord Clanricarde pointed out that, although he had no doubt that the men in the Constabulary would always do their duty when they were ordered, that duty was not what it ought to be. Lord Leitrim also said that the Irish Police were a political tool; and, having shown that several crimes which had been committed in Ireland had remained undetected, informed the House that he had been asked to present a Petition praying that the constitution of the force might be reformed, in order that it might be able to attend to the discharge of its civic duties, adding that the worst consequences would, in his opinion, follow, if they were not allowed to pay more attention to the repression of crime. For his own part, he believed that if the

  693
  Constabulary were not a military force, discharging duties hostile to the feelings of the great body of the people, many such melancholy murders as that of Lord Leitrim would not have occurred. The speeches to which he referred were made in 1864; but he should like to point out how the duties of the Irish Constabulary in the detection of crime had been discharged in more recent times. He found, from the Judicial Statistics for the year 1878, that the entire number of offences committed in Ireland was 6,900, and that for those offences only 4,800 persons had been arrested. But, as more than one arrest was constantly made for the same offence, as was shown by the Return from which he was quoting, it was not unfair to suppose that, at least, one-half of the actual number of offenders had remained unarrested by the police. He also found, by the Return, that with reference to a class of crimes in respect to which Irish juries were notoriously disposed to be severe—namely, stealing and other offences against property without violence — that of such offences for the year which he had mentioned, the number was 3,840, and that, for those offences, the number of arrests made was only 1,874, by a force which consisted of 11,000 men. But as more than one person was frequently arrested for one of those crimes, it would be seen that there were over 2,000 crimes for which no arrest had been made; while out of the 1,874 persons who had been apprehended, 412 had been discharged by the magistrates for want of sufficient evidence. Those figures proved, he thought, how entirely inefficient the Irish police were for the performance of their ordinary duties-—the detection of crime and the punishment of the offenders. The evidence, besides, of the Irish Judges, to whom he had referred, went to show that that inefficiency was largely due to the fact that the attention of the force was diverted from their ordinary duties to military objects, for the Irish Constabulary were not in reality maintained to prevent ordinary crime. There was, happily, in Ireland very little of such crime, and the police were maintained there solely, as he had already said, for the purpose of upholding the power and the proprietary rights of the landlords; and yet it was constantly paraded before the world as a constitutional, when it was, in reality, a military force. He believed, he might
  694
  add, that great good would be achieved by the present discussion; and that it was the beginning of the end of the military organization of the Irish Constabulary. The discussion would open the eyes of Englishmen to the unconstitutional character of the force, and the injustice of a system which required its support. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had informed the House that he would deem it to be his duty to enforce the law in that country; but the right hon. Gentleman, he thought, could scarcely approach the discharge of that duty now with the same confidence in the police as before. The right hon. Gentleman, after the debate which had taken place, must be alive to the anomaly and the injustice of leaning on it for the enforcement of the rights of the landlord. A further advantage would, in his opinion, be gained owing to the debate; and that was, that after the revelations which had been made during its progress, the Irish landlords would be slow to call out the Constabulary to aid them in enforcing their claims against the Irish tenantry. They would soon perceive that, as a military force, its doom was sealed; and that every time they appealed to it to support them in inflicting an injustice, they were more and more hastening on the only prop by which their ascendancy was upheld. He had heard it said that the present was a very inopportune moment to raise the question of the organization of the force; but, in his opinion, there was no time at which the Irish Members could have more opportunely than at the present insisted on the principle of disarming the Irish Constabulary; for the land system, which it was maintained to support, had never produced such evil fruit as it was producing now; and as long as the Constabulary continued to wear arms, and the advocates of bad Land Laws continued to rely upon it to deny reforms, so long would there be anarchy in Ireland. But when bad landlords saw that they could no longer hope to have the rifle and the bayonet to support them in the enforcement of what they called their rights, they would yield to necessity what they ought, long ago, to have yielded to reason; and then, and not till then, Ireland would be as free from agrarian disturbance as she was from every other form of offence against the law.
  MR. MARUM: I conceive that this Vote involves the civil administration in Ireland, and the nature and relations of the Government in reference to the Irish people. Why is it, I ask, that, according to the theory of the British Constitution, the sheriff does not call upon the posse comitatus to enforce the law and uphold law and order? Why will not the people respond to an appeal from the first executive official of a county? The answer is obvious to Irishmen. Who is the sheriff? Formerly, he was an elective officer chosen by the freeholders, like the coroners at present; but now he is not appointed by the Crown, nor by a responsible Minister, or even, as in theory, by the Judges; but he is the nominee of preceding sheriffs, and there is an endless chain composed of the Grand Juries of counties. The Grand Jury system has been condemned. I need not, therefore, expose the system that imposes taxation without any representative, and the patronage of which bodies are controlled by the caprice of the sheriff for the time being—nay, arrangements are made in futuro in refer-once to appointments. In the next place, who are the county magistracy? They are appointed by the Lieutenants of counties, who are but the political nominees of whatever Government or political Party may be in power, on vacancies in the office. In all these offices in Ireland the appointments are effected by political bias, and are influenced mainly by sectarian ascendancy considerations. There is no confidence amongst the people in the sheriff, in the Grand Jury, or in the magistracy. To illustrate the matter I will instance the case of the Queen's County, of which I myself am a Justice, as well as in my own county. I attended during the summer a land meeting to protest against the landlord action of the sheriff of that county, held at a place called Knockaroo. It was a hard case, an eviction for only one year's rent, and no hanging gale, and the tenant had made great improvements. The rental had been raised and a very penal lease imposed on the tenant in 1873, and the land was not worth the present rental. The tenant had been served with writs for the year's rent due—£155—and also with an ejectment, upon which judgment was obtained; the tenant was evicted, and the lands are now untenanted and
  696
  will remain so. How could the Sheriff call on the people of the Queen's County to assist him, with such a case before them? The Grand Jury was quite in character with the sheriff. It was and is always composed of 22 Protestants and one Catholic—being heretofore, Mr. Dease, well known in this House. And this Grand Jury had pertinaciously refused to present the small weekly stipend of 2s. 6d. for Catholic juveniles regularly committed by me for periods of four and six years; and furthermore, they actually stopped payment for a Protestant juvenile, heretofore paid for, in order to enable them to cover their action. The magistracy of the county numbers 77, out of which there are but nine Catholics, including myself, and this in a county where 86 per cent of the population are Catholics! How could the people have any confidence in such sectarian county government? And as there is no confidence amongst the people, they are governed by a semi-military force instead of by the ordinary civil administration, as in England. I will ask are our people suited for civil government, or only for mere military despotism? Now, as I have said, I hold the Commission of the Peace for the two counties—for the Queen's County and my native county of Kilkenny, which I have the honour to represent—over 20 years past. The petty sessions' courts have a civil jurisdiction up to 40s. and in wages cases to £10, and they initiate the criminal procedure; and my experience is that the people are most willing to abide by law when they have any confidence in its administration. And I may mention, as an instance, some years ago at one of our sessions, we were in the habit of referring cases to the arbitration of the parish priest of the locality, thinking that it would thereby stop litigation, and promote harmony of feeling. But this respected clergyman, of high attainments, stated to me that although he did not desire to save himself the trouble, if he could be of service, yet he found it was more satisfactory to leave cases to be adjudicated upon at the Courts of Law. The people would be bickering and disputes cropping up again under his arbitration; whereas the decisions of the law were regarded as of finality, and if they had the confidence in the Bench, both sides were perfectly satisfied to abide by its decisions,

  697
  and shake hands over the matter. Indeed, I have known cases where the litigants under such circumstances held council, and were brought up before us for over-indulgence in their reconciliation cups, and the occasion was put forward by way of extenuating circumstances. Again, I have attended political meetings for years past, and have always perceived the same acquiescence in law. Nay, instance the meeting of Knockaroo. Although it was held in my bailiwick, and that I could certainly undertake to keep the peace, yet the usual form was observed. Police and their sub-inspector, and the resident magistrate were present, to supersede the local magistrate, and, I repeat, quite needlessly. But to show how the character of these meetings is misrepresented, I may mention that upon this occasion, notwithstanding that we justly felt the intrusion of the police, and I had reason to complain of the matter, the resident magistrate and the sub-inspector were invited to our luncheon, and the hospitality of Irishmen extended to those who were fulfilling their duty, 'and the amenities of life interchanged. Indeed, I feel bound to say that in long intercourse with the constabulary force, I have found them a most correct and respectable body of men; and no matter how justly we may complain of the character of the organization and the police system, yet, individually or personally, they are a body of men reflecting credit on the country. And I may add that we of the County of Kilkenny, like other counties, purpose holding a county meeting during the Recess, to protest against the action of the House of Lords, to demand our national rights, and to organize public opinion in protection of the tenantry. We have invited my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and I beg now to invite the right hon. Gentleman opposite me. If the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant for Ireland will be good enough to attend this meeting, he can see for himself the nature and character of these meetings, and not derive information second-hand, I will assure him that he will receive a full hearing, and I promise him an enthusiastic reception in the ancient City of the Confederation, where I expect 30,000 Kilkenny men to be present. What are the remedies, then, that will
  698
  conduce to the abolition of the semi-military character of the constabulary, and bring it back to the true level and mere duty of ordinary civil administration, such as police should be in a free country? Let us take the precedent of England itself. There was a time when animosities of races existed in England, and there was equal despotism of civil government. The Norman turned upon the Saxon, and it was an ordinary imprecation of the farmer to say—"Do you take me for an Englishman?" One or two hundred years after, the descendants of these conquerors were proud of the English name, and justly so. Lord Macaulay tells us, and the Committee will kindly permit me to read a short extract—
  "The battle of Hastings, and the events which followed it, not only placed a Duke of Normandy on the English Throne, hut gave up the whole population of England to the tyranny of the Norman race. The subjugation of a nation by a nation has seldom, even in Asia, been more complete. The country was portioned out among the captains of the invaders. Strong military institutions, closely connected with the institution of property, enabled the foreign conquerors to oppress the children of the soil. A cruel penal code, cruelly enforced, guarded the privileges, and even the sports of the alien tyrants. Yet the subject race, though beaten down and trodden under foot, still made its sting felt. Some bold men, the favourite heroes of our oldest ballads, betook themselves to the woods, and there, in defiance of Curfew laws, waged a predatory war against their oppressors. Assassination was an event of daily occurrence. Many Normans suddenly disappeared, leaving no trace. The corpses of many were found bearing marks of violence. Death by torture was denounced against the murderers, and strict search was made for them, but generally in vain; for the whole nation was in conspiracy to screen them. It was at length thought necessary to lay a heavy fine on every hundred in which a person of French extraction should be found slain; and this regulation was followed up by another regulation, providing that every person who was found slain should be supposed to be a Frenchman unless he were proved to be a Saxon."
  What was it that caused the amalgamation of the hostile races in England, and changed the face of the country? We are told by the same authority that it was the abolition of tenure in villan-age—fixity of tenure and fair rents—that produced this glorious result to Englishmen, which was called copyholdism. Why not, then, apply the same principle to Ireland? Let the principles of ancient copyholdism be extended to Irish tenantry, and to which they are entitled

  699
  under the British feudal Constitution, in the first place; and, secondly, stamp out sectarian ascendancy—stamp it out in the shrievalty, stamp it out in the Grand Jury system, and stamp it out in the magistracy. The Grand Jury system stands condemned; taxation without representation shall not be tolerated longer; But the question of the composition of the magistracy of Ireland requires the instant action of Parliament. The hon. Member for Louth County (Mr. Callan) is moving for Returns to ground future action, and I myself intend to bring the question before the House next Session. Some years ago I issued a pamphlet upon sectarian ascendancy in Ireland, and the Committee will permit me to read an extract—
  "The great unpaid hold possession of all offices of power, privilege, and honour, to the steady exclusion of Roman Catholics. Just take the example of a southern county to illustrate. In the Queen's County, the Roman Catholics number 80,025, whilst there are only 10,619 Protestants; yet the representative Peer is a Protestant, the Lord Lieutenant of the county is also a Protestant, the 17 Deputy Lieutenants of the county are all Protestants; of the 90 magistrates in the county, 79 are Protestants and 11 Catholics; all the officials in the county gaol, the county infirmary, and the lunatic asylum, are of the ascendancy creed. The same, with the exception of the chaplaincy, is the case in the three workhouses. The two coroners, the secretary of the Grand Jury, the county surveyor and his assistants, the resident magistrate, the county inspector, and the chairman of the quarter sessions, are all Protestants. Of the eight sub-inspectors in the county, seven are Protestants and one Catholic. The 11 collectors of cess for the 11 baronies of the county are Protestants. On the list of special jurors for 1867, 41 were Protestants, and seven only were Catholics; and on the common jury list there appeared the names of 95 Protestants, and but 35 Catholics. The above constitute the statistics of one of the most Catholic counties in Ireland. If a Return were obtained of the other 31 counties, it would exhibit the self-same results."
  In the two counties where I attend petty sessions there are three districts— petty sessions—in every one of which the following state of things exists at present:—The lord of the soil is a justice and a Protestant; the land agent ditto; the resident magistrate ditto; the sub-inspector ditto; the petty sessions clerk ditto; and further, clerk of the rent office, the head constable, ditto ! I do not mean to allege anything injurious to my brother magistrates, or to insinuate that justice may not be done; but what I do say is that there is no
  700
  confidence in the administration of justice amongst the people. I know that it is not infrequent for suitors of the petty sessions courts to examine the composition of the Bench upon the day of trial and then to adjourn their cases, and the fact of such feeling amongst the people is a scandal upon the administration of justice. Why should the appointment of justices be left absolutely and without control to mere political casual nominees of Government? The patronage should be vested in a responsible Minister of the Crown, or resort be had partially or entirely to the ancient principle of election. I believe that one of the chief grounds for the maintenance of the armed force of Constabulary to which we object, is the want of confidence in the local Benches, inciting the people to take the law into their own hands. In the county of Kilkenny I could name half-a-score of gentlemen who would be an acquisition to the Bench of the county, and yet are excluded. The population is 85 per cent Catholic, and there are but 19 Catholics out of 97 justices, and not a single resident magistrate is a Catholic. If the land tenure system of Ireland were placed upon a proper basis, and sectarian ascendancy in county government and in the magistracy were stamped out, there would be no occasion for this armed Constabulary, save, it may be alleged, as to the "garrison" theory of government rampant in Ulster. The theory is that not only distinction of religion, but of race, is to be kept up in Ireland, just as under the Black Act, or Statute of Kilkenny, Orangeism means that ascendancy of race and religion is to be maintained, and for that purpose the police army is to help it in governing the country. I could certainly say that if anything could reconcile me to a short continuance of this armed force it would be for the purpose of putting down those senseless party processions of the North of Ireland. Would any Government in England permit party processions to annually celebrate the Battle of Hastings, and maintain a police army to enable the descendants of the Norman conquerors of England to hold the Saxons in slavery? Or to have the victory of Marston Moor annually celebrated with party fights over all England between Republicans and Royalists? Let the theory of government that

  701
  Orangeism is to rule Ireland as an English garrison be exploded; land tenure reform be established, and sectarian ascendancy abolished, and the present police system will become unnecessary, and the Empire saved some £2,000,000 sterling of expenditure, which, capitalized, would go a far way to purchase the ownership of the soil for the Irish people, and put an end for even to agrarian disturbance.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would support any Motion for the reduction of the strength or of the pay of the Irish Constabulary. He found in the Estimates that there was an increase both in the number of men to be voted and in the extent of barrack accommodation for them. He certainly saw no necessity for that increase. The population of Ireland was decreasing; and, from certain statistics lately published, they might conclude that it was likely to be still further diminished. Crime and outrage in Ireland had been talked of all through these debates, and made so prominent that many persons who were unacquainted with the real condition of the country could hardly avoid coming to the conclusion that the Irish people were highly criminal and exceedingly vicious; but he wished the English people and the Irish Members of the House of Commons to understand that the crime and outrage of Ireland were almost entirely connected with the tenure of land in that country. It was impossible to have bad laws without having also unrest, and disturbance, and violence. When, in England, circumstances existed that were similar to those which now existed in Ireland, the same crime and outrage prevailed. When the Saxon holders of the soil were being dispossessed by their Norman conquerors, outrage, assassination, and violence pervaded the land, and the oppressed were then to be found, as was unfortunately the case in Ireland now, waiting behind walls and hedges, in order to get rid of their oppressors. One of the laws then made was, that whenever a Frenchman was found murdered, the Saxon population of that part of the country in which the body was discovered should pay a fine for the outrage. The Irish people were being subjected to very nearly the same treatment that prevailed in England so long ago. Why
  702
  did he say that? Because the people of Ireland were subjected at the present day to a vicious coercion system, and his contention was that, wherever such a system existed in any part of the known world, it would produce the same evil fruits. How did these Saxon people save themselves from this odious mulct? Their system was certainly ingenious, though it was not very handsome. In order that the Frenchmen should not be able to tell whether the murdered man was French or English, they mutilated the body after they had assassinated the man, cut off his limbs, slashed his face, and, in fact, mutilated him from head to foot, so that the Norman people could not say whether it was not a poor Saxon who had been murdered. The Normans, however, soon met this state of things by a law that, whenever it could not be proved to be an Englishman, the mutilated body should be taken to be that of a Frenchman. This state of things existed in England—this state of crime and outrage, this horrible system of assassination—when nothing of the kind was known in Ireland. The agrarian system then in operation there gave no occasion for these crimes. That system recognized no absolute property in land by any man, not even the King himself; and the land was considered as the property of the people, and divided amongst them by a system which he need not fully describe. Thus, while in England the country was full of crime, outrage, mutilation, and assassination, in Ireland nothing of the kind was known. The recent practices in Ireland were learnt by the Irish people from England. They got their teaching in that system from this country, and that fact should be remembered by Englishmen, and by the English people. It was left on record by Englishmen—some of the earliest settlers, if they could so call them—that there were no people on the face of the earth who better loved equal and indifferent justice than the Irish people. Sir John Davies, the Attorney General of James I., had left that opinion on record; and the poet Spencer had given expression to similar views; so that it came from more than one high English authority that no people at that time better loved equal and indifferent justice than the Irish. He maintained that the same qualities

  703
  existed among them to the present day. It was only in these agrarian difficulties that the Irish people had any sympathy with what was called crime, and the explanation of that fact was simple. They had in Ireland Judges who had to administer, from time to time, and very often, laws which were not only unpopular, but were most unjust. Yet, the Irish people, from their justice-loving nature, accepted that administration of the law; and they had never been known to either assail or menace a Judge in Ireland. If it could not be said that the Judges were very popular men, at any rate they were not unpopular. He heard it remarked some time ago, from a Bench above the Gangway, that if the Disturbance Bill should pass into law, it would be necessary to take some measure for the protection of the Irish Judges. Now, against that he put the fact he had just mentioned, that the Judges, though they were administering laws which were often unjust, were neither menaced nor assailed by the Irish people. He knew a case of a learned Judge still alive of whom it was related that he purchased a little property in the County of Tipperary, and soon after paid his first visit to it in his capacity as landlord. He related the story himself, that he went down one day—he was a man of very small stature—to look over his property. As he went over one of his fields he heard a woman, who had been peeping at him from some little plantation, say to someone else—"Is he that little bit of a fellow? Why the boys might as well be shooting at a snipe." Relating this at a dinner, to his legal brethren on the Munster Circuit, the comment of one barrister present was—"Quite right, too. It is a good business principle that every landlord should be a mark for his tenant." But nothing happened to the learned Judge. He was alive and well now, and the remark of the Tipperary woman was probably made in a joking spirit. It had been said by Englishmen, writing in English papers, that the parts of Ireland in which agrarian outrage was most rife, and in which assassination of landlords was most frequent, were precisely those parts which had the largest infusion of English and Saxon blood. In support of that statement he might read a few words written not long ago in one of the
  704
  leading organs of England—a paper which boasted of having the largest circulation in the world. It remarked on the fact that in the purely Celtic counties there was no agrarian crime, while the Southern and Midland counties—such as Tipperary and Wexford, Meath and Westmeath, King's County and Queen's County—where they had a certain infusion of English settlers, were just those counties where landlord shooting had always been most prevalent; and it said that—
  "The evictions to which the Celts of the West and South submitted with tears and lamentations, the farmers of Tipperary and Westmeath resented with muskets from behind a hedge."
  That was the testimony of the The Daily Telegraph, that agrarian crime was most rife just wherever there was the greatest infusion of English blood. The Irish police system was the main prop of this unjust and odious landlordism in Ireland. One of his Colleagues, who spoke a few minutes ago, read a letter from one of the Royal Irish Constabulary, complaining that their time had been spent in drill in the Phoenix Park and that their band was playing to aristocrats all over the country, while the police had to pay for its support. Surely the Consolidated Fund ought to bear that extra expense? He only wondered, as the police were such a military force, that regimental colours were not given to them. He should not be surprised if that step were taken, and if ever anything of that sort were resolved on, he would venture to suggest a design for those colours which should be a crowbar crossed with a rifle. Some of his friends had suggested that the land laws ought to be reformed first, and the discipline of the police afterwards; while others thought that the organization of the police first needed reform, and then that there would be little difficulty in dealing with the landlords. He, for his part, did not care which was begun first; but he did claim that one or the other should be commenced at once, because the present state of things in Ireland was intolerable.
  MR. MACFARLANEsaid, he had taken no part in the debate hitherto because he thought it was more becoming that Irish Members, who were not only Irish Members but Irishmen, should

  705
  express their feelings. He should explain that it was not from any want of sympathy, or because he failed to agree with them in their objection to the Constabulary Force, that he had not spoken before. He regretted that it was necessary to maintain a police army in Ireland. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had said that afternoon that if they removed the Irish Constabulary, he would ask for no legislation for the land. He, himself, thought it would be better to legislate for the land first, and then reform the Constabulary. It had been said that the Constabulary was maintained in its present form because life and property were not secure in Ireland. He did not think, as a general proposition, that that was a correct statement. Ordinary property was quite as safe in. Ireland, he believed it was safer than it was in this country. It was only one kind of property, and that a property about which there had been a conflict for many a generation as to its true ownership, with regard to which there was any insecurity. The landlord maintained that he had the sole, and entire, and absolute ownership of the land, and that the people of the country, the cultivators, had no rights whatever in the land except such as he might choose to concede to them. That he thought a most vicious principle. The tenants of Ireland had been in conflict with their landlords upon that question for many generations; and until it was settled upon an equitable basis, there would be no peace and no security for that kind of property in Ireland. For his part, if he were an Irish landlord, he should go on his knees to the House of Commons, and beg them to settle this question—beg them to settle it fairly and equitably between the landlord and the tenants, in order that he might live in security, and receive his rents with regularity. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had spoke of the 500,000 tenant farmers of Ireland, standing face to face with 10,000 landlords. All that he had said was very true; and the sooner the House of Commons recognized that fact, and legislated accordingly, the better it would be for England and Ireland. In his opinion, the Irish Members, in their protest against this armed force, were doing no more than their fair duty. They would be open to the reproach of their own people and
  706
  their own constituents that they, as Irish Members, had been guilty of neglect of their duty if they had not brought forward this question. He also, as a Member for an Irish constituency, would be equally guilty of a neglect of his own duty if he did not add an expression of his own sympathy with the object they had in view. He believed that if the Government would settle the Land Question as they had settled it elsewhere, under the dominion of the Crown, there would be no further difficulty. In Bengal, an Act was passed in 1859 settling the Agrarian Land Question, as the Government felt it to be of very great importance. They, therefore, passed an Act to give the tenant fixity of tenure with a fair rent, and denying to the landlord the right to raise that rent except by an action at law. In that action at law, also, the landlord would have to prove, before he could enhance the rent of the tenant, that the proceeds and the value of the land had increased from other causes than the expenditure of the tenant's capital and labour. If they would pass a simple Act of that kind for Ireland, he believed they would have the Irish Land Question settled at once, and would be simply following the precedent for it which had received the sanction of the Crown in India, after it had passed from under the old rule of the East India Company. When that had once been done, the Government could get rid of the Constabulary, or, at any rate, take the arms out of their hands, and employ them in a more congenial work than that of evicting women and children. For his part, he would far prefer to see that splendid body of men employed under another gallant Irishman marching upon Candahar than engaged in conflict with their own people. He did not say that it was in the power of the Government at present to disarm the Constabulary; but he had no doubt that it was with great reluctance that the Government felt itself compelled to keep up an armed force for the preservation of peace in Ireland. They had at present twice as many European soldiers in Ireland as they had in Afghanistan. It certainly was a most humiliating fact that they had half as many soldiers in Ireland as served to keep in awe a population of 200,000,000 of aliens in India. The great result of English rule in Ireland was, that after 700 years of govern-

