Sitting of 3 September 1880

Preamble
The House met at Three of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—City Lands (Thames Embankment) [295], [House counted out].
Committee—Report—Consolidated Fund (Appropriation).
Withdrawn—Leases *[177].

QUESTIONS.

  SCOTLAND—THE RATE FOR ERECTION AND REPAIR OF MANSES.
  MR. DICK PEDDIEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been directed to the circumstance that in the parish of Old Meldrum a rate has been levied for the repair of the manse of the minister of the parish to the extent of 2s. 7½d. in the £ (the Dissenting churches being included in the assessment); and, whether Her Majesty's Government will next Session introduce a Bill for the abolition of compulsory rates for the erection and repair of churches and manses in Scotland?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL: The attention of the Secretary of State has been directed to the matter, in consequence of the Question of the hon. Member; and, from the inquiry which he has instituted, it appears that the sum expended in connection with the repairing of the manse was £1,715, and that this included practically the re-building the greater part of the manse and offices, and other charges. By the Scotch law of 1663, c. 21, the obligation to repair manses is imposed on the heritors, or owners of lands and heritages within the parish. No assessment appears to have been levied in this case on the Dissenting churches, the reason being, according to a telegram received from the Procurator Fiscal of Aberdeenshire, that these are not on the Valuation Poll in that county. The Secretary of State has, however, conferred with the Lord Advocate, and the Government would desire to deal with the subject next Session, if the other demands on their attention enable them to do so.

  METROPOLIS—CASUALTIES ARISING FROM TRAMCARS.
  MR. WARTONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the statement of Mr. Superintendent Green in the Report of the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis for the year 1879, to the effect that during that year twenty-nine accidents were occasioned by tramcars; that of that number twenty-five (four of them fatal) took place on Sundays, and that alarm bells are not attached to the horses on Sundays; and, whether he has the power; and, if so, whether he has the intention of taking any steps to permit or enjoin the use of alarm bells on horses attached to tramcars on Sundays?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL: The use of bells on tramway horses is a matter entirely at the discretion of the Companies. Neither the Secretary of State nor the Commissioners of Police have power to make regulations as to the mode in which the Tramway Companies shall conduct their traffic. I may observe that many complaints have been made against the Companies for the annoyance caused by the use of bells, which, I apprehend, are not used on Sunday in deference to the general feeling.

  THE NEW LAW COURTS—ALLEGED ERECTION OF STATUES.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether there is any truth in the statement which appeared in the "Globe" newspaper on August 20th, to the effect that a statue of the builder of the New Law Courts is to be placed on a pedestal in that building; and, if so, whether there is any precedent for the erection of a statue in a national building to a contractor; and, if there is not, whether he will take steps to prevent such an erection?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The paragraph in The Globe to which the hon. Member refers is fairly accurate. The principal carver amused himself by carving what he considered to be a likeness of the architect, represented on a corbel under a window. As the architect did not suppose that any one would recognize the likeness—which he failed
  1182
  to do himself—he made no objection to what was done; and as there was a similar corbel waiting to be carved close by, he suggested to the carver that he had better immortalize one of the builder's firm also. There is no "statue on a pedestal," or anything like one, and the carving of figures—or half figures, as in this case—as corbels, gargoyles, and so forth, is a very common feature in Gothic buildings. Finally, there is nothing in the figures to indicate that particular individuals are represented, beyond a roll of papers in the architect's hands, and a mallet in the hands of the builder; and, without the information given in The Globe, no one would know that the figures were intended by the carver to be portraits of anyone in particular.

  METROPOLIS—THE PARKS—ENCLOSURES IN RICHMOND PARK.
  MR. BRYCEasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, as many inclosures have lately been made in Richmond Park, he will undertake that no further inclosures shall be made until the beginning of the next Session of Parliament; and, whether, considering that the rabbits have latterly increased so greatly in Richmond Park, that large parts of it have become unsuitable, and even unsafe, for riding, he will take steps to have the number of rabbits in the Park sensibly reduced?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The plantations recently made in Richmond Park were for the purpose of replacing the old trees, many of which are fast going to decay. The sites chosen for these plantations have been chosen with a view to maintain the character and beauty of the Park; and the spaces so enclosed are less in extent than those which have been thrown open to the public. The whole cost was recovered by the sale of the "thinnings," the proceeds of which are paid to the Exchequer as an extra receipt. The rabbits have, no doubt, increased in number owing to the exceptionally dry spring; but steps will, of course, be taken to reduce them.
  MR. BRADLAUGHinquired, if the noble Lord could inform him, if it was true that the inclosures included more than one-fourth of the total area of the Park?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISHsaid, if the hon. Member gave him Notice of the Question, he would obtain the necessary information.