  707
  ment, it was necessary to keep 30,000 armed men in that country. It seemed to him that the mere statement of that fact was a disgrace to the English government of Ireland.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that with regard to one remark of his hon. Friend, he wished to say that he and his hon. Friends on that side of the House were not merely advocates of Home Rule for Ireland, but also for Afghanistan and Zululand. He would be very sorry to see any Irish force marching against Candahar; but with regard to the present Estimate, he would ask the Government to consider, not only their own position in the matter, but also that of the Irish Members and of the Irish tenantry. More than once the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had appealed to the Irish Members to use their influence, and he had said, very truly, that it was a great influence to preserve law and order in Ireland; and he had frequently, also, as it appeared to him, unnecessarily dwelt, almost with delight, upon the instances of cattle-marking and personal outrages which he had been able to collect by reason of his Office. He did not say that the right hon. Gentleman was acting with characteristic unfairness, for unfairness was not a characteristic of the right hon. Gentleman, but with that unfairness which appeared to be the characteristic of all Englismen in dealing with Irish subjects. It had never occurred to Irish Members to suggest that remedial measures should be passed with regard to crimes committed in England; those crimes were not crimes of revenge, or such as were committed in selfdefence, but were brutal and inhuman. But it had never occurred to Irish Members to suggest, on account of those crimes, that repressive measures should be adopted with regard to the population of England generally. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman had any right to bring before the House those horrible details, with respect to outrages on man and beast, which had happened in Ireland, by way of showing that they ought not to expect any alteration in the landlords. [Mr. W. E. FORSTER said, that he had not used them in that sense.] He (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) did not say the right hon. Gentleman had made use of such a proposition, but his whole bearing was suggestive of that attitude.
  708
  He had suggested that until those outrages were put a stop to, hon. Members from Ireland had not done all they could to put an end to them. His appeal to Irish Members was unnecessary and uncalled for. Long before the appeal of the right hon. Gentleman, he himself and his hon. Colleague, who was much trusted by the people in Queen's County, as was his noble father before him, anticipated the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman, and urged the people in Queen's County to remain quiet and peaceable under a law which they knew to be unjust. They had appealed to the people to allow them to advocate their cause in that House, and to work out their redemption through the open channel of the Constitution instead of having recourse to those measures, which however justifiable under certain circumstances, were entirely outside the law. If they went back to their constituents, at the end of the present Session, without anything being done, what would they say to them? The people would tell them that they advised them to be quiet and peaceable; and, if they would trust to their Representatives, they would secure for them, if not complete justice, yet a fair hearing in the House of Commons. The people would say that they had told them that the House of Commons could not refuse to admit that there was great ground for their complaints, and a necessity that steps should be taken, if not at once, yet in the immediate future, to remedy the grievances under which they lay. But the whole Session had been completely barren of results, so far as they were concerned. It was nonsense to talk about the assurances of Ministers. Unfortunately they were not in sufficient numbers to make the position of the present Ministry at all insecure. If they were in such a position, he was sure they would not have had to waste the time they had in obtaining a hearing. The remedy would have been pushed almost into their arms by eager Ministers. In the same way, if, in Ireland, they were able to demand, in arms, what they could justly claim, it would not be necessary for them even to ask it. The English people and Ministry would be but too glad to grant it, and a number of people, whose consciences were now utterly dead to their grievances, would be clamourous that steps should

  709
  be taken. But they had not the force of arms, and they had not the force of numbers in that House sufficient to compel attention, and the result was that they saw the whole Session wasted and the position of Ireland not one whit better, and not one whit more hopeful, than it was before. They had seen days and weeks wasted on the question whether landlords and tenants should be allowed to shoot rabbits and hares in England; but they had been grudged an extra evening for the consideration of the question whether soldiers or police should shoot down women and children in Ireland. They had seen, it was true, some slight efforts on the part of the Government to pass a Bill which, at the best, extended only to one half of Ireland, and only dealt with those parts which were disorderly, and where it was necessary to maintain order at the point of the bayonet and with buckshot and bullets; but the scheme did not extend to that part of Ireland which, although suffering under equal grievances and having equal ground of complaint, had submitted to the law and had preserved a peaceable demeanour. The county which he had the honour to represent was the most rack-renting county in Ireland; but the people were amongst the most peaceable in the country. In spite of their sufferings, when disturbance broke out in Mayo, constables from Queen's County were able to be sent over to re-inforce those in Mayo. Those constables went to assist to suppress the disturbances in Mayo, although they sprung from the people, and sympathized as much with the land movement as any man in that House. Their fathers, mothers, or brothers might be tenants in Queen's County or in the adjoining county; and they sympathized so much with the tenants that, when in Mayo, they were sent to assist in evicting one man, they felt such sympathy with his misfortunes that they clubbed together and paid the unfortunate man's rent in order that he and his fever-stricken children should not be turned out on the roadside. On that occasion in Mayo they were received by the people with cheers, and when they returned to Queen's County they were welcomed with blessings. He was very glad to be able to record such an instance of the humanity of the constabulary in the
  710
  present discussion. In 1828, when O'Connell went down to Ennis, the garrison turned out and presented arms to him, and it was only then that the Duke of Wellington conceived the idea that there was nothing so horrible as civil war. The Duke then urged the House to pass a Bill for Catholic Emancipation, because he thought that if it did not pass there would be civil war. He trusted that the lesson the Duke of Wellington learned at Ennis might be repeated with regard to the constabulary in Ireland. He did not wish that the Government should think that there was any fear of civil war, nor did he wish that the constabulary should fail in their duty in any way; but he wished that their sympathy, which he knew to be strong with the unfortunate tenantry in Ireland, might be shown in such a way that even the authorities in Dublin Castle might come to see that even the constabulary might be used too much in an unnatural direction. The constabulary at present were the Janizaries of their own country, and were set against their fellows as the Mussulmans were set against their fellows. They were compelled to be strangers in the land of their birth. It was part of the system to send every man to a district in which he was a stranger, and if, while he was there, he should marry, he was then at once removed and sent to a district in which not only he was a stranger, but his wife also, for no man was allowed to be in a county of which either he or his wife were natives. These Irish police, who were disguised soldiers, were thus made strangers in their own country; but besides the police in Ireland, there were the soldiers, who were Scotchmen and Englishmen. Coastguards were so arranged that the Irish soldiers did duty either in England or Scotland, and the Scotchmen and Englishmen were sent out to Ireland; and precisely the same thing happened with regard to the soldiers. The Irish soldiers were sent to do extra service in foreign lands; they were sent out to fight the battles of Great Britain, and nearly all the English and Scotch soldiers were retained for Home service. Whenever a regiment was to be sent abroad, it was first sent to Ireland to be recruited up to its full foreign strength; and if anyone would look through the rota for foreign service, they would find that the troops

  711
  relieved from foreign service were quartered in England, Scotland, or the Channel Islands, and that troops were only sent to Ireland before they went on foreign service. The result was that the soldiers for foreign service were principally drawn from Ireland, and the English and Scotch soldiers were kept at home. The Government could not pass any new measure of a remedial character that Session, for there was no time, even if there was the will; but they did ask the Government to give them some means of showing their tenants, when they appealed to them to trust the Constitutional means, that they were justified in so doing by the result, and that they might be able to point to some small concession. They asked that if the women and children of Ireland were to be shot, to allow them to be shot by soldiers, and not by policemen. It was simply nonsense to talk about the means of disarming the Constabulary. If such a system were in force in England, and there was in England such a feeling with regard to the system as there was in Ireland as expressed through her Representatives, the Government would find no difficulty about disarming the police in a single week. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) the other day stated that it was impossible to prevent the passing of this Vote, and said that he did not contemplate that it could be done. For his own part, he did not understand that attitude, and he regretted that the hon. and learned Member should make that statement. He had always believed, in accordance with what was written by Hume, the great Constitutional writer, that the cardinal principle of the British Constitution, and the keynote of the House of Commons, was that the redress of grievances must precede Supply. He would like to see his fellow Members from Ireland take a firm and determined attitude on this question, no matter what amount of odium they incurred, or what irritation it might produce upon the Treasury Bench. He thought they would be justified in carrying on a war á outrance, refusing to grant Supply until they had obtained some distinct proof of the intention, or some substantial assurance of the Government, in direction of remedial legislation for Ireland.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, that he fully agreed with the course taken by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but he was not so well pleased at the line adopted by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. Though the right hon. Gentleman seemed for a moment to be extremely friendly he had always been taught to believe that conciliatory words were only to be believed in when they took the forms of deeds—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. FINIGANcontinuing, said, that he only believed in conciliation when it took the practical form of deeds, and was totally removed from mere words of sympathy and conciliation. He looked upon the Irish Constabulary as the most unconstitutional and despotic force that had ever existed in any country; and though he was quite prepared to vote against this Vote generally, yet he was not willing to delay it by going through its different items. He took it to be the case that they had a very handsome promise from the Ministerial Bench with regard to the police army in Ireland, and some hope was held out that, provided they could show during the coming winter, and, perhaps, during two or three winters, that they could preserve peace and order by moral suasion, then that the military order and organization of this police would be abolished. He was determined, so far as he himself was concerned, to vote against this police Vote as a protest against the system, and not against the men. The other night he said that the Constabulary of Ireland was composed of Russians; he was misunderstood when he was supposed to refer to the police personally, and he wished to make it clear that he referred to the system of police. He considered the police system to be of an unjust and despotic character, and worthy only of a country like Russia. In reply to his question, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had said that at a meeting alluded to by him, constables were not present as constables, but were simply there in their personal capacity taking notes. He contended that the constabulary were so from one day to another, and from one year to another,

  713
  continuously without any break in their capacity as constables, and he held that it was neither just nor equitable that the Constabulary of Ireland—a military force—should be encouraged from the Treasury Bench in devoting their leisure hours to a system of espionage in order that they might avail themselves of their spare time to injure the interests of individuals by their police espionage system. He would not, however, take up the time of the Committee by further alluding to this matter; but, he was extremely sorry to hear such a policy as that laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, and he should do, in time to come what he had done in times past—he should, both in Parliament and out of it, so long as this unjust system of eviction existed in Ireland, and so long as there were the results they now had of carrying out this unjust system—he should advise the tenants he met, whether in public or private, to support their families, and clothe their families, and house their families first, and then to consider whether they would pay rent. He should oppose the police attending any meetings at which he had the honour to be present. If the police would keep away he should do his best to preserve peace and order; but if the police would not abstain from forming squares or from forming lines around any platform on which he might be, he should leave the law and the people face to face, and he should, at the same time, ask the people to act Constitutionally but firmly in the interests of what he considered to be the interests of his country and the interests of that country with which his country happened to be associated. With respect to the remarks of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood), he could only say that as long as he was in that House he should support independently of one side of the House or the other, any measure or Bill which he deemed to be for the interests of the people of England, and he should take any course he deemed fit with regard to any English Bill which he thought would be for the benefit of England. With these few remarks, he begged to say that he was perfectly willing to follow the advice of his hon. Friend and Leader the Member for the City of Cork; but, that at the same time, he should ever act independently of Party, and in-
  714
  dependently of any other considerations than those which he believed to be for the benefit of Ireland.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that there were two points as to which he would intrude upon the Committee, but only for one moment. One was as to the presence of the constabulary at public and political meetings. It was perfectly true that that practice never obtained in England, and that if any sort of array of armed police was noticed at any English political meeting it would excite great indignation. He thought he had been present during the last 30 years at as many public and political meetings as any man of his age; but he had never seen such a display of force there as he had seen at public meetings in Ireland, and he could not but think that the presence of a few policemen, armed like soldiers, did nothing to preserve peace, or to restore order if it were broken. Many public meetings had taken place in Ireland, sometimes under circumstances of considerable excitement, and from the time of O'Connell downwards, he thought that political meetings in Ireland had been, on the whole, as peaceable and as well conducted as those in England, and he hoped that the Government would think it advisable, in reference to these public meetings in Ireland, not to force upon them a display of arms, which must be a source of annoyance and irritation to the people there as well as those who desired liberty here. There were difficulties, no doubt, in Ireland, which did not exist in England, but he thought that the presence of armed police at public meetings could be perfectly well dispensed with. With respect to the outrages which had been committed in Ireland, no man could say a word in justification of them, but the circumstances out of which those outrages arose should be taken into consideration. He had had personal experience in the presence of armed constabulary and military, of the way in which public feeling was excited in Ireland. He was present about 30 years ago at the eviction of some unfortunate men in the County Cork, which eviction took place in the presence of armed constabulary and a squadron of the 7th Dragoon Guards. Amongst the unfortunate people evicted was one man who was at the point of death; but the entreaties of his wife that he might be allowed to

  715
  live his last few remaining hours in the hovel he had occupied the bulk of his life, were totally disregarded, and he was left to perish by the road side. He was one of the mounted escort at the time and saw what happened. That unfortunate man's wife was found the next day in an insensible condition, with one child in her arms nearly dead, and the other quite dead, and was taken in an insane state to Cork. It seemed to him that the occurrence of scenes of that description went far to explain the many outrages which they heard of in Ireland.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTsaid, that having, ever since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, taken a deep interest in all that concerned the welfare of Ireland, and was calculated to benefit her, he hoped he might be allowed to make a few observations. He did not rise for the purpose of objecting to the Vote under discussion; on the contrary, he intended to support it; but at the same time he deeply lamented the necessity which occasioned it. He greatly regretted, that in the 19th century, when they in that House were doing what they could to extend the blessing of enlarged freedom to the rest of the community, and widening, in almost every direction, the boundaries of civil and religious liberty, they were under the sad necessity of governing Ireland at the point of the bayonet. He could not help feeling, when he regarded the 11,000 constables employed, and the £1,000,000 which was being expended in keeping up so large a force, that that £1,000,000 would be much better laid out in finding employment and food for the suffering population. No one beheld with greater horror than he did the disgraceful outrages which at that moment prevailed in many parts of Ireland, and no one who read the daily papers could shut his eyes to their extent; but still, as an Englishman, he could not help saying to himself, while he felt horror and detestation at those crimes—"Have we done justice to that unhappy country? Have we done all we could to elevate and raise her, and ought we not rather to feel conscious of our shortcomings, and to say, 'Verily, we are guilt concerning our brother.'" In many places the inhabitants had not food or sustenance, and yet the land, if properly cultivated, would supply the wants of a
  716
  much larger population than at present existed, and there was much land now waste and unreclaimed, which might be brought into fertility, and supply the wants of many thousands of the peasantry. He had a letter in his pocket which the late Sir Richard Griffith, the very able and respected Government Surveyor in Ireland, had written to him a short time before his death, in which he stated that there were 900,000 acres of land now lying idle and useless, upon which, if comparatively moderate capital were expended, they might be rendered amply fertile and productive. Surely it was the duty of the Government to develop the existing resources of Ireland, and bring those lands into cultivation; for he would remind them of the political axiom of one held in high authority by hon. Gentlemen opposite—Stuart Mill —"That it was the duty of the State to find food for the population." As regarded the political and social position of Ireland, he had always been in favour of equal rights and privileges for the whole United Kingdom, and had always condemned the inequalities to which Ireland was subjected. But it would be found of no use extending political rights and franchises to the Irish people, until many of those who rightly claimed them were rendered capable of properly exercising them by the advantages of a better education than they now had, and by the improvement of their general status and social condition. He objected to the character of the Administration in Ireland, and he had always advocated its abolition. It savoured too much of military despotism, and he would have the same laws and the same description of government for both countries. But while he said that, he gladly took the opportunity of expressing his opinion strongly against Home Rule, which he considered a vision and a chimera, though he was aware that his hon. Friends below the Gangway were pledged to that theory. But he considered that Home Rule meant separation, and separation meant ruin and destruction for their country, and he could not help reminding them of what that great patriot and statesman Edmund Burke said, in 1797, in the last letter which he wrote before his death, and was on the subject of Ireland which he loved so well, adverting to separation from England which was then agitated, although, of course it was before the

  717
  Union, and, therefore, long before Home Rule was thought of—
  "A separation from England would make Ireland the most wretched, the most distracted, the most desolate country on the face of the habitable globe."
  And, therefore, it was that he often entreated his late lamented Friend Mr. Butt to cast off this impossible idea of Home Rule, and go with him, in a calm, dispassionate, and earnest investigation, into the general state and condition of Ireland, with the view of developing her resources, which, undoubtedly, were many, and placing her on that equal footing to which she was entitled, with England and Scotland. He was convinced that the difficulties in the way of her improvement and progress were far from being insurmountable, and so warmly had he felt on this subject that the first, or nearly the first, speech he had made in Parliament, standing on the Bench immediately behind Lord Beaconsfield, then Mr. Disraeli, was to implore that eminent Statesman to employ the large and powerful, and he might add docile, majority which he possessed to confer real and substantial benefits on Ireland. But he could not help saying that during the six years of power held by the Conservative Party hardly a step was taken to improve the condition of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) had succeeded to the reins of Government as Chief Secretary, and although he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) had not been able to support, or approve of, the first Irish measure introduced by him—namely, the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill — as he considered that it relieved and assisted one class at the expense of another, yet he fully believed that the present Chief Secretary for Ireland had the interests of that country warmly at heart, and was disposed to devise and introduce measures more maturely and carefully considered than the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill, which would be found beneficial, wise, and just. With the great abilities, energy, and honesty of character possessed by the right hon. Gentleman, he thought that hon. Members below the Gangway might safely trust and confide in the Minister who now had charge of the interests of their country; and, if they had that confidence, he would ask them to allow the present
  718
  Vote to pass without further opposition as a Vote which they all lamented, but of which, under present circumstances, they recognized the stern necessity.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he had no wish, by any remarks of his, to delay the progress of the Committee. He would not have interfered in the discussion, if it had not been for the repeated allusions that Irish Members had made to the fact that English Liberals—especially the Radical section of them—had listened during all the recent debates in silence, if not indifference, to the wrongs of their country. He could assure them that, although he had been silent, he had not been indifferent. He was always reluctant to take part in an Irish discussion, because there were so many Members from that country not only able and willing, but anxious, to expound their views, and he felt hesitation in interjecting his opinions upon the House in preference to theirs. He had listened to the melancholy recital of Irish distress, discontent, and disaffection, not only with regret, but with a sense of humiliation and shame. It was a sad satire on the government of Ireland by this country. No bitterer condemnation could be pronounced than the bare repetition of the facts that the recent distress had elicited. Let Englishmen look at them free from Party bias or passion. Seven hundred years ago we conquered Ireland. A century since we gave the Irish a Parliament of their own, when we were threatened with a war with France, and engaged in a conflict with our American Colonies. No sooner, however, had the fear of the results of that war subsided, and the complications in America been settled, than we broke up their Parliament by a combination of fraud and force that had no parallel in modern history. And now 80 years after the Union that was to bring peace, prosperity, and plenty—that was to secure happiness and harmony—we had the Chief Secretary telling us that the condition of Ireland was so grave that it was possible, at one time he even thought probable, that Parliament would have to be called together in the autumn to pass another Coercion Bill. Another Coercion Bill! that meant the fifth or sixth occasion on which the Constitution had been suspended in half a century. They had been discussing, for hours together, whether the Irish people could most

  719
  mercifully be shot down by bullets or buckshot. The discontent in the country, if not so widespread, was now as intense as it was at the commencement of the century. There were over 100 Irish Members in Parliament. Sixty of these came to the House pledged to accept no settlement of Irish grievances that did not give some recognition of their National aspirations. Thirty, if not 40, of these 60 were prepared to emphasize and accentuate that declaration by demands even stronger. English Members might ridicule it as they chose, but the fact could not be gainsaid that these Gentlemen represented the public opinion of Ireland, and, if they did not, they would not be there. The Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House constituted a majority in Parliament, and, being a majority, they formed the Government. But the Home Rule Members returned for Irish constituencies were proportionately more numerous than the Liberals returned for English constituencies. That might be an unpleasant statement to make, but it was true; and if they were wise they would recognize it, and deal with it. Circumstances had required him recently to give special attention to Irish land difficulties. He had visited that country more than once during the last few months. He had been anxious to study upon the spot some of the causes of the dire distress that afflicted the people. He could say that there were to be witnessed in the West of Ireland scenes of wretchedness and squalor such as it would be difficult to match in any country in Western Europe. Men, women, and children were huddled together, indiscriminately, in miserable hovels that hon. Members would not house their cattle in. To say that such a state of things was an outrage upon civilization was not to condemn it sufficiently. It was an outrage upon decency. If English Members wished to understand the origin of the feeling of asperity that lay at the bottom of many of the Irish discussions, they could not do better than employ the Recess by visiting some of the scenes to which he referred. They heard a great deal of the violence that had characterized the doings of the people in the distressed districts. No one condemned this violence more than he did, and he rejoiced at the emphatic and unanimous condemnation it had received
  720
  from his hon. Friends opposite. It damaged their cause in the estimation of the country, and it had no effect in modifying the severity of their condition. But, while condemning this violence, he would have hon. Members to inquire if it was not in many instances the handiwork, the horrible handiwork, of misery alone? Were not the outrages frequently the outbursts of intolerable self-suffering? It was easy for them to sit by their fire-sides, in comfort and plenty, and pass judgment on starving men driven to desperation. Without palliating, certainly without justifying, the excess that had been so often alluded to, these generous considerations might be allowed to have some force in the minds of Englishmen. When he was last in Dublin he spent a Sunday morning in the cemetery of Glasnevin. An incident, apparently insignificant, occurred there which threw some light on the state of popular feeling. A funeral was taking place. It was evidently that of a working man, and one who had the esteem of his class. As the mourners passed the spot where he was sitting they uttered many expressions of interest if not of sorrow. He was struck with their demeanour, and inquired the cause of it. One man answered, "Don't you know, Sir, that it is here they are buried !"He asked who they were, and his informant replied," The Fenians." He then remarked, "Oh! these are the graves of Redden, Macarthy, Macmanus, and their compatriots?" Yes," replied the man, "this is the burying-place of those who were done to death by England in her gaols." In the estimation of these poor people, this was hallowed ground. They also directed his attention to a monument hard by. It was erected to the memory of the Manchester men, and, in speaking of it they said with much pathos—"The English call these men murderers; we call them martyrs; they died for their country." These expressions might appear extravagant; in the estimation of some hon. Gentlemen they would be grotesque, but they expressed the feeling of the poor people. The present Government, like all others, ought to recognize the fact that, in ruling a nation, we should not only govern it according to its wants, but its wishes; not only in accordance with its principles, but with its pleasures and its prejudices. Until the English people realized that, the

  721
  government of Ireland would continue to be unsuccessful. He was sure it was not from any want of disposition to do justice to Ireland. Both parties—the adherents of the late Government and the supporters of the present —? were equally desirous to act justly to their fellow subjects. But it was more from want of appreciating the best way to serve that end, than from want of will to accomplish it. The Prime Minister, years ago, said that, with all their efforts, the English people had not won the heart of Ireland. The observation was as true to-day as it was when it was uttered. The national sentiment of the two peoples clashed, and what appeared insignificant to the one was looked upon as important by the other. In their opinions, with respect to the land, this point was well illustrated. Englishmen, with characteristic self-satisfaction, regarded their laws and customs with respect to the tenure of land as the common, the right, and the natural ones. They forgot altogether that the position of England was exceptional and extraordinary—that no other country was so peculiarly placed as it was by its mining and manufacturing industries. They did not realize the fact that it was the English custom that was the exception, and the Irish custom that was the rule. In other things, too, there was a curious misapprehension of the spirit of the two peoples, and, until it was harmonized, they could not hope to see a genuine, as well as a legal, union exist between the two countries. Nothing during his inquiries as to the state of affairs in Ireland had struck him more forcibly than the fact that a large percentage of the landowners were really and honestly anxious to do justly by their tenants. It was a great wrong to the Irish landowners to pass upon them an unqualified condemnation. Considering the circumstances, he had no hesitation in saying that the large landowners in Ireland were more considerate to their tenants than the same class were in England, and a good feeling existed between them. But there were others of whom the same remark could certainly not be made. These men were, for the most part, new landowners—men who had purchased property out of the Encumbered Estates Court, and had striven to get commercial interest for their money out of possessions that, in many instances,
  722
  were regarded as little else than luxuries. It was these land speculators and land jobbers towards whom such bitter feelings of resentment were entertained. He had seen, within the last 12 months, an illustration of the sentiment towards this class. Going to attend one of the land meetings that had been so often referred to, he passed, on his journey, on a Sunday morning, a landlord driving to church, with two armed constables in front of his carriage and two behind. He was going to a place of worship between these men, carrying loaded carbines to protect him from the dreaded attacks of his neighbours. If such an incident had been reported from other countries—say from Turkey—we should have had no end of moralization over the fact in that House; and the lesson it taught, as well as the insecurity of human life, would have been unctiously enlarged on. But it took place in Ireland, within a few hours' journey of the place they were now in, and it was unheeded. The feeling towards one section of the landowners was represented by this incident; and, towards another section, by the pleasant personal relations that, notwithstanding all the recent distress, had never been weakened. In dealing with Ireland, therefore, they should remember that what applied to one section of the country, and to one class of men, did not apply to the other. He recalled, for the benefit of the Government, an observation made more than 2,000 years ago by a Greek philosopher. He remarked that when a herd diminished, or degenerated, the fact that it did so was a condemnation of the herdsman. The remark was applied to the 30 tyrants who were then demoralizing and corrupting the people of Athens. From this homely illustration they might draw a wise political axiom, which was this—that if a people continued, not for years but for generations, not even for generations but for centuries, in a permanent state of discontent and disaffection, the existence of that disaffection and discontent was of itself a condemnation of the mode of government. It did not require argument, it simply required a repetition of the facts, to show that our government of Ireland had been a failure, from which not only the Irish people but the English also had suffered. He did not blame one Party more than the other. The entire country was responsible for it. Irish

  723
  politics, like foreign policy, ought not to be a question of Party. They were all interested in doing justice to the country, and in eliciting a spirit of cordiality between the two peoples. It was the duty of Parliament to give heed, irrespective of faction, to any measures that might contribute to this end.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he had listened to the hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. J. Cowen) with the greatest attention. He had seen something of Ireland himself, and had visited a great many other countries, and he could certainly say that, so far as his experience of the world went, no country amongst civilized nations was kept down by armed force to the extent that Ireland was. He said, deliberately, that the condition of Russia, of Turkey, of India, was better than Ireland in this respect. The armed force that one saw in Ireland seemed to be ubiquitous; for you could not go anywhere without seeing the constabulary. These quasi- soldiers were to be found in the most remote parts of Ireland, and he could not help thinking that this was a remarkable state of things very much to be regretted. He regretted it from a political point of view, and he thought, with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), that it was a sad thing it should exist. He regretted it as a ratepayer of this country, considering it hard that they, the taxpayers, should be called upon to put their hands in their pockets for the payment of this armed police. If the Motion was not to abolish it but to put upon the Irish proprietors and taxpayers the expense of maintaining it, he should agree to the proposal. There was no reason why Irishmen should not pay for the constabulary themselves, just as England and Scotland paid for their own police. He had great sympathy indeed with the Irish people, who, for centuries, had suffered great wrong at our hands. We owed them a debt of reparation, but he had no such sympathy with the Irish proprietors that he would relieve them of this expense. It was unjustifiable that the Irish proprietors should be, as they were, relieved by Englishmen and Scotchmen in this matter. As he had said before, so he would say again, that Ireland had always appeared to him to be an English Colony which had a minority of Colonists, and a majority of
  724
  Aborigines which were still unsubdued —still discontented. We should learn a lesson from our experience in other Colonies then—from our experience in South Africa, for instance, where we had been for 100 years. We had not had time to settle the people there, but still we were anxious to get rid of the expense of maintaining the forces necessary to keep the country in a state of tranquillity. Well, if we thought it hard in the South African Colony and elsewhere to be obliged to put our hands in our pockets to support the Colony, it certainly appeared to be hard that in this Irish Colony which we had had for 600 or 700 years the people had not sufficiently settled themselves as to be no longer a burden upon the mother country. For the future, therefore, he should be glad to see this Vote struck out of the Estimates. At the same time, the state of things was, unhappily, such at present, that the Vote was necessary, both on political grounds and on account of the religious differences which existed amongst the people in some parts of the country. But why, he would ask, was an armed force such as they found in no other country required in Ireland? As he had said before, Ireland, no doubt, had her grievances; but they must all acknowledge that justice had been done —["No, no!"]—wait and hear the end of his sentence—that justice had been done by the Liberal Government so far as the principles of English Law would permit. He would not say that they had gone farther—that the Executive legislation which had already taken place had gone beyond the principles of English law; but, although they had not gone beyond them, he thought that so far as those principles permitted they had done justice to Ireland. Notwithstanding that, their difficulties had not been diminished; on the contrary, they had been increased. And why was it? It was because they had given partial freedom to Ireland—a free Press, free elections, free trial—because they had allowed the voice of their Representatives to be heard here and elsewhere. But one thing still was wanting—namely, a m ore steadfast right to land than the Irish people had at present, and, by saying that, he did not mean free land. That being so, only two courses were open to them. Either she must be governed with a strong hand as a Crown Colony in

  725
  much the same way that Mr. Froude had suggested in The Nineteenth Century. ["No, no!"] He meant to say that they might govern it in that way, and he believed it would be possible. ["Never, never!"] Let them hear him out—he believed it would be possible to govern the country in that way; but, on the other hand, he believed that having conceded free trial, a free voice to their Representatives, and a free Press, to maintain their institutions and govern the country properly something further must be conceded. Having made these partial concessions within the limits of English Law, they really were not at the end of their difficulties; on the contrary, they were increasing. He was one of those, who, for some time past, had entertained the opinion that the Irish difficulty in this House was a very serious one. He had always thought that the Conservative Government had found Irish Obstruction, or persistent opposition, very useful to them; but Ministers who were anxious to go forward with the work of legislation found that persistent opposition impeded them. What had taken place that year? There were some Irish Members who were determined that something should be done beyond what the principles of English Law would allow, and those hon. Members were extremely active in opposition. He, therefore, said—"You must govern Ireland with a strong hand, and use expressive measures or adopt some heroic measure." That was his belief; he had said it before and he repeated it now, that the only way in which they could render the people of Ireland Conservative was by passing a heroic measure as to land, going far beyond the present principles of English Law, and far beyond the limit of anything hitherto attempted. If they wished to make Ireland Conservative, as the right hon. Gentlemen the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) said the other night they must not have 10,000 proprietors in Ireland, nor 100,000, but 500,000. They must have 500,000 people interested in the state of the peace and prosperity of the country, and then Ireland might be governed without an armed police. He had said that he would not detain the Committee long, and he was anxious to keep his word; but he had one other remark to make on the subject before he sat down.
  726
  Those who had been brought up with a reverence for the existing principles of English Law, would look upon the creation of 500,000 landed proprietors as an extraordinary and an extravagant measure. He had studied that question a good deal, and had attended meetings on the subject in various places, and the result he had arrived at was that Ireland was the only country in Europe where cultivators of the soil had not been enfranchised. Reference had been made to the measures adopted in Russia, and France, and Belgium for the establishment of a peasant proprietary; but there was a more recent example he would refer to—namely, that of Austria. Even in Turkey they had peasant proprietors; but Austria, which was a Conservative country, and a country with which the Conservatives of England had often had sympathy, there was a peasant proprietary. Austria was not under a revolutionary government; yet throughout the Austrian dominions this great measure of enfranchisement had been carried out, and measures were approaching completion which would make almost every Austrian peasant the proprietor of the land he tilled. It was an extraordinary thing that what was done in all Conservative countries in Europe should be too revolutionary and too extravagant for a Liberal, if not a Radical, Ministry—because we had a Liberal, if not a Radical Ministry, now in power in this country. He hoped that such a measure would be carried out in the very early future; and when it was introduced, he trusted that it would be found that we could dispense with this armed police of Ireland. Ireland would have nothing more to pay for than a civil police. He really believed that we were becoming more liberal in some matters; and he and others were thoroughly convinced that if prosperity and contentment were more universally spread, there would be no more violent expressions of antipathy to Great Britain used, and if some such heroic measure as he had described were adopted, we should have a truly contented and peaceful Ireland.
  MR. THOMASSONsaid, that thoroughly disliking, as he did, the existence of an armed Constabulary in Ireland, it was with some regret that he could not see his way to oppose the Vote, He agreed with the right hon.

  727
  Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) in thinking that it would be the duty of the House next Session to consider a land measure for Ireland; but, as an independent Member, he would go further, and say that if such a measure should be brought in and passed by a large majority in that House, and should be rejected by hereditary and irresponsible Legislators in "another place," he should have to consider whether he could again give his vote for the payment of this armed Constabulary. Sooner than vote for the payment under such circumstances, he would say to noble Lords, or, rather, he would wish those who were in power to say to them—"Take the government of Ireland into your own hands, come down to this honourable House, and, by any mouthpiece you can find, ask it to vote the money for the payment of this armed Constabulary and get it if you can." The House had in its hands a powerful Constitutional weapon in its right to refuse Supplies. In the judgment of the Government, and in his humble judgment also, the time had not come when it would be wise to use that weapon; but he felt that the time might come when it would be the duty of the House to consider whether it should not use that Constitutional weapon committed to its charge for the purpose of protecting the people of Ireland against an Assembly of landlords.
  MR. WARTON(rising at the same time as the Chief Secretary for Ireland) said, he should be sorry to stand between the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, except for one consideration—namely, that the right hon. Gentleman had already spoken in the debate, and had, moreover, made a personal allusion to him. He had listened with some pleasure to the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but his pleasure was confined to admiration for the ingenuity of the hon. Member. The speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork was, he thought, a fine specimen of well-sustained arguments; and, coming from that hon. Gentleman and addressed to the Chief Secretary for Ireland, was, he could not help feeling, unanswerable, because of the promises which had been so frequently made by the right hon. Gentleman, as well as of the statements which
  728
  had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, and the words used by the Prime Minister as to the country being "within a measurable distance of civil war." The hon. Member for the City of Cork was, in fact, too much for the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who seemed to be extremely desirous to go out of his way to compliment the hon. Member on the influence which he possessed in that country. He (Mr. Warton) would, however, take the liberty, with the permission of the Committee, of indicating the view which he took of the matter, which was that the promise given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork to use his influence in order to prevent, as far as he could, crime and outrage in Ireland, in the case of both men and cattle, was altogether a qualified statement, not absolute, but conditional, and depending for its performance on the acceptance by the Government of his proposal to pledge themselves to observe what the hon. Gentleman was pleased to call a policy of moderation. While the right hon. Gentleman had expressed the pleasure which he felt at hearing that part of the hon. Member's speech, he seemed to have overlooked the other passages in which the doctrine was laid down—the doctrine that resistance to the police was less criminal than the murdering of landlords and the houghing of cattle. Now, he (Mr. Warton) ventured to say that when those passages were read by the people in Ireland, they would be very likely to be taken by them, not in the same sense in which the right hon. Gentleman might take them, but as a recommendation to resist the police. If the hon. Member for the City of Cork wished to use the influence which he possessed in Ireland as a country gentleman, in a legitimate way, by all means let him do so; but if he took upon himself the position of a Leader of the Irish people, or any portion of them, he took upon himself a great responsibility. He put himself, as it were, in the place of the Government; and it was only a weak Government which, in his (Mr. War-ton's) opinion, would allow him to assume that position, and he ought, therefore, to be very careful as to the language which he used. In any case, it was the duty of the Government to stand upon a firm principle—no truca with treason.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the speech which the Committee had just heard seemed very like a remnant of past times, and gave some indication of the way in which Ireland had been governed during a great part of the last 100 years. To him it appeared to be possible, and not unreasonable, that while the law in that country was enforced, yet it might, in some respects, be altered for the better; but to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Warton) it was evidently an excessively absurd, unwise, unstatesmanlike, and miserable course to adopt to pay the slightest attention to the views on the subject of the Representatives of a considerable portion of the Irish people. As to the Vote before the Committee, it was not, he thought, necessary to make any remarks upon it which would delay the Division which was about to betaken. He might, however, observe that there was one thing which was very evident, that the Committee had not been discussing the details of the Vote, and that, once the debate turned on the condition of Ireland, it was not easy to get it out of that groove. That that should be so was a matter which caused him no surprise, for he admitted, as readily as any Member of that House, that it was a thing not to be wondered at, or lamented, or blamed, that the Irish Members, and English Members, too, should, year after year, when the Irish Constabulary Vote came before the Committee, feel anxious to place in the strongest terms before the Committee and the country the present condition of Ireland. In much that had been said that evening, both by English and Scotch Members, he entirely concurred. He agreed in a good deal which had fallen from his hon. Friend opposite the Member for South Warwickshire (Sir Eardley Wilmot) in the course of his eloquent speech, and also in a good deal which had been said by his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), who had endeavoured to impress upon the Committee the view that, in dealing with Irish questions, regard should be had, not merely to argument or what might be termed sound sense and a knowledge of the facts, but also to the feelings of the Irish people, with which, he maintained, it was the duty of the Government to be as far as possible in sympathy. Now, all he could say in reply to that remark was, that if he had not that
  730
  feeling of sympathy to which his hon. Friend referred, he should not be now trying to overcome the difficulties with which, in the position which he had the honour to hold of Chief Secretary for Ireland, he had to contend. He would, however, remind his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, that although there was in his able speech much that was true, yet that, while he reminded the Committee that the condition of Ireland was a disgrace to the Government and to Parliament, his hon. Friend was remarkably silent as to any measures which he himself would propose to remedy the state of things of which he complained. He would beg of his hon. Friend, who had a great knowledge of Ireland, and who felt a deep interest in her welfare, to use his great powers to remove, as far as possible, those evils which resulted from the general position of the land system in that country. And now, he should like to refer for a moment to one matter which had, he thought, been lost sight of throughout the whole course of the debate. For a period of more than 30 years there had been exceptional legislation in regard to Ireland. An Arms Act, or a Peace Preservation Act, or a Coercion Act, or all three together, or two of them—as at the beginning of the present year—had, during that time, been in operation in Ireland. And now it was for the first time for 30 years that any Government had attempted to try to govern that country without the aid of those exceptional powers. He thought, therefore, that Irish Members when they complained so strongly of what the Government wanted to do, ought to bear that fact in mind, and to recollect that it was not a very easy matter for the Irish Executive to get rid of a support on which it had so long rested. It was said that the Government ought not to have that support, and the Government were of the same opinion; but certainly the position in which they were placed, by doing away with the Peace Preservation Act, was an entirely new position, and that course, he might add, had been taken in opposition to many representations which had been made to them against its adoption. The Government, therefore, had, he contended, shown a degree of boldness in the matter, for which they ought to receive some credit, seeing that they were not trying to make use of more coercive

  731
  powers than were absolutely necessary for the government of Ireland. It was, however, a strong measure to suggest that they should take from the police the powers of protecting life and property which they possessed, and that they should either diminish the number of the force or disarm it, especially at the very moment when, for the first time for so many years, the free importation of firearms into that country was allowed. For his own part, he must confess that it was not without anxiety that he watched the increasing importation of firearms into Ireland; but there was another point to which he wished to direct the attention of the Committee, and that was, that during the last 10 years, firearms had been used more frequently by the police in putting down disturbances arising out of foolish processions then in connection with agrarian offences. Nothing, in his opinion, was more clear than that at the recent affair at Dungannon, the police were absolutely obliged to fire upon the people. If they had not done so they must either have been themselves stoned, or, having run away, must have left the town in the possession of the mob. As the Committee would perceive, it was with proceedings of that kind that the Government had to deal; but he hoped that in the course of time the Irish Executive would be able to get rid of the necessity for using such weapons and he did not suppose anybody would be more pleased if such a result were attained than the Government which happened at the moment to be in Office. He thought, he might add there was some misapprehension in the minds of many hon. Members as to the extent to which the police in Ireland carried arms. The hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had informed the Committee that they always went through the streets of provincial towns in Ireland with arms.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: What I said was, that when on duty they always walked through the streets with side-arms, swords, and bayonets.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had been informed that that was not the case. He had been asked a question with respect to a large meeting which had been hold in the county of Cork. That was a meeting which was attended by the police, as it was thought they
  732
  ought to be present at it; but they had gone there mainly for the purpose of preventing the reporters from being molested, and, according to the statement of the sub-inspector, there were only 12 men armed simply with truncheons—a fact which, in his opinion, tended to prove that the police in Ireland went about armed more frequently with truncheons than with arms. [Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY: No, no!] Then it was a very remarkable thing that he should have had information which differed from that of the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSY: The statement to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred only means that they did not take their rifles with them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERbegged the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The statement was that they carried truncheons only, and not swords. There was another error which he wished to correct. He had never stated that because agrarian outrages still occurred in Ireland no remedial measures would be introduced by the Government. He regretted, however, to have to state—and he knew the statement would be used against him by those who found fault with the Government for having allowed the Peace Preservation Act to lapse—that agrarian offences in Ireland had of late been on the increase. During the first seven months of last year the number of those offences averaged 48 a month; while during the first seven months of this year the number had risen to 88 a month.
  MR. PARNELLasked whether the increase was in proportion to the number of evictions?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he thought it was, and that he had no wish to cast any reproach on the people of Ireland. His only object was to point out to the Committee the state of things with which the Government had to deal. When the Government were asked to disarm the police, he might mention that there were persons in Ireland who had to seek their protection, and that the Government thought those persons might be shot unless they were escorted constantly by armed policemen. That was a horrible state of things, and showed that there was a great disease in the social condition of Ireland; but at the same time it did not relieve him

  733
  of his duty to prevent such men from being shot, while it imposed a strong duty upon the Government to try and change such a condition of affairs. The Government had endeavoured to pass the Compensation for Disturbance Bill; but that measure had been thrown out by the House of Lords, and insufficient time remained for a second measure of the kind. He thought they could not do without the armed police as they were at present constituted in Ireland; but at the same time, he was of opinion that the Government ought not to rest until they could do without such a force. Although many speeches had been delivered against the police being armed, yet he believed that if the people of Ireland themselves really wished them to be disarmed they would not see, as was more than probable, a small minority of Irish Members voting against the Government upon this question that night. The fact was that they could not do without the police; but he believed that every one who had taken part in the debate showed that he felt that the Government must not rest until they put themselves in such a position as that they should not require a force of 11,000 men who might be armed, or who, at any rate, ought to be able to act as an armed force, on constant duty for the preservation of order.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 105; Noes 29: Majority 76.—(Div. List, No. 155.)

  CLASS V.—COLONIAL, CONSULAR, AND OTHER FOREIGN SERVICES.
  (2.) £24,319, to complete the sum for the Colonies, Grants in Aid.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he understood it was arranged that the debate on the South African question should be taken next day on the Report instead of at that time; and as that course would not only be more convenient, but would also facilitate the progress of Supply, he did not propose to discuss the Vote on the present occasion. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to arrange that the discussion should come on first, for he had heard that there were several hon. Members who desired to take part in it; and if that were so, it would probably occupy several hours.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he hoped to put down the Report of Supply as the First Order at the Morning Sitting the next day, or that they would be able to finish the debate at the Evening Sitting.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked that he had no desire to disturb this arrangement, but, at the same time, before they voted money they ought to be in possession of the facts, and, therefore, he hoped that the Government would let them know how the matter at present stood in regard to the money owing to this country by the South African Colonies. At present we had a very large claim upon these Colonies, for we had not only paid for the British troops engaged in the war, but had defrayed the expense of the commisariat of the Colonial troops. These Colonies had not at present paid back one farthing of this money, although they had largely profited by the money expended in the Colony during the war. He believed some offer was made to the Colonies that if they would agree to Confederation, this debt should be wiped off. But as that scheme had turned out a failure, he thought, before voting this money, they ought to know something of their position.
  MR. GRANT DUFFsaid, it would be better to defer the whole discussion until the time fixed. If they went into any part of the matter in issue, it would certainly raise a discussion involving the whole.
  Vote agreed to.