  COAL MINES REGULATION ACT, 1872—COLLIERY MANAGERS CERTIFICATES.
  MR. THOMASSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to adopt the recommendation of Mr. Dickinson, Inspector of Mines for the Manchester District, in his Report for 1879, to supersede the twelve existing boards for the certificating of colliery managers by one representative board of examiners for the whole kingdom?
  MR. ARTHUR PEEL: No scheme has been laid before the Secretary of State, on the subject of the recommendation referred to, and the subject is one which requires much consideration. I may mention that it is by no means certain that the appointment of one Board and one set of examinations for the certificating of colliery managers would satisfy Section 27 of the Coal Mines Act, 1872, which appears to contemplate more than one. The existing system, too, has worked well, and brings the examinations to the neighbourhood of the candidates. The Secretary of State will, however, submit the question to the whole body of Mine Inspectors at their next meeting, and take their opinion on Mr. Dickinson's suggestion, and also as to whether any practical good would be done by constituting a more limited number of districts of more extended area than the 12 districts constituted in 1872.

  ANNEAL LOCAL TAXATION RETURNS—THE GOVERNMENT SUBVENTION.
  MR. WHITWORTHasked the President of the Local Government Board, If he is aware that in the Annual Local Taxation Returns for England and Wales just issued the Government subvention granted out of the Consolidated Fund, amounting to £2,146,274, is described as taxation levied by rates falling on rateable property; also that £3,902,019 received for the supply of gas and water, and for improvements effected by local authorities for private owners, at the request of such owners,
  1184
  are included among the urban sanitary rates falling on rateable property; and, if he will take the necessary steps to have future Returns presented in an accurate form?
  MR. DODSON: The amount received by local authorities in respect of rates and the Treasury subventions in aid of rates are separately shown in the Re-turn, and in the Memorandum which precedes it. The Returns show that £2,146,274 is received from Imperial taxation, and this sum appears under the head of Imperial taxation as distinguished from Local taxation. The sum entered in the Return as received from rates includes the amounts which are received in respect of gas, water, and improvement rates. The amounts thus received in the several districts are shown in the Return, although the totals are not separately set forth in the Memorandum. It may, however, be desirable to set forth in the Memorandum the facts in more detail, so as to avoid any possible misapprehension on the part of persons who do not refer to the detailed Returns, and the question will be considered before the Return for the next year is issued.

  BOARD OF TRADE—NOTICE OF CHANGES IN LIGHTS AND CHARTS.
  MR. WHITWELL (for Mr. A. MOORE)asked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any means are taken beyond placing a notice on the general notice board at the Custom House, for the information of shipowners and masters clearing from British ports, of any changes in the lights, or of changes in the charts; and, if not, whether adequate notice will be given in future?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: The practice of the Board of Trade is to send notifications of changes in lights, &c, and notifications in respect of charts and other matters affecting navigation, to the Committee for managing the affairs of Lloyds', and also to The London Shipping and Mercantile Gazette. The Hydrographical Department of the Admiralty is at the same time communicated with, and that Department, if it is deemed desirable, prepares and issues a notice to mariners. Upon receipt of any such notice from the Admiralty, the Board of Trade send copies to the Registrar General of Shipping and Sea-

  1185
  men, and to various local Marine Boards. In cases, where the notifications appear in a foreign language, translations are made.