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  (3.) £300, Houses of Parliament.
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he much regretted that this Vote could not be moved by his right hon. Friend the First Commissioner of Works (Mr. Adam), who, in concert with Mr. Speaker and some other Gentleman, had paid much attention to the matter. It would be in the recollection of many hon. Members that in the year 1878 a Committee of that House was appointed to consider the whole question of Parliamentary Reporting. That Committee sat during the whole of that Session, and in the year 1870 they finally agreed upon a Report in which they stated that the arrangements for reporting the de-

  735
  bates in the House could not be considered satisfactory. There were only 19 front seats from which it was practicable to get a satisfactory report; of those 19 seats 15 were occupied by the representatives of the London Press, leaving but four others. Of these, three were occupied by Press agencies, who supplied the Provincial papers, and the last by a reporter representing Mr. Hansard. Considering the vast importance of the Provincial Press, it was impossible to consider that this was a satisfactory arrangement. The Committee, therefore, recommended that the front seats should be allotted only to those who were occupied in taking notes, and that the sides of the Gallery on each side up to the doors should be added to the Press Gallery, and the Vote he was now moving was for the purpose of carrying out that recommendation. He believed he might say that it was the intention of the late Government to have proposed a similar Vote; but that Government, like the present, had no desire to press the Vote upon the House, and desired to be guided only by the feeling and opinion of the House. He could not disguise from the Committee that this proposal would diminish the present inadequate accommodation for hon. Members by about 22 seats. And the question to be decided was, whether the importance of improving the accommodation for the reporters of the Provincial Press was sufficiently great to counterbalance the disadvantage of lessening still further the present inadequate accommodation for hon. Members. With regard to the allotment of seats, if this Vote should be sanctioned, he was authorized by Mr. Speaker to state that he would be prepared, in their allotment, to act as far as possible in accordance with the recommendations of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Reporting, and to give preference to those Provincial newspapers which would combine for full reports, so that one seat should be occupied by the representatives of two or three or more newspapers. He had only further to add that the Government was perfectly prepared to carry out the decision of the Committee, whatever that might be.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, as one of the Select Committee who examined into this question, he might, perhaps, be allowed to state that the
  736
  conclusion arrived at by himself and his Colleagues was that it was absolutely necessary to take some steps to improve the position of the Provincial Press, which, there could be no doubt, had greatly changed its position since the original allotment of seats to the London Press. Several plans were proposed to them of bringing forward and enlarging the Gallery; but they were all of them most expensive, and it was in each case doubtful whether the improved accommodation gained would be sufficient to compensate for the outlay. The proposal of the Committee now to be carried into effect was, on the contrary, one which could be carried into effect at very small cost; and, if not successful, the Gallery could be easily restored to its present position. In fact, the proposal was merely to move the screens from their present position to the side doors; and if it was found, after a year's experience, that the House did suffer from the loss of room, nothing would be easier than to move the screens back again.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he did not rise to oppose the Vote because the sum asked for was but a small one and the experiment was worth trying. At the same time, he could not help expressing his opinion that this alteration, as a means of redressing the evils under which the reporting of the House now suffered, was a movement entirely in the wrong direction. He entirely agreed that the Provincial Press had a grievance, when its relative importance in regard to the London Press was considered, and that their claims to seats in the Gallery was altogether one which would not be resisted, because it was irresistable. It must be evident to the Committee, on the other hand, that there was no limit to the number of applications they would undoubtedly receive. Year by year the number of newspapers in the Provinces increased, and if each was to have a seat in the Gallery, the reporters would presently occupy not merely the seats up to the door, but which extended considerably further down the side Galleries. That was one reason why he hesitated in carrying out the Report of the Committee. Another was that of the seats; if the Gallery were increased, the competition for them and the rivalry amongst the newspapers would be very great. Nobody, however,

  737
  could help confessing that at present their reporting was in a most unsatisfactory condition. There were only two newspapers in London which, practically, gave anything like a satisfactory report of what happened in the House; and even those two fell short, and must fall very far short, of what the majority of Members must think desirable, and even necessary, for the public at large, in order that they might know what was going on in that House. The gentlemen who made the selection which was now necessary of what was to be reported must inevitably be at variance with large sections of the public outside, and discussions which those outsiders wished to read were often precisely those which were omitted by the reporters in the Gallery. He did not mean to say that the selection was not a right and sound one, and that the most important parts of each debate were not given; but merely that the parts omitted were exactly those which large minorities throughout the country wished to read. As it appeared to him, the true solution of this difficulty was the plan suggested by a gentleman who gave evidence before the Select Committee, and that was the institution of verbatim reporting by the authority, and under the direction, of the House itself. He might explain, for the benefit of those Members who had not read the evidence, that the proposition did not contemplate the printing of the report by the House. The proposition of this gentleman, who appeared before the Committee, and guaranteed to carry his plan into execution if he was allowed two seats in the Gallery, was that there should be a certain number of reporters who would take down word for word everything that was said. They would be relieved at intervals of a quarter of an hour, or, at most, half-an-hour, during the whole evening; and they would then at once proceed to transcribe their notes upon flimsy, which would be circulated to the newspaper offices, half-hour by half-hour, in London, and could thence, of course, be easily telegraphed to the country newspapers. Each newspaper, having in that way its own verbatim report, would proceed to select the parts it required, while the newspapers would be in possession of a full and absolute account of all that went on in the House, with which, if they still retained their
  738
  present staffs, they could, if they pleased, supplement their own reports. The Select Committee, no doubt, paid great attention to the matter; but it seemed to him that the place they suggested as an experiment would not at all do what was wanted, and was merely a stop-gap which would satisfy one or two Provincial journals. It would not give what the country wanted—the reproduction, day by day, of their debates, affording a full and faithful account of what was going on there to all who were interested in their political life. He thought he only expressed the feeling of every Member when he said that they had a right to be extremely dissatisfied with the present arrangements. A most extraordinary revelation was made before the Select Committee. It appeared that the report in The Times newspaper, which was, at any rate, the foundation, if not the body, of all that appeared in Hansard, was regulated according to the discretion of one gentleman. He did not suggest for one moment that that gentleman had not had large experience, and did not exercise enormous discretion, and did not perform his duties in a most conscientious way; but yet what an extraordinary position that House was in—that all that was said there should be thus filtrated through the mind of this particular reporter, to be cut down, or suppressed, or reproduced as he chose, for the edification of the people. That he did not think was right. At the same time, he was sure that the plan now proposed was quite inadequate; and, although he did not wish to oppose the Vote, he was quite sure the plan would not satisfy the exigencies of the situation.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, it was curious to watch how, from time to time, this question of verbatim reporting cropped up in the House, and how very beautiful and fine the proposal looked at first, and yet how it crumbled away when it was handled. In the last Parliament the present Lord Sudeley very manfully, a very few weeks before he was called to "another place"—he did not, of course, mean that that elevation was the reward of his manfulness— introduced the subject to the House, and they had a most interesting debate, in which the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), the present Prime Minister (Mr. Gladstone),

  739
  and many leading Members on both sides of the House spoke. The result of it all was that they came to the conclusion that this was one of those very nice theories which were perfectly impracticable, and which had ugly sides to them as well as more attractive ones. He must own that he shuddered at his hon. Friend's idea of a verbatim report. He knew they were all guilty in the way of diffuseness of iteration; even in the way of bad grammar. He was conscious that they all sometimes used adjectives and substantives in the wrong place, and that they mixed their numbers, and were guilty, in fact, of all conceivable and unconceivable errors; but still, why, even if they did commit these faults, should they be pilloried for their ignorance and blundering to all posterity, when, after all, they were only trying to do their best? There was, perhaps, a deep statesmanship in his hon. Friend's recommendation. That House had been much exercised in the present Parliament, and still more so in the last, by a desire to get rid of a something which was called Obstruction. Perhaps, then, this plan of his hon. Friend was a deep design to bring this so-called Obstruction to the bar of public opinion by letting the world at large see how much could be spun out of a very little material. Perhaps that was as good a way of getting rid of Obstruction as the Committee which sat in 1879 had hit off, and the value of whose work he left the House itself to estimate. His hon. Friend, however, seemed to think that their reporting was in a dreadful way because it was— as he averred—in the hands of one gentleman, who only allowed certain things to be known to the country. Was not his own assertion, however, a proof that the law of supply and demand was being as usual followed out. They might depend upon it that the information sent out by the intelligent men of the world who filled the Press Gallery was the information which the country liked best, and, therefore, bought. How to sell the papers best was the problem they had to solve. Of course, all of us Members had special subjects in which they took particular interest, and, of course, they were annoyed not to see them in the paper next morning. But what was the common-sense way of getting over that difficulty?
  740
  Surely, to have these extra seats in which the special papers might have places whenever a debate in which their readers took great interest arose. But what did his hon. Friend propose? That a mass of flimsy should be produced in the Gallery. He ought to have explained that he used the word in a technical sense as descriptive of the extreme thinness of the paper, as else an impression might be produced in the innocent minds of many hon. Members that it was a reflection on the quality of their debates. Then he proposed that this mass should be sent round to all the papers, and out of that great mass the newspapers were then to cook down their reports for the next day. He had not told them where the staff was to be found for that work, nor how time was to be made for the cooking process. The public were, therefore, able at 8 o'clock in the morning to get reports of what had gone on in the House all night, because the cooking process now went on the Gallery itself, and the printer got no more than he wanted to print. Everybody must know that if this great bulk of flimsy were sent to the newspapers there would never be time for this subtracting and reducing. They might, perhaps, after a time, get a more full and accurate report than before; but then it would not be in Wednesday's Times that the debate of Tuesday came out, but the debate of Monday. As to the proposition itself, he was glad to hear from his hon. Friend the Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland) that only a shifting of the screens was proposed. They had heard something of a structural alteration. That might be desirable or undesirable in itself; but certainly it was undesirable that such an important alteration should be adopted at a very late period of the Session. As it was merely a proposal to shift the screens and to give a few more seats to the reporters, he thought the Committee should cheerfully adopt it. He hoped also that the reporters themselves; who were as much interested as the Members themselves in the proper reproduction of their debates, would also seriously consider the improvement of their debates. He must protest, however, as he had always done, against the tyranny of loading the already over-burdened world with the task of wading every day through

  741
  the verbatim reports of the debates in that House.
  MR. ANDERSONwas glad the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope) did not conclude by opposing the Vote, as he was afraid he was going to do, for all his observations tended directly that way. He entirely approved of this proposition. It was not a question of whether what they were proposing was actually the best thing that could be done, but simply of what could be easily done as an imperfect act of justice to the Provincial Press, which had been very ill-used for a great many years. They had asked for admission to the Gallery for a very long while; and, now that it was proposed, however insufficiently, to give it them, he hoped the Committee would put no obstacles in the way.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he wished, as a Member of the Committee which sat to inquire into the system of reporting, to make a few remarks. The facts were that the London newspapers were directly represented by reporters who occupied seats in the best positions in the Gallery, while the Provincial papers were indirectly represented by associations, whose reporters were relegated to, perhaps, the very worst positions. The main contention of the Provincial newspapers was that they should have assigned to their representatives seats from which they could see and hear better than they could at present. The Committee suggested, as a compromise, that, in addition to giving to the Press Associations, which represented the Provincial Press generally, better accommodation, seats should be set apart for such of the large Provincial newspapers as chose to combine for special reports. He thought that if that was done a great deal of the discontent at present existing would be removed, inasmuch as the Provincial newspapers would secure a little more of direct representation in the Gallery than they now enjoyed. That, he thought, would be the best thing to be done in the circumstances. As far as a verbatim report, produced in the way proposed by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney) was concerned, he thought it would be found impracticable. A complete report of everything that was said in the House would be unusable by Provincial papers. Hon. Members might not be aware that, for an ordinary Sitting, such a report
  742
  would fill about 32 columns of The Times. He did not know how a subeditor of a Provincial newspaper could deal with and despatch from London such a mass of "flimsy" in time to publish, on the following morning, an adequate and equally-balanced report of the whole proceedings. If an official report was adopted, it would be found necessary to follow the plan adopted in the French, American, and some other foreign Legislatures, of preparing, in addition to a verbatim report, a full report, a condensed report, and a summary. To give to the Provincial papers only a verbatim report would be to give them a something which would be useless, in that there would not be time in which to deal with it in a satisfactory manner. He ventured to say that if any newspaper published a report of all that was said in Parliament it would live three months. There was no more unsaleable matter printed in newspapers than reports of Parliamentary debates. Newspaper managers and reporters had to deal with Parliamentary debates in the interest of their properties, and in the interest of the public, as well as of Members. As far as he was personally concerned, he could only express surprise that, in the circumstances, the reports in the London newspapers were so full and accurate as they were. As far as the Provincial Press was concerned, the chief reason for not printing fuller reports of Parliamentary debates was that they would not sell.
  MR, BIGGARsaid, he thought the proposal to provide a larger number of reporters' seats a remarkably good one; but he could not admit that the apportionment of the present seats was one to be commended. He could see no reason why the same amount of room should be given to The Daily News and The Daily Telegraph, which did not report the debates, as to The Times, which did. If a portion of the room were given to the two first papers he had named were taken from them, it would give additional accommodation in that part of the Gallery which was best adapted for seeing and hearing what was going forward. As far as the proposal to give preference in the re-arrangement of the Gallery to such papers as would combine in giving full reports was concerned, he did not think much would be gained. The leading papers in the Three Kingdoms

  743
  would naturally wish, while giving prominence to debates on Imperial questions, to report at length discussions affecting their own localities; and it would easily be seen that a long report of a debate on an Irish question would have very little interest to Scotch or English Leaders, and vice versa. On the whole, he thought the question had not been sufficiently considered, and he would suggest that it should be allowed to stand over until next Session.
  Vote agreed to.
  (4.) £21,742, Public Works Office, Ireland.

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  (5.) £805,677, to complete the sum for the Customs.
  (6.) £1,546,032, to complete the sum for the Inland Revenue.
  (7.) £2,805,404, to complete the sum for the Post Office.
  (8.) £410,468, to complete the sum for the Post Office Packet Service.
  (9.) £690,786, to complete the sum for Post Office Telegraphs.
  (10.) £8,100, Supplementary sum, Customs.
  (11.) £55,000, Supplementary sum, Inland Revenue.

  NAVY ESTIMATES.
  (12.) £671,367, to complete the sum for Half-Pay, Navy.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he did not wish to detain the Committee on this Vote; but he wished to point out that the amount of it was increasing, and without any special benefit to the Service. The fact was that promotion in the Navy had now become worse than it had been for a very considerable period of time. The Lieutenants List was maintained at a number of about 850, and the promotions were becoming so slow that it was becoming a seniority Service, the lieutenants not being promoted according to their rank. This was a process extremely disadvantageous to the Profession, in that it had the effect of making it extremely unpopular. He hoped Her Majesty's Government would take this matter into serious consideration during the Recess, in order, by increasing the number of captains and
  744
  commanders, to give a proper flow of promotion from the rank of lieutenant. It was thought that the heavy Retired List would secure rapid promotion; but that had not been the case, and, as he had said, great dissatisfaction had resulted, and was likely to go on increasing. He had taken considerable pains to ascertain the feelings of the Profession on this subject; and he had long ago made some extensive calculations on the subject; but he should not trouble the Committee with them at that late period of the Session. He would content himself with urging the great importance of adopting some plan which would have the effect of quickening promotion in the Service.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREcould not admit that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was right in saying that promotion in the Navy was in an unsatisfactory condition. As far as he had been able to ascertain, promotion in the higher ranks was in a satisfactory condition, and the retirement scheme of 1870 had worked well. There was, however, much that was worth consideration as far as the promotions of lieutenant was concerned. The causes of the grievance pointed out in this respect were of a temporary nature, and were due to the large number of entries which had taken place since 1859 and in the three or four years following. It was from this cause that the Lieutenants' List had suffered and was now suffering. In 1857 the number of entries was not more than 115; but in 1859 it ran up to 239, and in subsequent years there had been an average of about 200. He did not think a remedy would be found in the increase of the list of unemployed commanders by promoting a number of lieutenants to the rank of commander. To do that would diminish the chances of the commanders getting employment, and would not, therefore, in his view, provide a wise remedy. He could not at present say whether it would be possible to devise some other scheme by means of which to reduce the number of surplus lieutenants; but he could assure the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Committee that the subject was one which should receive careful consideration at the hands of the Admiralty during the Recess. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would bring the question forward next Session, he should, he

  745
  hoped, be able to give him fuller and more satisfactory information concerning it.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, the right hon. and gallant Member was mistaken as to the overflow of promotion. His own view was that there was not a sufficient number of officers in the upper list; that, in some cases, it would be well to employ two commanders on board a large iron-clad. If that could not be done, he saw no reason why a class of lieutenant commanders should not be instituted, in order to meet the difficulty. He was very strongly of opinion that such an arrangement would prove of great advantage to the Service.
  MR. W. H. SMITHhoped Her Majesty's Government would be extremely careful in dealing with a question of this importance. He was aware of the extreme difficulty which surrounded any question of promotion and retirement. The Lieutenants' List had been greatly enlarged during the last few years; and he was extremely doubtful whether it was greater than was necessary for the requirements of the Service in actual employment. He felt that this particular class of officers deserved every consideration; but as there were also other interests to be considered, the question became one of great difficulty, which it would behove the Government carefully to consider. At a time like the present suggestions for promotion and retirement might be made which would have a great deal to recommend them; but the Government had to consider not only the present claims of the officers, but what they would become in the new rank to which they aspired. He admitted that,' in his view, the officers now at the top of the list had every claim to consideration; but, at the same time, he could not conceal from himself that the matter was a very grave one, and one that demanded the most careful consideration.
  MR. BIGGARwished to receive some information as to the intentions of the Government in reference to the claim of Mr. John Clare. He had not been able to extract any information from the Admiralty on the subject.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREpointed out that the hon. Member was out of Order, in that the case of Mr. Clare had nothing to do with the Vote before the Committee.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, in the circumstances, he would not press the question further; but he certainly hoped the Government would be able to make some statement on the subject early in next Session.
  Vote agreed to.
  (13.) £617,415, to complete the sum for Military Pensions and Allowances.
  (14.) £241,821, to complete the sum for Civil Pensions and Allowances.
  (15.) £128,625, to complete the sum for Extra Estimate for Services not Naval.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he should like, either at the present moment or at some time before the Prorogation, to receive some information as to the experiments recently made at Shoeburyness with the 6-inch guns, in that his information was to the effect that those guns were inferior in penetration and range to the new guns of a similar calibre now being furnished to foreign Navies.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he was not able at present to make any statement on the subject; but he could say that the matter was under consideration. It was quite possible, however, that he would be able to make a statement in a few days.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, he would not press the question on the present occasion; but he need not impress upon the hon. Gentleman or upon his Colleagues the very vital importance of the question. He thought he was not guilty of exaggeration when he said that, at the present time, the guns supplied to the Navy were inferior to the new guns which were now furnished to the Navies of other countries; and, therefore, it was a matter of the utmost importance that no time should be lost in furnishing our ships with such guns as would place them on an equality, at least, with the ships belonging to other countries. It would be a great national misfortune if our Navy were to be allowed to lapse into inferiority.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, that no one more than himself felt the necessity of preserving the high character of the Navy; and he could assure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. H. Smith) that the matter to which he had called atten-

  747
  tion should be fully considered by the Government.
  Vote agreed to.
  (16.) Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £109,645, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Expenses of Greenwich Hospital and School, which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881."
  CAPTAIN PRICEmoved that the Vote be reduced by the sum of £1,500. If the Vote had come on a month or six weeks ago he should have asked the Committee to indulge him for some time; but, under the circumstances, he should not now detain the Committee more than a very few minutes. The reason why he asked the Committee to reduce this Vote was because it had been found necessary to limit the amount of pensions which were given to our seamen from the funds of Greenwich Hospital. This limitation had been imposed because of late a great strain had been put upon the Hospital Fund which was not foreseen many years ago—in fact, the number of men coming on this fund now far exceeded the number who were pensioned from the fund 10, 15, or 20 years ago; and the cause of that was that the late Government thought fit to place a limitation upon the pensions of the men. But a limitation was not placed upon the pensions of the officers, and that was what he now rose to complain of. It was argued, and argued very properly, that if there was not enough for all, why not take something away from the officers as well as the men? The men had some amount of reason on their side. There were 10 flag officers who received pensions from the Greenwich Hospital Fund of £150 a-year each, making, in the aggregate, £1,500. Every one of those officers had served his country well; and he was convinced each of them was fully entitled to the pension awarded him by the Admiralty. He did not desire that any one of those officers should suffer by having his pension reduced, although he asked the Committee to reduce the Vote. He knew that, if he were successful in carrying his Motion, the very first thing that Her Majesty's Government would do to-morrow would be to come down to the House and ask for a grant from the
  748
  Consolidated Fund to compensate the officers, and he should be the very first to support the Government in such a course. It was only fair they should do so; but if it was fair that the officers should be compensated for loss of pension, was he not right in asking that the seamen, who had been deprived of pensions which they had been long expecting, should be remunerated also out of the Consolidated Fund? It was not open for him to make any such Motion; but he could, however, throw out the suggestion. It was the only way of meeting the question. Of this there was no doubt, that faith had not been kept with the seamen, many of whom, having served 35, 40, or 45 years, had been led to expect a pension. By reason of the limitation to which he had already alluded, they would be deprived of their pensions; and he did not think it was too much to ask the House to make a temporary grant to meet the difficulty, and to ask the Government to make a grant out of the Consolidated Fund to supplement the Greenwich Hospital Fund. So long ago as 1834 the Government granted £22,000 in this way; and that, he contended, formed a precedent for what he suggested the Government should do at the present time. He believed that a grant of £1,000 would be sufficient to meet the present emergency. He had no desire that the thing should be made retrospective; but he believed that to make such a grant would only be an act of justice to our seamen.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That the Item of £5,720, Pensions to Flag and other Officers, he reduced by the sum of £1,500."—(Captain Price.)
  MR. T. BRASSEYsaid, our gallant seamen, who were represented in this House by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Price), had an indefatigable champion who had always shown the deepest interest in their cause. In answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, he had to say that when the present Government came into Office they were aware that this question had been most carefully considered by the late Board of Admiralty, and, as they felt sure, in a spirit of sympathy and consideration for the seamen. The present Government thought it extremely undesirable that it should go forth that when they came into Office the seamen might expect in-

  749
  stant changes, either in the pay or pensions they were to receive; and, for that reason, they were anxious to take time to consider the matter. The hon. and gallant Gentleman (Captain Price) had spoken of this matter as if the funds of Greenwich Hospital were insufficient to meet the demands of his clients. That was not the case. Up to April last only 45 men had been affected, a saving of £283 accruing to the Greenwich Hospital Fund. Although it must be obvious that this was merely a question of principle, he might mention that, under the arrangements made by the late Board of Admiralty, the seamen, as a body, had derived enormous benefits. The number of pensioners in receipt of 2s. 6d. a-day had been increased from 5,000 to 7,500; and, therefore, if the seamen, in the judgment of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, had a grievance in the case of the very limited number of men who were affected by the recent changes, on the whole there could be no question that the funds of Greenwich Hospital had been administered in a manner which had conduced to the advantage of the seamen generally.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, that his hon. Friend (Mr. Brassey) had only given a fair statement of the case so far as the funds of Greenwich Hospital were concerned. When the Government came into Office they found that the number of persons capable of receiving Greenwich Hospital pensions were limited to 5,000. The careful administration, however, of his right hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Sir Stafford North-cote) resulted in such an accumulation of the funds as admitted of the number of pensioners being increased to 7,500. It was quite an error to suppose that every seamen was entitled to a pension. The number of recipients of pensions was limited by the amount available for the purpose of pensions. It never was the case that every seaman was entitled to a pension, but every seamen was eligible if the funds permitted a pension to be awarded; and until his right hon. Friend (Sir Stafford North-cote) had charge of the funds, they were not capable of providing pensions for a larger number than 5,000. It appeared to the late Board of Admiralty that the man who was receiving 2s. 6d. a-day had certainly not as great a claim for an increase of his pension as the man re-
  750
  ceiving no pension had for a pension. He preferred to say, therefore, that the man who received 2s. 6d. a-day as a maximum was not qualified to receive a greater pension so long as there were persons eligible for pensions who were not receiving them.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he was not going to support his hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Price) in the reduction of the Vote; but, inasmuch as he was one of the officers on the Committee of the Greenwich Hospital, he might be permitted to make a few remarks. He watched the case through all its various stages. A fear was expressed at the time the Greenwich Hospital Estates were sold, and when the changes were made, that, in consequence of these occurrences, a gradual increment of property would be lost to the seamen of the Navy. It was answered at the time, he thought, by the present Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers), that the Navy need be under no misapprehension, that it would be all met by the public funds, and that the Consolidated Fund would bear any expense that might be necessary. [Mr. CHILDERS dissented.] His right hon. Friend shook his head. He (Sir John Hay) understood at the time that the increment was lost to the Navy; and it was stated—and he believed by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War himself—that that would be easily made up by charges on the Consolidated Fund; and he (Sir John Hay) thought it had been at various times. The late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) had stated that every seaman was not entitled to a pension. Every man of good conduct was entitled to a pension after certain service. [Mr. W. H. Smith: Eligible.] Well, every seaman was eligible; and he expected pension. Men of good conduct who had served, it might be to the age of 55 years, did not receive pensions, and that was what they complained of. It had been said that the new arrangements had only resulted in a saving of £283. But the number of persons entitled to pensions was rapidly increasing; and now was the time to make arrangements which would provide for the considerable additions which would shortly be made to the list.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he would state what were the real facts of the case. When the Greenwich Hospital Acts

  751
  were passing through the House he stated that he believed that in a very few years, from the natural increment of the estate and from the exceptional charges for the men actually in the Hospital falling off, ev9ry seaman who had reached 55 years of age would get a pension of 6d. a-day, and every seaman who had attained 70 years of age would get a pension of 9d. a-day. That had been more than realized, because not only were the men of 55 years getting 6d. a-day, but men of 65, not 70, years of age were receiving 9d. a-day.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that the object of pensions was to do away with punishment in the Navy. They all knew how distasteful it was to the Committee that punishment should be continued in the Navy with the severity of former days, and that it had been attempted to introduce a more humane system of discipline. The Pension List was founded as an inducement to men to continue to serve; and he maintained that it was in the interest of the country and of the Profession that men who had served honourably should receive the pensions they had been led to expect.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he now wished to withdraw his Amendment. His hon. Friend the Civil Lord of the Admiralty had thrown a new light upon the subject. He (Captain Price) could quite corroborate what his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had said as to the pensions being invariably given. The right hon. Gentleman the late First Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. W. H. Smith) had said the men were only eligible for a pension. As a matter of fact, every man who was of good conduct and had attained 55 years got a pension. The Civil Lord of the Admiralty ha,d pointed out that the change had only produced a saving to the Greenwich Hospital Funds of £283. That, however, was only because a limited number of men had since the change attained the age of 55. In five or six years' time, however, the number of such men would be largely augmented.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question again proposed.
  CAPTAIN PRICEsaid, he observed that a very large sum—£125,000—had been advanced to the Board of Trade from the Greenwich Hospital Funds in
  752
  respect to annuities under the Act of 1872. The Act of 1872 provided that annuities should be given to merchant seamen, but that that should be done under a Regulation jointly made by the Board of Trade and the Admiralty. Could the Secretary to the Admiralty inform them what the Regulations were which had been made, and whether or not the annuities were likely to cease before long?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the arrangements in respect to the annuities referred to were made by the Board of Trade. The arrangements of 1872 were made very much upon his suggestion; and he made that suggestion with the view of preventing any further claims from the Merchant Service coming upon the Greenwich Hospital Fund. He believed that that had been the effect.
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked when the annuities would cease altogether? He noticed that the grants were made very irregularly, and he would like to know whether any grant would be made next year?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that it was only the seamen serving before 1874 who were entitled to the annuities. They would in time disappear.
  MR. W. H. SMITHsaid, it would be a very satisfactory thing if the Secretary to the Admiralty would cause to be prepared and circulated a Paper showing the entire charge to the Greenwich Hospital Funds in respect to these pensions.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he would endeavour to prepare such a statement.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  WAYS AND MEANS.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MR. WARTONsaid, before the Speaker left the Chair he was sorry to say he felt it his duty to bring forward a matter in which he was much interested, and which he feared, if he let the present opportunity pass, he would have no other opportunity of ventilating. He tried to

  753
  bring it forward in June, when time was not very valuable; but, by a combination of the Government and the Irish Members, he was counted out. There were, however, some things more valuable than time, and one of those things was human life. The question he had to bring forward was, whether there was now any security for human life in Ireland under this Government? He hoped the Government would not think him uncivil in intervening with this question at that moment, because he remembered that last Thursday evening, when a long debate was expected, the noble Lord opposite made almost a piteous appeal to those who had Motions, of whom he was one, to withdraw them. Though he was disappointed in June, he felt it his duty not to countenance Obstruction, and with the patience of a lamb to give way. Now that Supply was passed, and that all the Votes were agreed to, and there was no danger of a week or a fortnight being occupied by remarks in general, the time had come for him to urge upon the Government what he considered their plain and bounden duty. It was not for him to quarrel with their judgment, or to seek to penetrate into the reasons of their real or ostensible policy; but one thing he did know, that they had chosen to abandon the Peace Preservation Acts. They had further abandoned them without any thought for the unfortunate persons who, in reliance on those Acts, had thought that their lives were safe, or that, at any rate, there would be compensation for their families if their lives were taken in an agrarian outrage. Whatever they thought of the policy of the Government—and whether they thought it weak or generous he cared not to inquire—at any rate, it was their duty to compensate those who had suffered injury during the continuance of those Acts. He was not going to argue this point on any narrow line of law; for he did not pretend to be as good a lawyer even as the English Law Officers, and still less than those of Ireland—who were, indeed, very able and accomplished Gentlemen — but still, with his little knowledge of law, he had always thought that those who had any right affected by any change in legislation had a sort of legal claim. What he maintained was, that the people to whose cases he was about to call attention had certain moral claims, and that these Acts should not
  754
  be allowed to lapse without those who had suffered being compensated. These cases showed either the almost forgetful-ness, or else the most pitiful carelessness and weakness. If the Government had been faithful to right principle, and had not wished, in a vain-glorious spirit, to show how much superior they were to the Conservative Government, they would not have abandoned these Acts without, at any rate, making provision for those who had claims for compensation. He was not going to weary the House— [Cheers] — he was sorry to hear that cheer, because, surely, a few minutes could be spared for the discussion of a question involving many human lives. He called that a cold-blooded cheer. He was merely going to state a few cases; and, remembering the advice once given him by a very learned Judge before whom he was arguing, he would state his strongest case first. He held in his hand a notice issued for Dublin Castle, dated 17th April, 1880. ["Bead!"] He would read it all in due time. That was a date before the Liberal Government came into power; but it was, at any rate, known then that a Liberal Administration would be formed. But in March, long before they thought to come into Office, this case had occurred, and the proclamation to which he had referred was one coming from Dublin Castle, and offering a reward of £200 for bringing to justice the perpetrators of a murder. In describing that murder he would not use a Shakespearian expression, because it was hardly strong enough; but it certainly was a most foul and horrible murder. It was the case of a man named Nichol, who was guilty, in the first place, of being a Scotchman; secondly, of being a gamekeeper; and, thirdly-—which was, perhaps, worst of all—of doing his duty to his master. He was assaulted by five or six Irishmen on the 17th of March, knocked down, beaten, and murdered at a place called Glennir West in the county of Sligo. He left behind him a widow and six children, and he held in his hand the necessary notices served under the Peace Preservation Acts, claiming compensation—for the widow £8,000, for the children £300, £250, &c. What he maintained was, that if the Government, for political purposes, determined not to continue these Acts, they ought to consider such cases as that of this

  755
  man Nichol. Of course, the murderers had not been discovered. They were sympathized with and screened in Ireland. One of the benefits of the Peace Preservation Acts was that penalties could be inflicted on districts where murder was committed, and so be made to suffer. They might call that justice, vengeance, or anything else; but to his mind it was simple justice, the injustice was in the fact that the Government had not considered these cases, though repeated hints had been given them; and he charged them with endeavouring to make political capital out of the abandonment of these Acts, and supposing that by this means this would conciliate the Irish Party. They had begun a course of weakness by throwing away an Act which they knew in their consciences was essential to the peace of Ireland—far more essential than the wretched Compensation for Disturbance Bill on which they laid so much stress. He hoped that it was even now not too late to consider if they could not do justice to these unhappy people. At any rate, he hoped it would go forth to the world that the Government, for political purposes, had acted in this way. Did they imagine for a moment that a prudent Scotchman like Nichol would have gone to Ireland if there had been no Peace Preservation Act? The Government might look at the narrow legal point; but he did not stop to inquire into that. There could be no doubt that justice was on his side. He had discharged his duty by bringing forward this matter, though not one ten-thousandth part as well as he should have liked; but still he had done what he could, because he felt that the blood of that murdered man, the sorrows and anguish of that widow and her children, and, above all, the blood of another man whose head was riddled with bullets, did lie at our door.
  Motion agreed to.
  WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1881, the sum of £13,614,207 he granted, out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom.
  Resolution to be reported To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 150.]
  (Mr. Meldon, Mr. Mitchell Henry, 3Ir. Find-later, Mr. Dawson.)
  REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL— [BILL 150.]

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Meldon.)
    Motion agreed to.
    MR. MELDONmoved the following Clause:—
    (Commencement of Act.)
    "This Act shall come into operation on the first day of January, one thousand eight hundred and eighty one."
    Motion agreed to.
    New Clause added.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, there were a good many Amendments to the earlier clauses of the Bill on the Paper; but at that time of night, and in the present state of the House, he felt it to be quite useless for him to endeavour to press them.
    Clause 8.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had now to propose the Amendment which stood in the name of his right hon. and learned Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gibson). That proposal was to omit the 8th clause, and he did beg of the Government to assist him in doing that. He would not conceal from the Committee that, even at that late hour, if it were in his power to stop the Bill, as far as he was personally concerned, he should, if this clause were to be retained, be glad to see it fall through. He had opposed it for the last six years as strongly as he could, and, up to the present time, he had been successful. He did not believe that the result of passing it would be really to improve the system of registration in Ireland. It was true that even the late Government gave some sanction to the second reading of the Bill; but that was when the measure did not contain this 8th clause at all. The Preamble, besides, set forth that the object of the measure was to assimilate the Law of Registration in Ireland to the law as it at present existed in England. He knew

    757
    that, afterwards, the second sentence was added—"and also to make some further alteration in the Irish law."
    MR. MELDON: I beg to call attention, Sir, to the fact that, in the Bill as it at present stands, there is no Preamble.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, he had not been aware of the change in the Bill as printed; but if that were so, it was an additional reason in support of his argument, that the Bill, as it stood at present, was entirely different from the measure formerly accepted by the late Government, for in order to bring it to some kind of correspondence with the Bill as it at present stood, they were, it appeared, obliged to leave out the Preamble. Anyone who looked through the measure would see that, in all the earlier paragraphs, reference was made in the marginal note to the corresponding section of the English Act, with which the Irish law was intended to be brought into conformity. But with regard to this Section 8, there was no such marginal note, and there was no reference to a corresponding section in an English Statute, because no such English Statute existed. The policy of this Bill was to deter persons from making frivolous objections to voters by the imposition of penalties and fines. Under the English law, persons who served notices of objection did so at their own peril and cost; but it was necessary for the person objected to to prove his own claim. If he had read this section rightly, however, it would be necessary, before any proof was required from a person who claimed to go upon the register, that primá facie proof should be given in support of the objection served. If he was right in that opinion, the Bill introduced a new principle into the Irish Law of Registration which had never been known before, and which, in his opinion, under the system of preparing lists now in existence in Ireland, would open a wide door for, he would not say frivolous claims, but for claims which were unsubstantiated on behalf of persons who ought not properly to come upon the register. The Bill, as it originally stood, did not contain this clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Meldon), who had so long and so gallantly fought it through the House, thought the Bill would do very well without it, and for
    758
    some time after introducing the Bill left it out—in point of fact, he would have been satisfied in the last Parliament if he could have passed the Bill without the introduction of this clause. He believed the Bill would give facilities for imposition, which ought not to be given, and which did not at present exist in Ireland. It was quite true that the preparation of these lists was committed to certain officials, whose duty it was to schedule every person in occupation who had paid rates up to a certain period, and that was a certain protection. But there was no proof that the voter had been in occupation 12 months, or that he occupied as tenant or owner; and he maintained that, so long as they did not give these facilities in England, it was not wise to give them to Ireland, especially in a Bill originally framed for the purpose of assimilating the law in the two countries. This clause would have the effect of bringing an entirely new practice into the Law of Registration in Ireland; and, therefore, he hoped the Committee would not consent to its retention in the Bill.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 8.—(Mr. Plunket.)
    MR. MELDONsaid, his hon. and learned Friend was not quite right in stating that the Bill did not at first contain this 8th clause. When he first introduced the Bill into the House it not only contained the 8th clause, but that was the principal part of it. The history of this measure was very simple. In 1873 that House passed a Bill framed on the English law, but containing the principle of the present 8th clause. That Bill went before one or two Select Committees, and was approved of by the House without a division. The Bill did not pass the other House. In 1875 he moved for a Select Committee to inquire into the subject. Before the conclusion of their labours they submitted two Reports for adoption. One was a Report prepared by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), and another by another Member of the Committee. The second Report was lost by the casting vote of his right hon. and learned Friend, and the Report of his right hon. and learned Friend was adopted. The rejected Report, he might say, contained the suggestion on which

    759
    this Bill was founded. The Committee divided several times in order to engraft upon the chosen Report suggestions which were made in the other Report. On each occasion the Select Committee divided seven to seven, and on each occasion his right hon. and learned Friend had to take the responsibility of throwing out the additions. Following on that he introduced this Bill, and it contained the 8th clause. After a lengthy discussion the Government beat him. He did not see his way, in the then constitution of the House, to enforce the principle of that clause; and, accordingly, on the principle that half a loaf was better than no bread, he introduced his latter measure which did not contain the 8th clause. That Bill the late Government accepted, and it was read a second time. But, owing to the obstruction, he never was able to carry it through Committee. This 8th clause came fully under discussion in Committee the other day, and it was agreed to without a division. Under those circumstances, he thought it was too late to ask the Committee to omit the most material clause in the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that anyone who wished to make a claim could do so, and would have to prove that claim. It seemed to him that the person who brought an objection should be bound to furnish primâ facie proof of it, and that when he had done so the onus should be thrown upon the person who made the claim to come forward and give full proof of it. He did not think that that was the course adopted in the Bill.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOB IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that there were separate lists of voters in Ireland. The object was to make the official lists, framed by the sworn officers who were bound to do their duty, primâ facie evidence of the persons upon those lists to vote. By one clause of the Registration Act the official list was made primâ facie evidence of the voter's right to vote, and he believed that it was actually legal evidence. This was, in effect, doing what was done for England in 1859, and which would have been done for Ireland in 1874–5 had it not been for the one Conservative vote of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin upon the Committee. He hoped that the Committee would accept the clause.
    760
    An hon. MEMBER said, that he had had some experience in these matters, having been a Revising Barrister for 20 years. It seemed to him that there ought not to be the difference which at present existed in the law between England and Ireland upon this subject. He had found, in the course of his experience, that too great facilities were given to objections. He had always thought that casting the onus upon a person claiming to vote was a harsh proceeding, and more especially in the ease of a person whose name was already on the list, and who did not seek to have it put on for the first time. In the latter case, in particular, he thought that the onus of proving their case should be entirely thrown upon the objectors, reserving, of course, all cases of objection made by official persons. He apprehended that it would be quite sufficient that the clause should be accepted in its present state, and that the loss of votes from persons not coming up to support them when objections were raised would be done away with.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, that he did not wish to put the House to the trouble of dividing upon this clause, as, in the present state of the House, it would be absurd that he should do so. He must, however, state that he felt very strongly upon this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had admitted that this case was very different in Ireland from what it was in England. The hon. Member who had just spoken seemed to have been under the impression that those persons to whose claims objections were to be made were already on the register. They were nothing of the kind. This clause applied to persons who were not upon the register; the clause, in effect, applied to persons upon the supplementary lists not already upon the register.
    Question, "That Clause 8 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 9.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that it seemed to him that there was a class of persons —namely, the rate collectors, who were not fit persons to enter objections upon the lists. He thought that class of persons should not be allowed to enter objections so as to exclude voters from the poll. He should move the rejection of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 9.—(Mr. Warlon.)
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the poor rate collectors, at the present time, were charged with duties in the preparation of these lists, and penalties for the non-performance of their duties were placed upon them by the Act.
    Question, "That Clause 9 stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
    Clause 11.
    MR. WARTONbegged to move the rejection of the clause.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 15.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that he had to move the omission of the 15th clause. Under the Act 36 Vict. the County Chairmen were intrusted with revision duty, and were bound to hold Revision Courts at the several places where they held their ordinary Courts, or at such other places as the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of the Privy Council, might from time to time order. If the places where the Revision Courts were now held were not sufficient, then the Lord Lieutenant, with the advice of the Privy Council, might order the Chairmen to hold more Courts. But this clause required the Chairmen to hold Revision Courts at every polling place. The ground upon which he moved the rejection of this clause was the impracticability of carrying out such a provision. In the county of Antrim, for instance, there were four places where the Revision Courts were now held; but there were 25 polling places. The consequence would be that the poor rate collectors, and other officials, would have to travel about the country from time to time attending to the business of the Revision Courts, and neglecting their ordinary duties. In the case of the Isles of Arran, he believed inconvenience would be caused, for they were a polling place; and it would be necessary, under this clause, for the Chairman and other officials to proceed there to hold a Revision Court. The Isles of Arran were some distance from the mainland, and could only be approached in fine wea-
    762
    ther by sailing boats, and the Chairman and the officials might be kept there for a considerable time by inclement or tempestuous weather. For these reasons, he begged to move the rejection of the clause.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out Clause 15.—(Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
    MR. CALLANsaid, that when the County Chairmen were charged by the House with the duty of the revision of the voters list, they were also given an additional £100 a-year salary for performing the work. At present great inconvenience was caused by the small number of the Revision Courts held by the Chairmen. He represented the smallest county in Ireland; but the voters of that county, from the two populous districts in the North and South, had to travel 17 miles to prove their claim. The House, in its wisdom in passing the Ballot Act, enacted that polling places should be provided so that no voter might be obliged to go more than five miles from his door to record his vote; but now it was proposed to compel poor farmers, during the month of October, to travel 17 miles in the smallest county in Ireland for the purpose of supporting their claims to vote. If that was the case in the smallest county in Ireland, what distance must the voters have to travel in the larger counties? It was true that if the Lord Lieutenant considered any place inconvenient for holding Revision Courts, he might appoint other places which might be considered more suitable for the voters; but he thought it was undesirable to cast the onus of showing that the present Revision Courts were inconvenient upon the Irish Executive. He did not see any reason why the County Chairman should not hold Revision Courts in each polling place. What would be the result? In his County they could hold three Revision Courts in one day. The Chairman of his county received £100 a-year for sitting for one day in the South about two hours, and also about two hours in the North; for those four hours' sitting he received upwards of £100 sterling. He certainly should take a division upon this question. If the Government would do something to qualify the present system so as to render it more

    763
    imperative for the Chairman to sit at each polling place he would not object; but he did object to the system by which the convenience of the officials was regarded as of so much more importance than that of the voters. In his opinion, the convenience of the ratepayers of Ireland was of very much more importance than the convenience of the assistant barrister.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that he should have insisted upon the retention of this clause in the Bill had it not been for the 8th clause of the Bill; but the 8th clause had, practically, rendered this one unnecessary. By far the largest number of persons in Ireland were those whose names were put down in the supplementary list, and those names had been recorded by the proper officer as entitled to vote. Under the 8th section, it was provided that the presumption should be in their favour: and they would not, therefore, be obliged to leave their homes to prove their claims. This clause, as it stood, would impose upon the Executive the necessity of re-casting the whole of the Revision Courts in Ireland at once, for it would require Courts to be held not only in the half-a-dozen places in the county where the Revision Courts were now held, but in a great many others. In the County Cork the number of polling places was 75; and it was a great inconvenience to the Revising Barrister and the County Court Judges, as well as to all the other parties interested, to compel them to go to all the 75 polling places. The Lord Lieutenant had the power, at any moment, wherever necessity was shown, to enforce the attendance of the Judges at any polling place, and he thought that would be sufficient. The question was whether they would insist upon the clause being retained, the effect of which would be to impose upon the Executive the duty of re-casting the whole of the Revision Courts in Ireland without immediate regard to the necessity of the case, or whether they would let the Executive wait until they were informed that necessity existed in any particular instance for further Courts. He was sure there would be no indisposition on the part of the Executive to require the County Court Judges to hold Revision Courts in any polling place where there was substantial reason shown that they
    764
    ought to be held. The question was whether the Courts were to be obliged at once to be held in all the polling places, or whether they would wait until the necessity for holding more Courts was shown to exist.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that this clause would be of all importance in the Bill but for the 8th clause. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had spoken of the inconvenience which would be caused to the County Chairman if the clause were adopted, and he had instanced the case of a County Chairman being compelled to go to the Isles of Arran. But he would ask whether there was more inconvenience in compelling one gentleman who was paid a good salary to go across to the Isles of Arran than in bringing a number of poor people from the Isles of Arran? At the same time, however, he could not but think that the 8th clause had rendered this one unnecessary.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, from his own experience, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had argued that there would be great inconvenience in holding these Courts at the different polling places, and that there would be no accommodation for them. But the fact was that the Petty Sessional Courts now accommodated the local magistrates for four days. They were surely suitable for the assistant barrister for an hour or two twice a-year. With regard to these polling districts, some of them were very badly arranged. He happened to be near a polling place where he found the people had to go six or eight miles to a particular polling place, while, at the same time, persons who lived one mile from it had to go six or eight miles to another polling place. He hoped that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would re-adjust these polling places. The places where the petty sessional districts were, were as nearly as possible the centres of the districts, and they would form convenient places for polling. Another point put by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was this—that, at the present time, the Lord Lieutenant had power to increase the number of places where the Revision Courts were held; but the County Court Judges were officials, and their representations would probably have much more weight than

    765
    those who complained of the inconvenience from want of more Courts.
    Question put, "That Clause 15 stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: —Ayes 15; Noes 60: Majority 45.—(Div. List, No. 156.)
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, considering the time of the Session—
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORbegged pardon. He wanted to move a new clause, and as he took no part in the last division—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is too late to move a new clause.
    Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Sir, I walked out when the division was called; but I came back when the doors were opened as soon as I could get in.
    MR. SPEAKER: On the consideration of a Bill on Report the Rule is to take new clauses first. The hon. and learned Member who is in charge of the Bill himself moved a new clause.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped, considering the time of the Session, that the House would not object to read the Bill a third time then.
    MR. MELDONobserved, that if the Bill were not read a third time that night it would be impossible for it to-reach "another place" in time.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, if the result of refusing to read the Bill a third time that night was to throw it out altogether, as they could get no concession on the 8th clause, he did not see why they should not refuse. If the 8th clause had been struck out, as was at one time proposed, the measure would have passed without further difficulty; but, as matters stood, he certainly could not facilitate the passing of the Bill.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, there had been what he called a corrupt and very improper compromise made for the purpose of carrying this Bill; the best part of it had been struck out, and it was now perfectly worthless. He would not oppose the third reading; but he did oppose this system of private intrigue, by which Bills were passed by some private arrangement between hon. Members without the House being consulted, so that the most vital interests of the parties concerned were set at nought.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, as he could not move his new clause, he
    766
    might, perhaps, be permitted to call attention to a real practical grievance which, in the constituency he represented, reached its climax. In the borough of Galway there was a freeman's franchise conferred on a larger and more liberal basis than anywhere else in the Three Kingdoms; for all that was required to qualify for it was the practice of a handicraft and 12 months' residence in the borough. But the benefits for that advantage were entirely nullified. Formerly the registration was intrusted to the Corporation, with the Mayor at its head; but since that had been got rid of the responsibility of admitting to this freeman's franchise was transferred to a person appointed by the Lord Lieutenant, who was styled the Keeper of the Freeman's Roll. At present this office was held by a Major Walsh, against whom he had not a word to say, but who was neither a barrister, nor, indeed, a professional gentleman with any knowledge of the law at all. That gentleman ought to hold a Court of Admission every year; but, as a matter of fact, he had not held one for three or four or five years past, and the consequence was that 250 or 300 men who were qualified to vote, and were entitled to vote, were, by the neglect of this gentleman, deprived of their right. As the constituency consisted of but 1,400 voters, it resulted that one-sixth of it was virtually disfranchised by the act of this gentleman. He had asked Major Walsh to hold a Court, and though he was met with great courtesy his request was declined. The gentleman said that he was not paid for doing the work, and he met with so much badgering—he was, in fact, in the same position as a Chief Secretary — from the Conservatives for admitting too many, and from the Liberals for not admitting enough, that he would not bear the obloquy the job brought on him if he could help it. Besides, he added that he was not paid for the work. While he had himself to defray the cost of the advertisements in the local papers, and of the placards throughout the town. He, therefore, wanted a clause introduced into this Bill, intrusting the duty of keeping this Roll to the Recorder, or the Assistant Recorder, who would see that it was properly and correctly kept. He could assure the House that, owing