  BOARD OF TRADE—FORWARDING HOME OF MERCHANT SEAMEN—THE NEW SYSTEM.
  MR. BRYCEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If he will state what steps, if any, Her Majesty's Government are taking to extend to other ports in the United Kingdom the system recently established in the Port of London of receiving seamen on their arrival, and sending them immediately to their homes; and, whether some arrangement will be made for keeping a record, by a register or otherwise, of the place to which each seaman is sent under this system?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Steps were taken by the Board of Trade in the autumn of last year to extend to certain other ports in the United Kingdom—Liverpool, Cardiff, Dundee, Plymouth, Leith, and Shields—the system recently established in London for sending seamen to their homes immediately upon their arrival in port; and arrangements are in progress for extending this system to Bristol, Swansea, Glasgow, and Greenock. The Merchant Seamen (Payment of Wages, &c.) Act of this Session will enable the Board to extend this system to the whole of the ports of the Kingdom. Full records are kept of the places to which the seamen are sent under this system.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE CAPE COLONY—REGULATIONS AS TO INTERVIEWS WITH CETYWAYO.
  MR. HOPWOODasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, What arrangements have been made in the case of Cetywayo to give effect to Lord Kimberley's promise, "that he ought to be allowed full access to his friends, and at liberty consistent with safe custody?"
  MR. GRANT DUFF: We have not received any recent details as to Cetywayo; but the Governor of the Cape telegraphed, in reply to Lord Kimberley's instructions which I mentioned some time ago in the House, that those instructions would be carried into effect.
  1186
  Still later my noble Friend sent a despatch which has been laid on the Table, and will be shortly in the hands of hon. Members. From it I will read a passage which will, I hope, be satisfactory to my hon. Friend—
  "I have the honour to invite your attention to the arrangements which Her Majesty's Government would desire to see carried out in connection with Cetywayo's supervision and maintenance. Although I am confident that your Ministers will readily give effect to the wishes of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, it should he understood that the care of Cetywayo falls in an especial degree within the responsibility of the Governor, and it will he desirable that you should frequently satisfy yourself, either by visits or by reports made to you personally, that his condition and treatment are in all respects as satisfactory as the circumstances permit. I particularly desire that, unless for some strong reasons, those who desire to visit Cetywayo, and whom he desires to see, should have ready access to him. He should be informed without delay of any application to visit him which may he made by any person professing to be his friend, or to he charged with any communication which may he of interest to him, and if Cetywayo expresses a desire for the proposed interview it should he allowed, provided that the person applying is of respectable character, and it is not apprehended that he has any improper designs. Every case in which there is any doubt as to allowing an interview should be referred to you, and if you decide that the interview should not take place, I request that you will furnish me with a full explanation of the reasons for which it has been refused."

  RAILWAYS—THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY—ISSUE OF PARLIAMENTARY TICKETS.
  SIR THOMAS CHAMBERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he will require of the Great Western Railway Company, a Return of all stations on their system where they do not issue Parliamentary tickets to other stations on their own system?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I am informed by the Great Western Railway Company that Parliamentary tickets are issued at all the stations upon their system; and it would, therefore, be useless to ask for the Return which the hon. Member suggests that I should require from the Company.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—MEETING AT DONNECLONEY—SPEECH OF REV. MR. KANE.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  1187
  of Ireland, If his attention has been called to a report in the "Belfast News Letter," of the proceedings at a meeting at Donnecloney on Monday last, whereat one of the speakers, the Rev. Mr. Kane, said—
  "Let us organize amongst ourselves a Protestant Individual Life Protection Society, and let us be furnished with the best weapons made, and for every Protestant shot in cold blood let there be the priests of the parish in which the murder was committed and the Home Rule Member for the county shot also;"
  and, whether the Government intend to notice in any way this incentive to assassination?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have not seen the Belfast newspapers, nor do I know anything of the report except what I see in this Question. No one has written to me about it; and I cannot, therefore, but suppose that the report must be a mistake. It certainly seems almost impossible that any man—and much less any clergyman—could have made so outrageous a speech.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in case the truth of the statement is brought to their official knowledge, the Irish Government will take any notice of such incendiary language?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: In all such cases, as the hon. and learned Member is well aware, the Government have to consider not only whether they disapprove of the language used; but whether a prosecution could be undertaken with a probability of success. Even if these words were uttered, which I do not believe, we must not only have complete evidence of their utterance; but we must be satisfied, before interfering, that a prosecution would be likely to succeed.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVAN: I beg to give Notice that I will place in the hands of the Chief Secretary indisputable proof that the words were uttered.

  IRELAND—THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY—PENSIONERS.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has yet obtained the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown with reference to the case of the Irish Constabulary Pensioners which was recently brought under his notice; and, how soon he expects to be able to communicate to
  1188
  those concerned the decision of the Government in the case?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that his attention had been called to the subject some time ago, and he had then said that he would examine into the matter, both as one of fact and one of law, when he went to Ireland. He fully intended to do so.

  CHURCH OF ENGLAND—REPORT OF THE COMMISSION UPON CHURCH PATRONAGE.
  MR. ROUNDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he will have the Report of the Commission upon Church Patronage, issued in August 1879, reprinted, there being no further copies obtainable?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, steps would be taken to have a fresh edition of this Report.

  POST OFFICE—FACILITIES FOR POSTING LETTERS IN TRANSIT OF MAILS.
  MR. MOOREasked the Postmaster General, What regulations exist as to posting letters in travelling Post Offices in trains and steamers; and, whether he would consider the advisability of extending to the public such facilities as already exist in several Continental countries, by which letters may be posted at any point of the journey without additional fees being charged?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that letters might be posted at stations where mail trains stopped by payment of an extra ½d. The charge was analogous to the extra ½d. on letters posted after the usual time. It was advantageous to discourage the practice as far as possible, in order to delay the trains as little as possible. With regard to the second part of the Question, as to having letter-boxes fixed to the mail trains, the opinion of the Department, so he was informed, had hitherto been that it was safer to continue the practice which was now followed of giving the letters in charge of the guard or some responsible person in the letter-sorting carriage. He had no objection, however, to trying the letter-boxes; and he would give instructions that letter-boxes should be attached to one or two of the most important mail trains, on the understanding that if the experiment did not succeed

  1189
  the practice would be dropped. He might add that letter-boxes were kept on the decks of the steamers belonging to the Caledonian Canal Company, the Holyhead and Dublin line, and the Indian Mail Steamship line. He would see whether the system could be extended.

  AFGHANISTAN—MILITARY OPERATIONS—THE LATEST TELEGRAM.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India a Question as to the very unsatisfactory Papers presented to the House to-day. I wish to know, Whether he is not in possession of any despatches either from General Primrose, General Phayre, General Burrows, or the Commander-in-Chief; also, whether it is not the case that the correspondence on military matters in India is entirely carried on between the Resident Governor-General and the Foreign Secretary at Simla?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am obliged to the hon. Member for the extreme courtesy he has shown in putting this Question without giving me any Notice whatever. I have not even got a copy of the Papers with me, so that I am not in a position to refer to them; but my impression is that the Papers contain copies of all despatches relating to purely military questions which we have received. If the hon. Member had given me Notice I might have answered his Question more fully. I have been so much occupied for the past week or two that I have not been able carefully to supervise and prepare the Papers with those just presented to Parliament; but I gave instructions that all the information we had which was of a purely military character, and of a character that could be published, should be included in the Return.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I will repeat my Question to-morrow.
  Subsequently,
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT: I wish to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for India, If he has received any news of General Roberts since his arrival at Candahar?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Just before I entered the House I received a telegram from the Viceroy. He says—
  1190
  "Continuation of telegram this morning. Further telegram from Roberts, 30th, states: Infantry in camp west Candahar; Cavalry south, under walls. It is reported at Quettah that Phayre is 26 miles off Chaman. Halted on the 28th to allow transports to rest. Cavalry brigade under Wilkinson was to advance on the 2nd. Phayre expected to arrive at Candahar with whole force on 5th of September. Musa Khan, we hear, is in Ayoub's camp."