    767
    to this arrangement, many men were kept off the register. Most respectable men they were, as was shown by the fact that they all canvassed for him, and some of them acted as his poll clerks. So able and clever were they that, though he had the whole of the solicitors and other paid agents working against him, he was able to defeat their machinations and to gain a seat in that House. As he could not add the clause he wanted, he hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would introduce a Bill carrying out his wishes. It would be so simple that there would be no difficulty in getting it through that House, while, in "another place," the fact that it bore his name in conjunction with that of the Attorney General would be sufficient to insure it a favourable reception.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would not use language so strong as the hon. Member for the County of Cavan (Mr. Biggar); but he had also to complain of the manner in which arrangements were often made behind the backs of hon. Members. He took a division to protest against those arrangements the other evening, because he knew the evils which were done in the County of Dublin by the Whig and Tory Lord Lieutenants for the past 10 years. To speak of the Lord Lieutenant, however, was a mere facon de parler. The persons really meant were the Attorney General and the Chief Secretary. He wanted to cast upon the Attorney General for Ireland the onus and the odium of the alteration he had made in that other Bill, of striking out the words "petty sessional districts," and to force him to give some good and valid reason for such an arbitrary act. What was the present state of affairs? They were obliged to go with bated breath and whispered humbleness to the Executive at the Castle, and were kept waiting in the purlieus of the Castle, waiting to represent to their Honours the grievances that were admitted. If, when he went home to Ireland, he had anything to complain of, he would be kept waiting at the Castle for the better part of a week, an hour each day, until it suited them to give Mm an answer. Even then they did not give him any reason for their answer, but declared that, having considered the subject, they did not see why they should go beyond what Parliament had already done. As a consequence of his feeling,
    768
    he determined to take a Vote, and many hon. Gentlemen encouraged him to go to a division. The compromise which had been effected was then communicated to them, not as it should have been publicly, but whispered through the House; and, as a consequence, they saw the strange spectacle of men in favour of his proposal walking out of the House and leaving him in the lurch. He did not think such a thing ought to be, and though it was his own Party which had acted in this way he would not allow the matter to pass sub silentio.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
    MR. PLUNKETasked, Whether the third reading could be taken in this way when it had been objected to?
    MR. SPEAKER: It is the practice of the House occasionally, particularly at the end of the Session, to take two stages of a Bill at one Sitting on the ground of urgency. The question of urgency is a matter for the judgment of the House.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the Government must see that the feeling of the House was altogether against this Bill being now read a third time. ["No, no!"] Well, the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) seemed to be interested in it. The hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) did not approve of it, and the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to add an important clause to it, which he would be able to do if the third reading were taken at another time, because he could move to re-commit the Bill. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had also, apparently, some objections to urge. Then, again, it was extraordinary that there should have been some kind of intrigue—["No, no!"]—well, at any rate, these allegations had been made by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), and had not been contradicted. They were not contradicted, for instance, by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson). As it was said that there had been an arrangement, he thought the conduct of the Government, under the circumstances, extremely tyrannical and arbitrary in thus taking at one time two stages of a measure for

    769
    which the Government could not say that there was any urgency whatever. The proceeding was exceedingly irregular, and he hoped they would not assent to the Motion.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the noble Lord was evidently quite shocked at the idea of any arrangement, or, as he called it, of any intrigue in connection with the Bill. Could he imagine the case of any noble Lord who would come to an arrangement privately to secure the third reading of an Indemnity Bill?
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I entirely refused to enter into any arrangement of any kind.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, there was no doubt that a noble Lord, the descendant of a most illustrious military commander—he would not say who he was—did explain matters privately to his Colleagues of the Irish Party, entreating them, he believed the phrase was used, that he would go on his knees to them, as he was the custodian of the inmost conscience of the Conservative Party, and that he would affect a settlement of certain matters at issue. Meantime, he would only warn the noble Lord that there had been third readings taken in this way of Bills during the last three or four days. That was only permitted by the generosity of the Irish Party. The consideration that was exhibited to a Peer he hoped would now be extended to tens of thousands of commoners.
    MR. PAENELLsaid, he knew that the noble Lord distinctly refused, when he asked him publicly to allow this Bill to go through the other night, to withdraw his opposition on condition that the Plunket Indemnity Bill was allowed to go through its different stages. He distinctly said he could not do that. But the instant the Bill was allowed to pass, the noble Lord turned round and said that the first opportunity that could be got, he should be very happy to do something for the Irish Party.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLbegged permission to make a personal explanation. He quite recognized the generosity of the hon. Member for the City of Cork on Saturday afternoon, but he never imagined the hon. Member and his Friends would expect a return of this
    770
    kind, which was giving a sovereign for half-a-crown. With reference to what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had said, he had drawn entirely on his imagination.
    MR. PLUNKETsaid, so far as he was personally concerned, he had thought, under the circumstances, it would be more becoming if he did not take any part in the passage of the Indemnity Bill through the House; and he could say most positively that, so far as he knew, there was no compromise whatever. On the contrary, he had heard there was something of the kind in the wind, and he had also heard it had been distinctly refused. The only compromise he ever approved of in reference to the Registration Bill was a proposition that if the 8th clause was struck out the Bill should be allowed to pass through without any further opposition. He knew nothing whatever of what had now been mentioned, and he could only say, that he thought the Indemnity Bill was entitled to pass on its own merits; though, as a personal matter, he was not ungrateful to the hon. Gentleman who did not make use of the Forms of the House in order to delay the progress of that Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read the third time, and passed.

  LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL. [Lords.]

    [BILL 219.] SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock."
    MR. CALLANsaid, that he had to move that this Order be discharged. It was very improper to attempt to force this Bill through the House at such a late period of the Session and in the absence of Irish Members. This Bill was regarded in Ireland as one of the pet projects of Lord Cairns, and as a measure which would have a very unfavourable influence upon commerce and industry in Ireland.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that as a matter of Order he did not think any discussion could take place on this Bill when it was later than half-past 12.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the Motion of the hon. Member could not be made by reason of the operation of the half-past 12 Rule.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would make his Motion when the Bill came on on the next day.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, that the Bill was one of immense importance and interest to Ireland. Although not directly connected with that country, yet he had several correspondents in Dublin who had written him upon the subject. It was absurd that a Bill of this sort should be passed through at that period of the Session when there were really no circumstances which justified such a course. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Lord Randolph Churchill.)
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he hoped that the Government would not allow themselves to be intimidated. This was a measure which was much wanted in Ireland, and there was a strong feeling in its favour in Cork, Belfast, and other industrial centres in Ireland. He did trust that there would be a chance of getting the Bill through the next day, as it was a measure which had practically been before the House for two years, if not for three; and its provisions were well known to all hon. Members from Ireland.
    MR. MONKsaid, that he rose to Order. He wished to ask whether it was competent for an hon. Member, who had not charge of the Bill, to move that it be put down for the next day, and whether it was competent for another hon. Member to move the adjournment of the debate. The debate could only be adjourned to another day upon a question put to that effect.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member had given Notice of an Amendment to the Motion that the Bill be fixed for to-morrow, and it had then been moved by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock that the debate be adjourned. He thought that those proceedings were in Order.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that he would recommend the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) to read the Blue Book containing the evidence taken before the Committee of the House of
    772
    Lords with reference to this subject, and particularly the evidence of the late Lord Westbury. He believed that the Bill had been petitioned against by every leading establishment in Dublin, and by all the banks and leading commercial men in Dublin. There was a very strong opposition to it in Ireland. The Petitions against the Bill went upon a very sound principle—that the Bill was diametrically opposed to the interests of creditors.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that he had already informed the hon. Member that it was not competent for him, at that hour, to enter into the merits of the Bill. The question before the House, then, was only upon the Motion for the adjournment of the debate, upon the question whether the Bill be fixed for tomorrow.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that if he had sinned against the ruling of the Chair, it was inadvertently. He was always willing to yield to any intimation from the Chair; but he thought that it was unfair to large bodies of persons in Ireland to force this Bill on in the absence of those whose knowledge and experience of the practice of bankruptcy in Ireland would be of so much use in the discussion of the question.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the hon. Member had already been ruled out of Order in discussing this Bill. He was aware that there would be an opportunity next day, when the Irish Members would be able to express their feelings upon the measure by a Division.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that, in deference to the ruling of the Chair, he would not discuss the principle of the Bill; but he wanted to say this much, that the Bill was a most important one, and was not, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had said, supported by a large body of opinion in Ireland. He had taken an active part in opposing the Bill, and all he wanted was to have it considered. If the Bill were not pressed on that Session, but was referred to a Select Committee the next Session, or fully discussed in that House, he would give what assistance he could to make it a useful Act. But he considered that, if carried in its present shape, the Bill was wholly opposed to the present system of bankruptcy jurisdiction in Ireland, and would work great harm.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that he hoped the House would consent to the Motion for the Adjournment. There had been a large number of Irish Members present that evening but most of them had left. He was aware that there was a strong feeling against this Bill, and particularly against its being forced through the House at that period of the Session. It appeared to him only reasonable when there was a strong feeling against pressing on the Bill, as must be well known to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) that it should be brought on at that time, and particularly in the absence of hon. Members who had objections to urge against it.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, that so far as he was aware, there was a strong feeling in favour of the Bill, and great pressure had been brought to bear upon the Government in order that it might be passed into law.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that he hoped the Government would act very firmly in resisting the Motion for the adjournment, inasmuch as there was a strong opinion in favour of the Bill in Ireland. The fact was that the opposition to the Bill was conducted solely in the interests of legal circles.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that the hon. Member had no justification for accusing him of opposing this Bill through any partiality for the legal profession.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he had a wholesome distrust of the present Government, and had a strong feeling that the rate of Business that evening had been too rapid. He feared that they were indulging in too hasty legislation, and for that reason he should feel it his duty to support the Motion for the adjournment of the debate as a protest against the way in which this Bill had been forced on.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 6; Noes 38: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 157.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. GRAYsaid, that he did not like to interfere in such a way as to be considered obstructive, and he was not accustomed to be in such a small minority as that in which he had recently found himself. He might say that his mini-
    774
    mum was 7, but he felt very strongly the impolicy of pressing that measure on at that late hour of the morning that he must again protest against it. This was an attempt to force on a Bill at a late period of the Session when it could not be fairly discussed. He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that the minority who voted for the adjournment of the debate upon this Bill was very small. He wished to point out the effect of the course taken by the minority upon this occasion which was to prevent the House having any opportunity at all of considering this Bill. The original Motion before the House was only with regard to appointing the consideration of the Bill for the next day, and what the minority desired was to prevent the House considering the Bill at all. The thought that the majority might be allowed to have an opinion upon this occasion. It was almost unprecedented that a minority should make use of their powers in that House in order to prevent a Bill being considered at all. He had never seen such a use made of the rights of a minority before as to endeavour to prevent the House having an opportunity of considering a Bill at a time to be fixed.
    MR. SPEAKERasked if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow moved the adjournment of the House?
    MR. GRAY: Yes.
    MR. CALLANseconded the Motion.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, that he wished to know whether it was competent for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray) to move the adjournment of the House as he had already exhausted his right of speaking on the previous Motion.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid that, if he remembered rightly, the right hon. Gentleman had spoken upon the Motion for the adjournment. He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman was at liberty to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. MELDONsaid, he wished to ask whether speaking upon an Amendment to a Motion before the House disqualified an hon. Member from subsequently speaking on the Motion itself. The Division taken was upon the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill)

    775
    to the Question that the Bill be considered to-morrow.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that there had been a Motion for the adjournment of the debate, and, if an hon. Member made that Motion, he could not afterwards address the House.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that the right hon. Member for Carlow spoke upon the Motion for the adjournment, and did not move any substantive Motion.
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present.
    Original Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill to be read a second time To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

  MULKEAR DRAINAGE (DISTRICT) BILL.— [BILL 319.]
  (Mr. John Holms, Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  MULKEAR DRAINAGE (DISTRICT) BILL.— [BILL 319.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
    MR. COURTNEYhoped some explanation would be given of the objects of this Bill. Nothing was known of it, for it had not yet been printed.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, a Drainage Board was formed in this district some time ago, and it appeared that, in carrying out its works, some damage was done to a farm. The farmer sued for damages, which he obtained, and, as the Board had no money to pay either these, or the costs they had incurred, they had asked to be allowed to borrow the money on loan; and this Bill was to confer on them power to borrow £1,000. Considering the difficult position in which this Board stood, and the lateness of the Session, he hoped he would be allowed to take the second reading then, deferring the discussion till they got into Committee.
    MR. ILLINGWORTHasked whether this Board was in Cyprus, or where?
    An hon. MEMBER: County Limerick.
    MR. MONKsaid, he must object to this Bill being taken at this time. He rose to Order. It was all very well for his hon. Friend to bring in a Bill of this nature, and ask to have it read a second time, without being printed; but it was
    776
    most unusual, except in the case of Indemnity Bills, or Annual Bills. This Motion really ought not to be pressed.
    LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, he did not desire to press the Bill against the strong feeling of the House; but, at the same time, he did appeal to them to allow it to pass the second reading. His hon. Friend said it was a monstrous request, but his hon. Friend knew next to nothing about the Bill. The case of the district concerned was an extremely hard one. Through little or no fault of its own, it had been placed in a position which was practically one of bankruptcy. By a decision of a Court of Law they had been cast in £600 damages and £400 costs. It was utterly impossible for them to raise the money, and unless a loan was granted to them the distress in that district would be very great indeed. They did not propose to take any further step until the Bill was printed, but if the Bill was not read a second time that night, he would be placed in a position of great difficulty.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have to say that the course proposed to be taken is an unusual one; but I cannot say it is a breach of Order to read a Bill a second time without its being printed. It is not a question that I can decline to put from the Chair.
    MR. PALMERsaid, many of them had had experience of drainage matters in England, and they knew that they required great consideration; besides, this was a question which ought to be considered and discussed locally before this Bill was passed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, as he was counsel in the case, he might be supposed to know something about the facts. This drainage district was formed, and the drainage system was executed by the Irish Board of Works, who then handed it over to drainage trustees, persons who were interested in the district. They had nothing to do with forming the district, nor had the ratepayers, but it was practically left by the Irish officials to the trustees to carry out. They were consulted of course, but the work was done and executed by the officials, and then handed over to the trustees. By floods or otherwise, after the work had been done, damage was done to a farm outside the drainage

    777
    area. The farmer brought an action against the trustees for sending too much water upon him, and they were cast in damages. The trustees had no funds, being merely persons appointed to look after the district, and yet they were condemned to pay £600 damages to the farmer and £400 for costs. They could not pay this money themselves, and the Bill was, therefore, brought in to enable them to borrow it from the Treasury. These were all the facts of the case, and as it was a very simple one, he hoped, under the circumstances the House might read the Bill a second time and discuss its provisions in Committee.
    MR. MONKsaid, he would not oppose the Bill further on this stage on receiving an assurance that this was not to be a grant from the Consolidated Fund— ["No, no!"]—but was to be merely a bonâ fide loan. ["Yes!"]
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for To-morrow, at Two of the clock.

MOTION.
  COUNTIES, IRELAND (LORD LIEUTENANTS AND MAGISTRATES).

    MOTION FOR A RETURN.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he wished to call attention to a Motion of his which stood on the Paper, and to the course of procedure in regard to it. Some 10 days or a fortnight ago he placed a Motion on the Paper—
    MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Gentleman rise to speak on the Motion. [Mr. CALLAN, Yes!] Then that of the noble Lord the Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Frederick Cavendish) stands before it.
    MR. CALLANsaid, some days ago he moved for a certain Return, but he was informed that in that form his Return could not be granted. On Saturday, however, he replaced half of it, to which he understood there was no objection, on the Paper, and he was informed by the Chief Secretary that he was surprised to see a Notice of opposition to it, and that he had requested the hon. Member for Stockton (Mr. Dodds) to withdraw it, which he had done, or at least, he was informed that the hon. Gen-
    778
    tleman did not repeat his Notice of opposition. Under these circumstances he was surprised that the Clerks at the Table had renewed the Notice of opposition. Of course, if he had placed on the Paper an exactly similar Notice to that which had formerly been objected to, there might be some excuse for the Clerks renewing the objection, but when a Return was substantially altered, he had to ask whether it was competent for the Clerk at a Table unauthorized—as he advisedly said—thus to place a Notice of objection to a Return in this way.
    Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being found present,
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Grain) (203); Ground Game (206).
TREATY OF BERLIN—THE INTERNATIONAL FRONTIER QUESTIONS.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDEELEYasked, Whether the Government had any further communication to make to the House in reference to the progress of the settlement of the Eastern Question?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, three weeks ago I stated to your Lordships what, up to that time, had been the action of the Powers of Europe, in order to bring about an early settlement of the International Frontier questions, and by practical reforms in European and Asiatic Turkey to prevent a catastrophe full of danger, not only to Turkey, but to Europe. In answer to the Question of the noble Lord, I will state, very briefly, what has occurred since that time. With regard to the Montenegrin Frontier, in answer to the Collective Note, in which the Powers stated to the Porte that they insisted upon either the carrying out of the Corti agreement—which had failed three months ago, in consequence of the neglect of the Turkish Government to carry out the conditions of transfer—or on the cession of the Dulcigno district, the Porte gave two answers—one verbal, the other in writing. These answers were not in the same words, and it is not yet clear whether they are to the same effect or not. The Powers have under their consideration the rejoinder which they will make, and have, in the meantime, ordered a certain number of their vessels to go to Ragusa, which port has been thrown open to them by the Austrian Government, as being within easy distance of the coast which is to be ceded to Montenegro. Instructions have been prepared for the Admiral in command of our contingent, and communicated to the other Powers. Correspondence upon the Montenegrin Frontier question will be presented before the close of the Session; but the instructions to the Admiral cannot, for obvious reasons, be published at

  605
  present. Three weeks ago I stated that the Powers were likely to agree in the reply to be returned to the Turkish answer to the Collective Note respecting the Greek Frontier. That reply has since been agreed upon and presented to the Porte. It is to the effect that the Powers cannot re-open negotiations at Constantinople as to the Frontier line; but it expresses the readiness of the Powers to entertain any proposals which the Porte may think fit to make as to the manner in which the evacuation of the territory by the Turkish authorities, and its surrender to Greece, could best be conducted. I have laid a copy of the Note on the Table of the House. On the last occasion I stated it was likely that the Ambassadors of the Powers would agree to a Note to the Porte on the subject of reforms in Armenia. That agreement has taken place. I expect the Note will be presented to the Porte immediately, and it will then be laid before Parliament. The labours of the International Commission, sitting at Constantinople, have come to a satisfactory end. The Powers have been unanimous in their recommendations of a project of law for adoption in European Turkey. Papers have been presented this evening, both as to what passed in the Commission and as to the project of law itself.

AFGHANISTAN (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—LATEST TELEGRAMS.

  QUESTION.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETasked the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville),"Whether any further intelligence had been received with respect to the march of General Roberts on Candahar?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the following telegram had been received from General Roberts on the 29th of August:—
  "Kelat-i-Ghilzai, August 23. —The force under my command arrived here this morning. Authorities at Candahar having stated on the 17th inst. that they have abundant supplies and can make forage last until September 1, I halt to-morrow to rest troops, and more especially the transport animals and camp followers. The force left Ghazni on the 16th, and has marched 136 miles during the last eight days. The troops are in good health and spirits. From this, purpose moving by regular stages, so that the men may arrive fresh at Candahar. I hope to be in heliographic communication with Candahar from Robat, distant 20 miles, on the 29th. I am taking the Kelat-i-Ghilzai garrison with
  606
  me, making the fort over to Mahomed Sadik Khan, a Toki Chief, who had charge of the place when we arrived in 1879. The present Governor, Sirdar Shernidil Khan, refuses to remain. We have met with no opposition during the march, and have been able to make satisfactory arrangements for supplies, especially forage, which at this season is plentiful. The cavalry horses and artillery mules are in excellent order. Our casualties to date are one soldier 72nd Highlanders, one Sepoy 23rd Pioneers, one 2nd Sikhs, two Sepoys 3rd Sikhs, dead. One Sepoy 4th Goorkhas, two Sepoys 24th Punjab Native Infantry, duffadar 3rd Punjab Calvary missing; six camp followers dead, five missing. The missing men have, I fear, been murdered. I telegraphed from Ghazni on 13th, and from Oba-Karez, on the 18th August."

MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF GRAIN) BILL—(No. 203.)
(The Lord Sudeley.)
MERCHANT SHIPPING (CARRIAGE OF GRAIN) BILL—(No. 203.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD SUDELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, the reason it came before the House at so late a period of the Session was owing to the fact that the subject of grain cargoes had been, for a considerable time, under the consideration of a Select Committee of the other House, who had gone most thoroughly into the whole question. The Bill was founded on their Report, the main recommendation of which was adopted unanimously by the Committee. The Committee was presided over by the President of the Board of Trade and was composed of 27 Members, consisting of the late Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade, six shipowners, and representatives of all the interests concerned. It was shown that from 1873 to 1880, 274 grain-laden ships were missing or reported as foundered, with the loss of nearly 2,800 lives. No evidence was forthcoming of the missing ships, which went down with all hands; but of the 139 foundered ships it was known that in 32 cases the cargo shifted, and probably in many more that was a contributory, if not a primary, cause of the loss. Evidence was given of the practice prevailing in Canada, and especially in the port of Montreal. Previously to 1873 there were many losses of Canadian grain-laden ships; but since that date, when stringent precautions were adopted, it was a remarkable fact no loss whatever had occurred. The main conditions

  607
  of the Canadian system were embodied in the Bill, and consisted in the requirement of sufficient and substantial shifting boards, and in the provision of a certain proportion of bags. Ships laden with oats and cotton-seed were exempted, which, being a light cargo and not liable to shift, presented no source of special danger. Ships carrying grain in bulk and fitted with properly-constructed feeders, so that the lower holds were kept constantly full and the cargo prevented from shifting as the grain settled, were exempted from the regulation as to bags. Ships in which the grain cargo did not exceed one-half of the whole were also exempted when the rest of the cargo was so stowed as to prevent shifting. A very important part of the Bill was that the special provisions detailed were declared not to exempt the shipowner from taking all such other precautions as might be necessary and reasonable, and thus the shipowner was not freed from his direct responsibility. Lastly, in order to secure accurate information as to the loading of grain ships, the master of the ship was to deliver full particulars before leaving the final port of loading. The Bill only applied to the Mediterranean, the Black Sea, and the coast of North America, and evidence to the effect of all these provisions was given to the Committee by shipowners and others. Speaking generally, while shipowners objected, as a matter of principle, to all interference with their trade, the witnesses all agreed that if any regulations were to be made by Parliament there was no serious objection to those now proposed. Mr. Leyland, a large shipowner, representing the views of the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, consisting of about one-third the entire steam tonnage of the United Kingdom, said that the regulations were such as any reasonable shipowner would adopt, and he saw no objection to making them compulsory. He also said—
  "I think legislation ought to interfere to a certain extent. I think it ought to prevent overloading. I think it ought to provide for substantial shifting boards, and that no vessel should carry more than three-fourths of her cargo in bulk."
  He would only add that he believed what Mr. Leyland so well expressed was the feeling of nine-tenths of the shipowners of the country. The Bill passed
  608
  through the other House without a single division. If passed, it was anticipated it would prevent a great number of vessels being lost during the ensuing winter. He trusted their Lordships would give it a second reading.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read 2a."—{The Lord Sudeley.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

GROUND GAME BILL—(No. 206.)
(The Earl of Kimberley.)
GROUND GAME BILL—(No. 206.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
  THE EARL OF KIMBRELEY,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he was aware that it was a measure which had excited considerable interest in the country, and was looked upon with no very kindly feeling by most of those who were interested in sport. For his own part, he was sure he was not one of those who wished to see anything done which would put an end to one of the most harmless and healthy of recreations, or which would deprive them of one of those enjoyments which could be taken part in by large numbers of persons of different classes, one which had this very good effect incidentally—that it caused a considerable number to pass their time in the country among their friends and neighbours, who would, perhaps, be otherwise induced to pass most of that time in town. He had this advantage —that he was addressing an assemblage all the Members of which were well acquainted with the subject. What were called in the Bill ground game, hares and rabbits, were familiar to them all; and he had this further advantage—that almost all their Lordships were well acquainted with the class whose grievances the Bill proposed to relieve—he meant the tenant farmers. He was sure that after the unfavourable seasons the tenant farmers had had to contend with they would all be ready, if a grievance of theirs was established, to remedy it in a fair and generous spirit. The grievance which the Bill proposed to remedy was the serious injury which the tenant farmers in certain parts of the country sustained from the over-

  609
  preservation of hares and rabbits; and he had no doubt that there were very few of their Lordships who had not had opportunities of becoming acquainted with the nature and extent of that injury. The evidence taken before the Committee of 1872 had given many facts on the subject. It had been plainly proved that the farmers, at all events, thought that they suffered considerable damage from ground game in different parts of the country, and declared that the grievance ought to be removed. No one, however unfriendly to the Bill, asserted that there was no grievance. Before proceeding to explain the remedy the Bill proposed to apply, he would explain the state of the law with regard to game in this country and in Scotland. In England and Ireland the right to kill game belonged primâ facie to the occupier of the land; in Scotland it belonged primâ facie to the landlord, unless it was expressly intended otherwise. The Legislature, therefore, as a general principle, clearly intended that the right to kill game should belong to the man that occupied the land. But, at the same time, it was enacted by the Act of 1831 that the owner of the land might reserve the right to kill game. Hence the present grievance arose. It was tolerably clear that the only mode of applying a satisfactory remedy to the grievance as it existed was to deal with that particular reservation, and to attach to it some new condition. The condition they proposed to apply was that, in future, the tenant should possess a concurrent right inseparable from the possession of the land to kill ground game. The objection raised to this was, that it was an interference with freedom of contract. In the first place, he wished to observe that the question was one of degree; and though every one would admit it would not be right to interfere with freedom of contract unnecessarily, it was perfectly clear that Parliament considered that it might be interfered with, for on more than one question such interference had taken place. He might mention the well-known Truck Act, according to which wages were not allowed to be paid except in a particular mode prescribed by the Legislature. Then there was the law regulating the relations between shipowners and sailors. There was also the Hosiery Act passed by the late Government—by which
  610
  masters were not allowed to let out frames. These were all cases of interference with freedom of contract. The whole subject of those Game Laws was of a peculiar character. Their Lordships were not dealing with property in the ordinary sense of the word. Game until it had been killed was not property. His noble Friend at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) proposed to move, as an Amendment to the second reading—
  "That as this Bill is an imperfect measure for securing occupiers from loss through injury done to their crops by ground game, which is its professed object, and as it necessarily interferes with the important principle of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant, and requires therefore in these and other respects carefully prepared amendments, which cannot now be properly discussed and agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament during the few days remaining before the Prorogation, it is desirable that further time should be allowed for its consideration, and that it be read a second time this day three months."
  This Amendment raised several questions. First, the question of freedom of contract; next, the question of there being some better mode by which the object in view could be attained; and, lastly, the question of its being late in the Session. He had spoken of freedom of contract. As to some better alternative, the Bill founded itself on a proposition which would be found in the important Report of the Committee on the Game Laws of 1872. The Report stated—
  "There can be no question that the existence of a large number of hares and rabbits upon an arable farm is most prejudicial to its profitable occupation, and your Committee cannot too strongly reprobate the practice of some landlords and their shooting tenants of keeping up a largo stock of those animals on cultivated lands to the injury of the crops of the farming tenants. They consider that no landlord should object to the insertion of such engagements in his leases or agreements as will insure the keeping down of ground game within moderate limits, and that no tenant should enter upon a farm without securing protection from loss by such engagements on the part of the landlord, and they are satisfied that no means so efficient for the purpose can be devised as the concession to the tenant of the power to kill the ground game upon his farm either exclusively or concurrently with his landlord."
  Then it was proposed to add—
  "But the evidence before your Committee does not lead them to believe that landlords generally are willing to make such concessions."

  611
  Upon that there was a Division, when the "Ayes" were nine, including Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, Sir Henry Sel-win-Ibbetson, Mr. Pell, and Mr. Clare Read. The "Noes" were also nine, and the Chairman then voted "No." Notwithstanding that, the Committee did not proceed on the principle they had laid down. They added that such a provision might be evaded. That was the reason, he supposed, why they did not recommend it. His noble Friend stated that there was some better method. But if their Lordships were prepared to admit that there was a grievance he would ask whether any better mode, or one less distasteful to their Lordships than that which was proposed in the Bill, could be found? There were three possible modes. They might enact stringent methods of compensation, they might strike hares and rabbits altogether out of the Game Laws, or they might adopt the measure proposed. The first alternative would not probably be found efficient for the object in view. He believed that no kind of arrangement could be made more likely to produce bad feeling, cause more quarrels throughout the country, or make the very names of hares and rabbits more detestable. Mr. M 'Lagan's Act for Scotland had been taken advantage of in several cases, but it had not prevented agitation against ground game in the North. On the contrary, everybody knew that there was a feeling in Scotland far greater than even in England, where there was no law of compensation. The next proposal was the heroic remedy of striking hares and rabbits out of the Game Laws. If they did, hares would soon disappear, and rabbits would follow. But until hares and rabbits disappeared it would be perfectly impossible to dispense with some severe trespass law; because numbers of persons would trespass on the land, great damage would be done to the crops of the tenants, and much mischief to the whole population. A stringent trespass law would be one of the most unpopular measures that could be brought forward. Their Lordships, therefore, would not wish to see either a very stringent compensation law, or to have hares and rabbits struck out of the Game Laws. Then, by a process of elimination, they came back to the proposition in the Bill. It was for their Lordships to consider whether it was
  612
  not better to accept a measure of this kind than to leave the matter open and have a more extreme measure carried out at a future time. The advantage of this measure was that it met the grievance which was complained of; it gave that which was asked for. When it was said that it would promote disagreement between landlord and tenant, it must be remembered that disagreement, unfortunately, existed now; and it was the object of the Bill to remove that disagreement. It would not prevent friendly relations between landlords and tenants, and he had no doubt that, in many instances, there would be friendly understandings that would be honourably kept by both parties, while at present it was practically impossible for them to come to agreement through the conflict of their interests. There ought to be a certain amount of forbearance and of give and take as between them, and he did not see that the possibility of such good understanding would be in any way diminished by this Bill. The disagreements which had arisen in the past had been mostly with, or on account of, those who hired the right of shooting; and, however carefully the provisions as to game letting might be drawn, the tenant naturally felt for a stranger less consideration than he would for the landlord himself. Misunderstandings had arisen chiefly with proprietors on whose land there was an over-preservation of game. The person who hired the shooting thought only of obtaining the greatest amount of game; but the owner had to take a wider view, to consider the profits to be made from his estate as a whole, and the advantage of maintaining good terms with the tenants. There was, therefore, no special reason why this Bill should promote disagreement as between landlord and tenant. It was not proposed to give the concurrent right of killing ground game without some limitation as to the persons authorised to kill it, and the times and places for its exercise; and, having cited the provisions referred to, the noble Lord said that the other parts of the Bill were designed to prevent agreements which would render the Bill null and void. Its object was to provide that the right to kill ground game should be inseparable from the occupation of the land. He had shown that the alternatives that

  613
  had been suggested would be less acceptable to those who wished for a reasonable preservation of game. It was an acknowledged fact that there was a grievance on the part of the tenant farmers which should be met in a graceful and generous way. He was not prepared to say the grievance was a large one; but it was made by a large body of men; it was one for which they were bound to find a remedy; and he believed that provided by the Bill was the least objectionable that could be proposed.
  Moved,"That the Bill be now read2a."—(The Earl of Kimberley.)
  THE EARL OP REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES),in rising to move, as an Amendment,
  "That as this Bill is an imperfect measure for securing occupiers from loss through injury done to their crops by ground game, which is its professed object, and as it unnecessarily interferes with the important principle of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant, and requires, therefore, in these and other respects carefully prepared amendments which cannot now be properly discussed and agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament during the few days remaining before the Prorogation, it is desirable that further time should be allowed for its consideration, and that it be read a second time this day three months,"
  said, he believed the effect of the Bill had not been sufficiently thought of by those who were deeply interested in its operation. The effect would be to create an entire revolution in the relations of landlords and tenants by terminating the freedom of contract between them, and the effect of passing the Bill would be to create a dangerous precedent for similar interference between landlord and tenant in matters not connected with game. The restriction on the right of agreement was one of the most extraordinary proposals ever made, because the tenant would be prohibited from entering into any arrangement, even although it might be to him much more advantageous than the provisions of this Bill. This was a wrong way of dealing with such a matter. It was a very serious interference with the rights of property, and it would lead to disputes and to ill-feeling. The Bill was not introduced solely for the advantage of the occupiers and with the object of getting rid of the injury they suffered from ground game. The object of the Bill was to create disagreements between
  614
  landlords and tenants. It had been found that a good understanding existed between them, and that it was very advantageous to the Conservative interest; and it had been found desirable, in the interests of what was called Liberalism or Radicalism, to create a difference between those two classes, in order that they might not work together with the same harmony they had done hitherto. He regretted that the matter was not to be left open to an agreement which might be of advantage to the tenant. It was ridiculously absurd to say that the tenant was incapable of protecting himself in the making of an agreement. Therefore, the 3rd clause ought to be struck out of the Bill. There would be no great objection to saying that they wished the question of ground game discussed as between landlord and tenant, and that, therefore, every lease should be liable to review, provided that they did not say that landlord and tenant should be precluded from coming to some arrangement with each other. It would be better in most cases that the landlord and tenant should work jointly for that object. The proposed arrangements would be altogether unsatisfactory. The man employed by a tenant to snare or net game, if able to do the work well, would probably have learnt it as a poacher, and might loiter about a wood belonging to a person other than his employer, and during the night might set his traps close to the landlord's or another proprietor's cover, so that he would require vigilant watching on the part of the proprietor in order to prevent interference with other game. As he had said, it would be far better for both parties to come to an agreement with respect to the necessary keeping down of rabbits. It was to be remembered that the over-preservation of hares and rabbits was by no means common; on the contrary, it was a very exceptional practice, and the few cases in which it occurred supplied no reason for bringing in a Bill such as that before the House. He wished to urge upon their Lordships that more time was wanted for the consideration of so important a measure; and he might remind them that the objection he had taken on that ground was no new thing, but was consistent with the view he had always held of the proper method of conducting the Business of the House. No doubt, the Bill had

  615
  been some time before Parliament, but it had not been read a second time in the other House till the end of July; and now that the Prorogation was so near they might fairly say that it was impossible for them to debate the measure in all its details as it ought to be debated. They would be only acting within their rights in demanding a more adequate period of deliberation. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Amendment.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("That as this Bill is an imperfect measure for securing occupiers from loss through injury done to their crops by ground game, which is its professed object, and as it unnecessarily interferes with the important principle of freedom of contract between landlord and tenant, and requires therefore in these and other respects carefully prepared amendments which cannot now be properly discussed and agreed upon by both Houses of Parliament during the few days remaining before the Prorogation, it is desirable that further time should be allowed for its consideration, and that it be read a second time this day three months.")— (The Earl of Redesdale.)
  THE EARL or BEACONSFIELD: A Motion made by my noble Friend must always command the attention of your Lordships. His character is so high, the truth of his convictions so undoubted, and the earnestness of his manner so commanding, that I know well that any view he takes will be one which must influence your Lordships. Independently, however, of the regard that I share with your Lordships for my noble Friend, I frankly admit that on the present occasion I agree with many of the remarks he has made. I agree with him in his three points, and think, as he does, that there is an inconsistency between the Preamble of the Bill and the clause intended to carry that Preamble into effect. I agree with him that it is much to be regretted that in legislating the object desired cannot be obtained without violation of the freedom of contract. I agree with him, also, that the manner in which the Legislative Business of the country is conducted, so that on the verge of the month of September your Lordships are called upon to consider matters of gravity is a deplorable state of affairs. It is one which it is impossible can long be endured, carried this Session to the extent it has been; and I myself, with the assistance
  616
  of your Lordships, the other day, in self-defence of your Lordships' privileges in this matter, did not unsuccessfully make an effort to induce your Lordships to come to a Resolution that when measures of magnitude are brought forward in this precipitate manner for your consideration, some check should be offered to that course. Independently of these views, I quite agree with my noble Friend in disapproving of this Bill generally. My main reason for disapprobation is not the subject of the Bill, upon which, perhaps, I will venture in a moment to make one or two remarks; but its animus. I have looked through the subsection of the clause to which my noble Friend referred, and am amazed at the spirit in which it is drawn up. It is a matter to be treated in a spirit of conciliation, and, if possible, of compromise. Your Lordships may judge for yourselves whether there is any spirit of conciliation in the language or framework of this Bill; and as for compromise, that course seems never for a moment to have been considered. That sub-section to which my noble Friend has referred levies war upon the landed proprietors of the country. It calls upon the tenant to arm himself—upon his sons to arm themselves—upon his servants to arm themselves; and if that is not sufficient, an expert is to be called upon for assistance. We know what is the character of that expert. His position, if this Bill is carried, will be one of the most remarkable; his transformation will be extraordinary. At present a subject of the Queen, viewed always with suspicion, he will forthwith become a member of a profession—of an honourable profession; and instead of finding himself pursuing his delightful pastime on moonlight nights, on the contrary, he will, in the language of a great statesman, "stand now in the sunshine of the Constitution," and flourish his weapon in the very eyes of the lord of the manor. I ventured to say that the subject itself of this Bill appears to be one by no means unworthy of treatment, the consideration of which I have myself for some time supposed was inevitable; but the manner in which it has been submitted to Parliament is very different from what I had anticipated. We sometimes hear that the principle of the Bill is one which is novel in our legislation; but I do not concur in that charge. I

  617
  should say that there is a principle in regard to dealing with the Game Laws, generally speaking, that has been observed in this country from time immemorial to our own days and it has been this—no doubt, gradually, and with every due consideration—to extend and expand the sphere which includes those who enjoy the privilege of using the gun in the pursuit of game. From the very earliest period, even if you went to the time when there were grants of free warren, we know that the Sovereign, who was virtually the proprietor of the country, made grants of free warren to his Barons, and those grants never once involved any grant of the freehold of the territory. But as times advanced all free warren disappeared, and as the estates of the Barons were formed, the right of sporting went with the tenantry. Look at of your early Inclosure Acts. In these the rights of the lord of the manor to the game is always asserted as a matter of course; but as the Inclosure Acts went on, whether it was by law or custom—which was often stronger than law —all these assertions of right to the game by the lord of the manor disappeared, and the right to the game was given to the new freeholders. So that in all those innumerable Inclosure Acts, which have been introduced in our generation and the generation before us, you do not find the slightest allusion to the subject; but, as a matter of course, it was understood that a right to the game should belong to the proprietors of the soil. Well, after the Committee to which reference has been made reported, I never myself doubted but that some legislation on the subject was necessary; and if that legislation consisted of the concession to the British farmer of the right of sporting by gun, I must say that, acting in the spirit of our experience in this country for centuries, that right could not be intrusted to safer or more worthy hands. So far, therefore, as the principle of modifying our Game Laws in that sense is concerned, I should never oppose such legislation; but it would be in a spirit that would rather increase the bonds of sympathy and union between the owner and the occupier of the land. So far as the general principle is concerned, with regard to any restriction of the freedom of contract, I entirely agree with my noble Friend
  618
  that that is a course of which we should never avail ourselves, except in cases of extreme necessity. I am not at all persuaded that it is impossible in Committee to modify that clause as my noble Friend suggests, but that clearly is a case for Committee. At the same time, we must not lay down, as a law of the Medes and Persians, that freedom of contract is never by our legislation to be in any way interfered with. That would not only be an absurd proposition, but it would be one entirely contrary to the legislation of this country for many years. There have necessarily been restrictions of freedom of contract both with reference to the labour and the food of the people. One of the most recent cases relates to a subject quite akin to that before us. It is only a few years ago that your Lordships interfered with freedom of contract by passing a law which secured compensation to tenants for the injury done to their property through the preserving of game by the landlords, although they were cultivating the soil under leases in which that privilege was secured to the landlords, and unlimited. That is an Act of recent date, which your Lordships agreed to, and which was an invasion of the freedom of contract. I object very much to the legislation now proprosed, as I have intimated, on account of its hostile character. At the same time I hesitate very much to resist the introduction of this Bill, and I will endeavour very briefly to state to your Lordships my reasons for that course. I mentioned to your Lordships some little time ago my conviction—and it is a profound conviction—that the politics of this country, so far as internal affairs are concerned, would probably, for the next few years, mainly consist in an assault upon the Constitutional position of the landed interest in the system of government that now prevails in this country. That is a matter which your Lordships should deeply consider. It is impossible, if I am correct in my view, that affairs should go on between the two Houses of Parliament without their occasionally, and, perhaps, even frequently, arriving at different conclusions on such a subject. What is called collision with the other House is a frightful term; but if your Lordships come to that state of affairs with the other House of Parliament, it seems to me that you will

  619
  have nothing to fear if the question on which difference occurs be one of importance, and in which the country he deeply interested, and if you are clear and just in your conclusions, and firm in their maintenance, I think that, in these circumstances, what is called collision may be looked upon without apprehension. It is very difficult to say what are the questions that deeply interest this country at the present moment. The country is somewhat perplexed; but if I were asked to mention the two subjects which most occupy the thought of the country at the present moment, I should say one was the government of Ireland, and the other the principles upon which the landed property of this country should continue to be established. The other day a Bill was introduced into this House in which both those subjects were dealt with—a Bill which, if it had been passed, would have made a very great change in the condition and government of Ireland, and would have shaken to its centre the principle upon which landed property is now established. And what did your Lordships do? On that occasion your Lordships behaved in a manner which might have been expected from your character. You disembarrassed yourselves at once from all Party feeling and all Party organization. from all claims of political connection, and by a commanding majority you at once gave your veto to a policy which you believed to be injurious and even perilous to the State. That Bill was sent to your Lordships—I will not say introduced, and, of course, I make no reference to the part taken by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) and his Colleagues in this House—that Bill was sent to your Lordships in a spirit of menace and arrogance. ["No, no!"] Yes; I repeat the words, which are founded on expressions used by those who were the authoritative supporters of the Bill. And what was the result of your Lordships' action? It met with the approbation and the confidence of the country. I may say it gained your Lordships the respect even of Europe. Well, my Lords, I cannot say it is my opinion that if there is any difference of opinion between the two Houses of Parliament upon the character of our Game Laws, your Lordships would occupy a similar position to that your Lordships did the other day on the Compensation for Disturbance
  620
  (Ireland) Bill. Those who know your Lordships are aware that they are vile calumnies that would for a moment represent that you are influenced in your conduct even upon this subject by unworthy sentiments. But I must express my opinion that if your Lordships oppose this Bill—if your Lordships say at once that you will not endeavour in Committee to make it a fairly practicable piece of legislation, your Lordships will be liable to much misapprehension and much misrepresentation— misapprehension by honest men, and misrepresentation by wicked men. I would most earnestly hope, if there are to be differences between the two Houses of Parliament, that, so far as your Lordships' House is concerned, those differences should be upon subjects of great national interest. I impress this upon your Lordships. I have no object whatever, except to maintain your Lordships' honour and authority. I am not a candidate for power. I neither seek to form nor to disturb Ministries. But I have this ambition—that I wish, with you, however humbly on my part, to defend the Constitution of our country. Of that Constitution, my Lords, you are the peculiar guardians; and I feel confident that if you exerciseyour great authority with becoming firmness and discretion, you may defy Democrat and Demagogue, because you will be supported by the sympathy of the great body of the people. You will not have that support if you choose this occasion to try the relative strength of the two Houses of Parliament. It is not, in my opinion, an instance in which you would wisely exercise the authority which no one denies that you possess. This Bill is not a Bill such as I could have wished; but I should not be tempted by any considerations of that kind to blind myself from what may be, perhaps, a trap to induce your Lordships to take up a feeble position when you may be on the eve of a Constitutional struggle. The occasion is not a wise or a worthy one for your Lordships to resist the opinion of the House of Commons; and I would recommend you to allow this Bill—which I am not prepared to support—to go into Committee; and in Committee, by putting an end to or greatly modifying that clause which I have attempted to describe, and making other Amendments, may bring about a piece of legislation

  621
  adapted and adequate to the circumstances and requirements of the country —legislation which will at least show that, while your Lordships are prepared to make all reasonable sacrifices for the general welfare, you are not disposed to enter into a contest with the other House of Parliament except upon a subject becoming the importance of both those great Assemblies.
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWbelieved that the measure was a sham. It professed in its Preamble to be for the improvement of husbandry; whereas, in reality, it struck at the root of all liberty and freedom of contract. Those affected by the Bill were yearly tenants and tenants at will, both of whom might make terms with their landlords for the proper protection of their crops. Instead of being for the destruction of hares and rabbits only it would give the tenant a right of sporting which he did not possess before. Nevertheless, he would support the second reading, because it was now looked forward to by a large number of that class of agriculturists who had the greatest claim on their Lordships' consideration; but he trusted that they would not allow the Bill to pass in such a shape as to alienate the two great classes whose interests must always be identical —the owners and occupiers of the soil.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, although he had listened to the noble Earl at the Table (the Earl of Redesdale) with much attention, he had not been persuaded that his arguments against the Bill were such as to induce him to vote against it. The noble Earl said it was an imperfect Bill; and although he did not, in the course of his speech, attempt to deny the existence of a grievance, the only remedy he proposed was that the farmer and the landlord should kill the game together, or that both should depute some one else to do so. If that was the better plan why had it not been tried before? As to what fell from the noble Earl, the Leader of the Opposition, his words could not but have a practical effect. He gathered from his speech that if it was thought desirable to extend the privilege of shooting, there was no one to whom that privilege could be extended with better placed confidence than to the agricultural tenant. That was a fair summary of the advice which they received from the noble Earl; but, unfortunately, that advice
  622
  had not been given hitherto—the right had not been extended to the agricultural tenant; and it was precisely because he had not the power of killing ground game that he had, through such means as were open to him, made a very loud complaint to the two Houses of Parliament. Then his noble Friend went on to say that the Bill constituted an unnecessary interference with the freedom of contract, and he had been completely answered by the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Kimberley) and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield), to the effect that it was necessary to interfere at times with the freedom of contract; and that in this instance, in which it was not a question of property, but of amusement, the occasion was not sufficient for them to come to the conclusion that their Lordships should reverse the decision arrived at by the House of Commons in reference to the measure. It had been said that the cases of excessive preservation of ground game were exceptional, and he believed that to be so; but it was the existence of those exceptional cases that made this Bill, or something like it, necessary. At the same time, it would not preclude private understandings between the landlord and tenant; and no doubt in many instances, they would enter, into such agreements behind the Bill. Then the noble Earl further, in criticising the Bill, said it had come up to the House too late for fair discussion. That was a fault that he had alleged against the other Bills; but that was not an objection which had very great weight in the present case. The provisions of the Bill had been very carefully considered in the other House; and it would appear that the way in which many of the Amendments were brought forward indicated a desire to defeat the Bill. The object of the Bill was contained in the Preamble. It was to protect the capital of the tenant and the best interests of agriculture, and not to give sporting rights to tenants. When they were told that there was no demand for the Bill they should not forget that at the recent Election, candidates on both sides who stood for county constituencies joined in making lavish promises to the tenant farmers on the subject; and if the Government had not brought in the Bill the tenant farmers would have had the same right to find fault with them as they had with