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked when the third reading of the Appropriation Bill would be taken, and whether, if the Committee stage of that Bill was not passed before midnight, it would be possible to take the remaining stages of the Bill before Monday? Was it necessary that there should be a separate day for each stage of the Bill?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that it was intended to take the third reading of the Bill to-morrow. As to the second question of the noble Lord, it was one which should more properly have been put to the Speaker. He would take that opportunity of announcing that the Sitting to-morrow would begin at 2, in order to enable the Members of the Government to attend the Cabinet Council at noon.
  In reply to Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL,
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that it was not necessary that a clear day should intervene between the Committee stage of the Bill and the third reading.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE,wishing to ascertain exactly how the matter stood, said, that supposing the stage of Committee upon the Appropriation Bill should be prolonged to 12.30 or 1, would it be competent for the House, when it met again at 2 to-morrow, to take the reading, or would the fact of the discussion in Committee having extended beyond midnight preclude the House from proceeding to the third reading?
  MR. SPEAKERexplained that if the House adjourned till 2 to-morrow, it could, on meeting again at that time, take the reading of the Bill.

  EVICTIONS (IRELAND)—THE EVICTION BY ARCHDEACON BLAND.
  THE O'DONOGHUEasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ire-

  1191
  land, If it be a fact that certain members of the M'Mahon family, who had been evicted by Archdeacon Bland, and had taken refuge in a shed on their former farm, no notice of their eviction having been given to the relieving officer, as required by law, had each of them to be fined in a maximum penalty for trespass; and, whether he will see that the Killarney Board of Guardians takes the steps necessary to put the law in force against Archdeacon Bland for not giving notice to the relieving officer of his intention to evict M'Mahon?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have ascertained that certain members of the M'Mahon family who had been evicted took possession of the cow shed on the farm, and were fined at the Petty Sessions for trespass. With the exception of the wife, who paid the fine, the other members were sent to prison for a week in default of finding bail. I have had no representations made with regard to the imprisonment. As regards the power and discretion of the Guardians in prosecuting anybody who evicts a tenant without giving notice to the Guardians, I find there are some doubts as to whether that discretion naturally lies with them or not; but up to now it is considered more or less discretionary. I have directed a case to be laid before the Law Officers to ascertain if the Statutes are in favour of that opinion.

  PARLIAMENT—RETURN OF BILLS PASSED BY, AND REJECTED BY, EITHER HOUSE FROM 1880.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would be good enough to give him, as an unopposed Return, a list showing the various Public Bills in each Session since 1800 passed by the House of Commons and rejected by the House of Lords, the Bills passed by the House of Lords and rejected by the House of Commons, and the number of Bills originated in the two Houses?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the Return would probably take a year to prepare, and would comprise a volume of 800 to 1,000 pages, and would require immense inquiry by the clerks. He thought, therefore, he might say there was not sufficient reason for such a Return.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  GROUND GAME BILL.

    CONSIDERATION OF LORDS AMENDMENTS.
    Lords Amendments considered.
    First Amendment.
    Page 1, line 17, after "writing," insert as a new sub-section—
    "(a.) The occupier himself (or in lieu of the occupier), one other person authorized in writing by such occupier shall be the only person on the part of the occupier entitled under this Act to kill ground game with firearms,"
    read a second time.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the House would observe that with the exception of the two first Amendments there was nothing very material on the Paper; but the 1st and 2nd Amendments were material alterations in the Bill. He approved as little of the 1st as of the 2nd Amendment. It was a most objectionable Amendment, because it was grudging and ungenerous in its spirit towards the tenant farmers, to whom an act of justice was to be granted by the Bill. The Gentlemen who professed to be the particular friends of the tenant farmers, and who had asserted that such friendly and amicable relations existed between them, when they found that this matter was being practically dealt with, treated them as if they were objects of suspicion. The Earl of Beacons-field had once spoken of the landed interest as a great hierarchy, consisting of different classes. It appeared to him (Sir William Harcourt) that there were priests and Levites who treated, at all events, a part of that hierarchy in no very liberal manner in respect to the thieves among whom they had fallen. The Bill proposed to give a limited right to the tenant farmers to kill ground game, restricting that right to the farmers, their families, and one other person. They were told that this Bill, as it went from the House of Commons, was a Bill to levy war on the landed proprietors of this country; they were told that it called on the tenant to arm himself, and on his sons and servants to arm themselves. [Mr. NEWDEGATE: Who is the right hon. Gentleman quoting from?] He was not bound to tell the hon. Member from whom he was quoting. He said—"We