  623
  the late Government on the subject of the Agricultural Holdings Bill. He hoped their Lordships would not reject the measure; he did not say that it require no amendment; hut he believed that the Government would consider in a fair spirit whatever Amendments might be proposed.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, the noble Earl who had just spoken had expressed the opinion that if the Bill passed landlords and tenants would make agreements behind the back of the Act. He, for one, demurred to that proposition. A Bill brought in by Her Majesty's Government, which received the assent of both Houses of Parliament, would, if it became law, be carried out; and it was, he thought, an ignoble proposition to hold that the landowers and tenant farmers of the country would not stick to and abide by the meaning and tenour of the Act. The Bill was avowedly brought in for the benefit of the agricultural tenants, and he thought it dealt not solely with ground game, but with territorial rights. In fact, all the legislation of the present Government was class legislation. The Employers' Liability Bill was admittedly brought in for the benefit of the labouring classes. The Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill was of a like character for the benefit of one class, and the present Bill dealt with property of a very valuable character. He was in a position to state that in the opinion of those who were best qualified to judge— namely, the land agents of England— landed property which might come into the market for sale would, if the Bill passed, be enormously depreciated in value. A paternal and affectionate Government, however, had become interested in the welfare of the agricultural tenants, and were anxious to give them a return for favours received, and make them a gift for something indefinite which they hoped hereafter to receive from them. They said to the tenant farmers of the country—"A Liberal Government has determined to consider your condition; they are deeply touched by the position in which the act of God has placed you. You have had the advantage of six years of the Government of your friends, but no Malt Tax was repealed by them; you have suffered great calamities, but no remedial measures were proposed in your behalf by them. We come forward now, we repeal the
  624
  Malt Tax, and we give you a territorial right upon your farms." If anything was likely to prolong the sway of the Government, it was the bountiful way in which they had treated the tenant farmer class. But there would be a hereafter. The Malt Tax might not prove to be a valuable concession; this Bill, from the description given, was not likely to be of the slightest good. It was said the tenant was to have the right of shooting over the landlord's property, and to employ any number of people, respectable or degraded, in shooting ground game, which was to be prolific enough for amusement, but not for the destruction of the crops. But if the Preamble of the Bill was to be consistently carried out, the occupier would not be tempted to preserve game enough to afford amusement. If he had had to propose a measure in the interests of good husbandry, he would have said that the tenant might snare hares at certain times, and kill rabbits in any way at all times, but not by guns; and a Bill of that kind would have been perfectly innocent, and would not have contravened the wishes of their Lordships, most of whom now carried out on their estates the principle which he advocated. Where was all the alleged injury done by ground game? He never heard of any complaints in the county of Cambridge, because the landlords invariably fell in with the wishes of the tenants, who, therefore, did not feel the need for any legislation. And did not the landlords in other game counties act in a similar manner? A cry and an agitation had been got up, and the tenants would hail with acclamation a Bill of this kind; but if it had not been brought in they would not have asked for it. If it was to work mischief between landlords and themselves, they had the good sense to know that instead of being beneficial it would be quite the contrary. With good tenants and good landlords, estates were invariably well managed, and would continue to be; a bad tenant might remain under a good landlord, but a bad landlord would say to a tenant who proposed to act on the principles of this Bill—"You won't stop here." It was admitted that a good understanding was favourable to good husbandry, which was promoted by leases; but this Bill would prevent leases. He warned their Lordships that the country gentry would

  625
  not live on their property if they were deprived of their sporting rights. The President of the Council was a good hunting man; and he asked the noble Earl whether, if he could not enjoy the foxhunting at Pytchley, he would not say—"The climate of this country in the winter is detestable; I shall go abroad." But they were going by this Bill to deprive the small country gentry, who lived upon their property 10 or 11 months in the year, of the only sport that they could enjoy. It was one of those measures which would be followed by others of a more severe character. The late Prime Minister had advised the House not to vote against the second reading of the Bill, and he (the Earl of Hardwicke) would follow the noble Earl's advice, reserving his vote to aid in the amendment of the Bill in Committee; because he believed it would, as it stood at present, break up the good feeling which had hitherto existed between landlord and tenant, without in any sense promoting good husbandry.
  THE DUKE OF ARGTYLLsaid, that if it had not been for some observations which fell from the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Redesdale) he would have been content to leave the advocacy of the Bill to the very clear, temperate, and business-like speech of his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. With regard to the speech of the noble Earl opposite, who led the Conservative Party, he had little or nothing to say. The noble Earl had treated the House to some of that brilliant "chaff," which with him was sometimes merely the decoration of very weighty and sagacious counsels, and he would not spend the time of the House by making any carping observations on a speech with much of which he himself agreed, and the wisdom of which he thought would be recognized in the country. He wished to say, however, with regard to the Chairman of Committees, that he understood it was one of the Rules of Debate in their Lordships' House not to impute unworthy motives to their opponents; and he very much regretted that the noble Lord should have committed a breach of that Rule which was not more due to good sense than it was to courtesy. The noble Earl said, among other things, that the real motive of the Government was not to protect agricultural interests, but to
  626
  give a blow to the landed interest. He (the Duke of Argyll) protested against that accusation as entirely unjust and unfounded. He was not surprised at it, however, as coming from the noble Earl, who at one time made a charge against his own Party, when they brought in a Bill for the abolition of the Law of Hypothec. The abolition of hypothec was for many years objected to by Conservatives; but the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Beaconsfield), in that magnificent course of educating his Party, which was productive of such eminent advantages to the country, ultimately induced them to believe that the measure would not be injurious to the nation. In that he agreed with the late Prime Minister; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale) adhered to his antiquated opinions with the utmost good faith, and accused the late Government of bringing in the Bill just before the General Election for electioneering purposes. He reminded their Lordships of this, for the purpose of showing the fairness that was to be expected from the noble Earl when the present Government brought in a measure of which he happened to disapprove. On this subject his own conviction was that some measure was inevitable under the circumstances in which they were placed. It was now rather more than 30 years since the farming interest of this country was first subjected to what the noble Earl, the Leader of the Conservative Party, would call unrestricted competition. During that time he did not know that Free Trade had acted injuriously to agricultural interests. It gave an enormous impetus to trade, and that reacted upon agriculture; so that in the history of the country there had been no such rapid increase in the value of land as in the last 34 or 35 years. But it would now almost appear as if the results of unlimited competition in foreign food were beginning for the first time to be felt in this country. This might be attributable to many causes. First, stood the enormous development of the carrying trade in America and between us and in America. When he visited that country last year he observed from some heights around Niagara the magnificent extent of corn-bearing country far as the eye could reach; and when he was told by some Canadian friends that far beyond the horizon there were hundreds and

  627
  hundreds of miles even still more adapted for corn growing than the country round Niagara and Ontario, he became for the first time impressed with the reality of the risks which would unquestionably beset British agriculture unless every unnecessary impediment to good husbandry were removed. Coincident with the first cause he had mentioned there had been three or four most disastrous years, and no one would deny that those causes combined had had a most depressing effect on the spirits of agriculturists. There were some districts, no doubt, where the rental had hardly been affected; but there were others where a farm would hardly be taken, and where there was no prospect of a fair rental. He was not at all despairing of British agriculture, and he did not mean to increase what he believed was, to some extent, a panic with regard to future prospects; but this he would say—that if British agriculture was to recover the prosperity which it once had, it must depend upon more careful and thrifty cultivation, and, above all, upon the removal of all unnecessary elements of uncertainty in the cultivation of the soil. No one could deny that the unlimited increase of ground game was, in many cases, an insuperable element of uncertainty in the management of farms. His noble Friend (the Earl of Kimberley) was better acquainted with the game counties than he was, and he had stated that he knew cases in which the game had destroyed the crops. No one could deny that the unlimited increase of hares and rabbits was at all times injurious to agriculture, and might be carried to such an extent as to be absolutely incompatible with success. It might be perfectly true that the great majority of their Lordships did not over-preserve game; but the matter was undeniably an element of uncertainty. One man might preserve more, his successor less. One man might preserve more one year, and less another; but there was always the element of uncertainty. The noble Earl opposite evidently referred to an Act passed by their Lordships, he believed, unanimously, three or four years ago, with respect to game in Scotland. It was called M 'Lagan's Act. The history of that Act was curious, as an illustration of the difficulty of dealing with this subject. By the Common Law of Scotland, the tenant had always
  628
  an absolute right of compensation for any damage done to his crops beyond that which he contemplated at the beginning of the lease. But the power to prove the damage hardly existed. Nothing was more difficult. A great number of witnesses might be examined, and very different opinions might be given. One man would say there had been a great increase, another that the increase had not been great. It was always argued by the landlords that the damage done had been considered in the rent; but the answer of the farmers was that they did not anticipate, and could not safely calculate, the amount of game which might be preserved upon the farm. Mr. M'Lagan's Act was introduced as an answer to those arguments. The Legislature stepped in and said that landlords and tenants must make a bargain at the beginning of their leases, tenants specifying the damage on which they calculated, and it being the absolute law of Scotland that they had a right to compensation for the amount of damage that was done beyond that specified in the lease. He was afraid that although the Act was very fair in theory, the whole of the machinery for the assessment of damage was so complicated that it was quite probable ill-will and ill-feeling were occasioned between landlord and tenant in consequence; and certain it was that the passing of Mr. M 'Lagan's Act had not reconciled farmers to the uncertainty which existed with regard to the preservation of game. To remedy the evils which were universally deplored various proposals had been made. At one time he was rather disposed to withdraw hares and rabbits from the game list; but on further consideration he thought that would involve a greater invasion of the rights of property, and that the measure now proposed was the better one. In the speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) there was pretty fair evidence that, in his opinion, some such solution was desirable. The noble Earl did not throw over altogether the principle of freedom of contract; but he declared he did not consider himself bound by that principle with regard to this question, and he quoted M'Lagan's Act as an instance of its invasion. He (the Duke of Argyll) was quite ready to admit that a great many of the measures which had been passed limiting freedom of contract did not stand on all-fours

  629
  with this particular Bill. For instance, the Factory Acts, on which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury) took so distinguished a part, stood upon a principle essentially different—they were Acts for the preservation of the lives or health of millions and had not been passed for commercial purposes. But there was an Act quoted by his noble Friend which involved the principle contained in this Bill, and that was the Truck Act. In that case, when two men contracted for wages those wages were not allowed to be paid in kind. Why, because there was such an element of uncertainty in the bargain that a man would not know whether he got his wages or not. It was strictly within the functions of Parliament to provide that in any bargain made between two persons they should understand what they were about. Let them apply that principle to agricultural leases. All that this Bill said to the landlord was—"If you let your land for agricultural purposes you must let it with all those incidents which are absolutely necessary for successful agriculture." He could not see that that was unreasonable. He thought it as defensible an interference with the principle of freedom of contract as any which had preceded it. Their Lordships had recently consented to interference with that principle. Was the majority of the House aware of the nature of a clause which, on the recommendation of the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns)—whose absence on the present occasion was very significant— had been introduced into a Bill during the present Session of Parliament? The Bill had been passed and had gone down to the House of Commons, and the clause to which he referred would strike much at the continuance of the territorial aristocracy. The clause was passed without one word of opposition, except from the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Bath), so that the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), in objecting to the present Bill, while he did not object to that clause, was straining at a gnat while he had swallowed a camel. He might now say a word or two as to the probable consequences of the Bill, one of which, he held, would be an increase in the value of land. Game had a definite value, and in that respect partook of the nature of property. If a farmer paid less rent because the right of shoot-
  630
  ing was reserved, it was clear that when he had a certain right of protecting his crops from destruction he would not only be disposed to pay, but would also be able to pay a better rent. In the interests of all parties concerned, and of the agriculture of the country, the best plan was to divide the game between the landlord and the tenant. To do that was the whole object of the Bill. With regard to the understandings as to which the noble Earl opposite had uttered some very severe sentences, although under the Bill they would not be enforceable at law, the Bill would not prevent arrangements that rested on mutual interest. His noble Friend had rightly stated that the effect of the Bill would be to leave landlords and tenants to to come to such mutual agreements. Indeed, considering how much injury the two parties were capable of inflicting on one another, it would be seen that considerable pressure was put upon them by the Bill to make agreements based on the interests of both. He confidently expected that, while the over-preservation of game would be done away with, a sufficient and moderate stock would always be maintained, and that the farmers would in future feel that the safety of their crops was assured. He repudiated the motive that had been attributed to the Government in bringing in the Bill, and justified their conduct on the ground that, to use a well-known Parliamentary phrase, something had to be done. In the opinion of the Government, the best policy was to give to both landlord and tenant a joint interest in the ground game.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that this Bill had been very fortunate in having been brought before the House by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies. His noble Friend, however, laboured under the disadvantage of knowing too much on the subject; and he was too candid and unable to resort to that misrepresentation without which this Bill could not be advocated. The misrepresentation by which the Bill had been supported "elsewhere" was not necessarily wilful misrepresentation; indeed, good and effective misrepresentation was only possible where it was the result of ignorance— such as the statement that had been made that taking a rabbit was punished by seven years penal servitude; and that

  631
  two hares ate as much as a sheep. With this exaggeration they would be told in another Session that one hare ate as much as two sheep. On the other hand, his noble Friend had the advantage of being a Norfolk man, and was better able to support this Bill from knowing how his neighbours had been guilty of over-preservation of game. But this excessive preservation was a reason for having brought the penalty not on the whole country, but on those who had offended, by a Bill giving heavy compensation for damages. He, for his part, and all the Peers with whom he had had private conversation on the subject, were quite independent on this subject, and were not speaking as interested persons; but if they spoke warmly, it was because they were better acquainted with the subject than others who had supported the Bill. And he thought that the Peers were rather more open to the complaint that they did not sufficiently bear in mind the case and the requirements of country gentlemen with small estates. Her Majesty's Government had adopted an objectionable method in the case of this Bill, and also of the Burials Bill, of introducing them, and then pausing and hesitating with them, leading people—as with this Bill early in July—to suppose it was to be dropped. The consequence was that Petitions were not prepared against it, as might have been easily done. This Bill, he knew, had already affected and diminished the value of land, and it was of the nature of confiscation. Not long since some complaint had been made about the appointment of M. Challemel-Lacour as French Ambassador; but as the rule was to select a person most acceptable to the Government to which he was accredited, what was called a grata persona, M. Blanqui would have been the most suitable person for the French Government to have chosen.
  LORD CARINGTONsaid, that he should not have ventured to address their Lordships' House did he not feel it his duty, as Vice Chairman of the Central Chamber of Agriculture, to express the approval of the Bill by that important Body, and its satisfaction that this measure had been brought forward. At the same time, great alarm had been shown by country gentlemen as to the results if this Bill became law; and, as an illustration, he might quote a portion
  632
  of the speech made by Mr. Lane-Fox, of Bramham, which seemed to convey their unreasonable fears. Mr. Fox was reported to have said—
  "The Hares and Rabbits Bill ought to be called the Hares, Rabbits, and Landlords Bill, because it was intended to destroy all three. The effect would be that all young men would take to the gun, become poachers and trespassers, ending in brandy and water and ruin. The landlord was left without any amusement —no fox-hunting, no shooting. What was he to do? He turned away his gamekeepers, shut up his house, and went to London or Paris."
  It was not necessary to repudiate the idea that, even if English country gentlemen lost the whole of their sporting rights, they would be induced to shrink from their duties and responsibilities; and, besides, in answer to the argument that this Bill would effectually destroy the national sport of fox-hunting, did not an absentee landlord who let his shooting to a stranger destroy more sport in a hunting county than any number of farmers who kept down hares and rabbits? Ground game had enormously increased within the last 40 years, as might be seen by looking back to January, 1843, in which year the Queen honoured the Duke of Buckingham with a visit at Stowe. The Duke, who was celebrated for his princely munificence, might presumably be supposed to have wished to afford the Consort of his Queen a good day's sport. The result of a battue was a total of 200 hares, 100 pheasants, and a snipe. His Royal Highness shot 29 pheasants and the snipe—leaving to the other guns 86 hares and 71 pheasants. So extraordinary was this shooting considered, only 35 years ago, that it formed the centre cartoon of the next week's Punch. He believed this Bill would give confidence to farmers. It would do away with the possibility of keepers preserving rabbits for their own benefit; it would put an end to the agitation for the abolition of the Game Laws; and as this measure was generally considered by the country as a just one, in the interest of hundreds upon hundreds of occupiers of land, he most earnestly hoped their Lordships would agree to its being read a second time.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, this Bill was unquestionably a very disagreeable Bill, and he, for one, thought that it was, in principle, a very perilous Bill. At the same time he was not dis-

  633
  posed to refuse it a second reading. On the contrary, he thought it desirable that it should go into Committee in order, if possible, to receive amendment. It was an undoubted infringement of freedom of contract, and he could not but observe the reckless and wanton way in which the Government took up, and threw broadcast over the country, principles which, if carried to their full issue, must subvert the order of things under which we lived. The noble Duke mentioned the Truck Act as a violation of the principle of freedom of contract; but between that measure and the present one there was really no analogy whatever. The poor people whom the Truck Act was designed to benefit were unable to help themselves; but no one could pretend that the farmers were in that position. Whatever might have been their condition some years ago, they were now men of education, position, and capital. In the present state of things, and for some time to come, the tenant farmers would stand in a better position to make bargains than landlords themselves. But since this Bill had been introduced, matters had assumed a more serious character. At that time there was no great demand for such a measure. Government had rather forced the measure on the farmers than the farmers on the Government, and in taking that step they should have well weighed the consequences of setting afloat ideas and principles which might have the effect of breaking up the foundations of society. But Government having then taken upon itself the responsibility of the measure sanctioned by Parliament, the farmers had drank it in like mother's milk; and they who were before indifferent, had now come to regard this Bill as a panacea for all their evils. It behoved their Lordships to take that circumstance into consideration, as also the fact that the course which the Government proposed to take to remedy the undoubted grievances of farmers was, if not the wisest course, at all events, the only one before the House. On the whole, landlords and tenants, he believed, had been on fairly good terms with each other. During the 30 years he had been a landed proprietor there had never been a shadow of difference between him and his tenants, as he, following the example of his father, left to them the ground game, but reserved
  634
  the winged game in the fields to himself, giving, however, after the first fortnight, an equal privilege to the tenant It was, however, a different thing to act voluntarily in the matter and to be compelled to it by Act of Parliament. With regard to a remark which had been made by the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Hardwicke), he should shrink with horror from having it announced to the country at large, to the tenant farmers and labourers, that the landed gentry were to be kept on their estates solely for amusement, and not for the great and crying duties intrusted to them in the improvement of their property, and in the elevation of those who lived upon it. There were only a few landowners who were guilty of over-preservation; but it had entailed serious evils on the country, and criminals they might be called, if the expression were founded on the criminal Returns of the country. The practice, too, of letting the shooting to strangers over the lands of the occupying tenants, had given much, and well-founded, offence. These matters bad gone deeply into the hearts of the farmers, and required being dealt with. He was quite satisfied that the measure was not a good one; but it was the only one before them, and it had, moreover, passed through the other House without a Division on the second reading. They were left the choice of two evils—that of rejecting the Bill or of accepting it, imperfect as it was; and, as he firmly believed that the worst of the two evils would be to reject it, he would support the second reading of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, in regard to the point of freedom of contract, that when the Legislature passed a measure upon grounds of public policy which it thought it important to secure from being defeated, then it had been the constant course of the Legislature to provide, that no contracts or private agreements, which might militate against that policy should have any force or effect in law. The Bill before the House was founded upon a particular view of public policy. That view was either sound, or it was not. The policy was, that the occupier of land should always have it in his power to prevent the mischief of an excessive increase of ground game. The demand for such a Bill from Scotland, at all events, was most general and urgent. From England it

  635
  was not slight. There was an admitted evil. The Government had come to the conclusion that an excessive increase of ground game, to the injury of the cultivators of the soil, was an evil which public policy ought to prevent, and the Leader of the Opposition had admitted that some legislation on this subject was inevitable; but no such legislation was possible without an interference with freedom of contract. To pass a measure on this subject, and allow it to be set aside by all sorts of arrangements, would be mere child's play, and would leave the law, in effect, exactly as it now stood. If there was any occasion for any such legislation at all, it must be of a compulsory character.
  LORD DENMAN,amid continuous cries of "Divide," said, that this Bill would put it into the power of any tenant of a small patch of land to destroy even the few hares that were required for the health of the grinders of Sheffield who ran on foot with harriers. [Interruption.'] He declared that this clamour was an insult to the people of Sheffield —namely, such of the people of Sheffield who ran on foot with harriers over the hills of the High Peak. Turning to the Liberal Benches, he said—"When you passed the Irish Church Bill I told you I would fight any one of you, and I say so now." If the noble Lord will divide, I will "tell" with him even though we have besides us no one to "tell."
  On Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion?" Their Lordships divided: — Contents 68; Not-Contents 20: Majority 48.

  CONTENTS.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Spencer, E,

  Stanhope, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Somerset, D.

  Sydney, E.

  Westminster, D.

  Verulam, E.

  Camperdown, E,

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Chichester, E.

  Derby, E.

  Aberdare, L.

  Devon, E.

  Airey, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Auckland, L.

  Granville, E.

  Aveland, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Helper, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Blachford, L.

  Morley, E.

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

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Northbrook, E.

  Brabourne, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Braye, L.

  636

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Lismore, L. (Y. Lismore.)

  Carew, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Moncreiff, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.]

  Coleridge, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Congleton, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

  Skene, L. (E. Fife.)

  Emly, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Sudeley, L.

  Gwydir, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Hanmer, L.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Templemore, L.

  Hatherley, L.

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

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

  Vernon, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Leconfield, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  Leigh, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Bristol, M.

  Fitzhardinge, L.

  Foley, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Forester, L.

  Mount Cashell, E.

  Lilford, L.

  Poulett, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

  Tankerville, E.

  Saltoun, L.

  Bolingbroke and St. John, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Strathnairn, L.

  Strathspey, L. (E. Sea-field.)

  Byron, L.

  Carleton, L. {E. Shannon.)

  Willough by de Broke, L.

  Denman, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE ZULU CAMPAIGN —THE ISANDLANA DISASTER. POSTPONEMENT OF NOTICE.
LORD STRATHNAIRN,who had on the Paper a Notice
"To call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to Lord Chelmsford's statement in the House on the evening of the 19th August 1880, as compared with his despatch dated Pietermaritzburg, 27th January 1879, on the Isandlana disaster; and to ask Her Majesty's Government to place on the Table of the House further papers on the question if they are in possession of information differing from the despatch quoted, together with a map (with proper scale of distances) of the ground on which the Headquarter Camp was pitched, and of the hills above and near it; and to submit certain mistakes in the operations in Zululand: And also to move for a Return of the ages and length of service of the soldiers and non-commissioned officers of the 1st and 2nd Battalion of the 24th Regiment,"
—intimated his desire to postpone bringing the matter forward.
LORD CHELMSFORDprotested against the postponement for the second time of this subject, without any reason whatever so far as he was aware. The matter was one affecting him personally; and he was most anxious that the discussion, which he was sure must be distasteful to their Lordships, should proceed without further delay.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, the case did not appear to be so strong as to detain their Lordships, most of them having already left the House after the very interesting and exhaustive debate which had just concluded.
LORD STRATHNAIRNsaid, he had postponed his Notice because he found the House so thin. He would certainly bring on the subject on Thursday.
LORD DENMANurged that the debate should go on, so that the facts might be presented to the country.
House adjourned at half past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.