    1193
    have been told;" and if the hon. Member did not know, he had the means of informing himself. They were told that the poacher, instead of walking abroad by the light of the moon, would stand in the sunlight of the Constitution and would flourish his weapon in the face of the lord of the manor. All this, as the gentleman in "Shakspeare" said, was admirable fooling; but he wanted to know whether the tenant farmers of England and their families and servants were to be described in that way? The conduct of the Lords had been admirable; but it was a great mistake to grant a concession as though it were necessary to have a Peace Preservation Act to prevent the farmer from exceeding it. If Parliament were going to give the farmers of England ground game, let them give it handsomely and trustfully, and not grudgingly. If they had made up their minds not to do the thing, let them refuse it altogether. What would the result of this spirit of distrust be? Would it be favourable to that sport which the landlords desired to protect? On the contrary, the more they restricted the farmer in respect of the incidental sporting right which was given him under the Bill, the more would they induce him to exterminate that game which they wanted him to preserve. He had been told that 40,000 tons of hares and rabbits were grown every year, and that they were excellent food for the people. That might be true; but the fact still remained that that meat was grown at the expense of the tenant, and was bred for the sport and profit of somebody else. That was not the case with the 40,000 tons or more of beef or mutton which were grown in this country. There the farmer, at all events, got his marketing; but he had to breed the 40,000 tons of hares and rabbits in order that somebody else might shoot and sell them. It was his business, if he could, to pass a Bill which would substantially protect the interests of the farmers, and the question he had to ask himself was, whether this Amendment would not destroy the objects of the Bill? It had been suggested that the race of poachers would be increased by the operations of the Bill. Formerly, the poacher was often the farmer's best friend; but, under the Bill, he would be so no longer, and, in future, he would be interfering with a right which belonged to the farmer. The fears which had
    1194
    been expressed in "another place" were not only unfounded, but unwise and ungenerous, and the Amendment was a a mistake. Farmers themselves were fond of shooting, and they also liked to see their sons shooting, and why the Lords should be so dreadfully afraid of letting farmer's sons have guns was what he could not understand. The extraordinary thing was that the Amendment would not keep out the poacher, who would still be able to "flourish his weapon in the face of the lord of the manor." The Amendment could not have been proposed by a man who knew anything about country life or sporting, unless his aim was to frustrate the object of the Bill. Shooting was only one method of destroying game, and if shooting was to be allowed at all, it would be perfectly absurd to confine a farmer to one gun. The Amendment limited the right of carrying a gun to the occupier, or, in lieu of the occupier, to another person authorized by him. He could not advise the House to risk the loss of the Bill upon this question of guns, and would, therefore, propose that the 1st Amendment should be accepted, with the modification, that instead of the occupier, or, in his stead, one other person authorized by him, the occupier and one other person should be allowed to shoot ground game. He begged to move an Amendment to that effect.
    Motion made and Question proposed,
    "That the said Amendment be amended, in page 1, line 1, by leaving out the words 'or in lieu of the occupier,' and inserting the word 'an;' and in line 3, by leaving out the words 'person on the part of the occupier,' and inserting the word' persons' instead thereof."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTthought no hon. Member would disagree to the right hon. Gentleman's proposal. He was, however, surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should have thought it necessary to introduce so much heat into the discussion. If there was anyone who ought to have had no fault to find with the way in which the Bill had been treated by both sides of the House it was the right hon. Gentleman. The Opposition were perfectly prepared to give every consideration to anything he might say upon this question, and they were not giving anything in a grudging and half-hearted way.
    MR. P. A. TAYLORcould not understand why his right hon. Friend should give way upon the point, as his reasons against the proposed Amendment were conclusive and unanswerable, and which was, indeed, as he had shown, distinctly contrary to the spirit and principle of the Bill. The right hon. Gentleman's tactics reminded him of the old story of a great tragedian—Keen, he believed. He had, on some occasion, to fight a duel upon the stage, in which he was to be defeated and killed. But he was a splendid fencer, his blood was roused in the encounter, and instead of submitting to defeat, he parried every thrust, beat down every guard, drove his adversary up into a corner, and then complying with the exigencies of the drama, fell down and expired. He (Mr. P. A. Taylor) objected to making this concession to the Lords, and the rather as it was understood that their Lordships were prepared to swallow a more important Amendment which was to follow.
    MR. ONSLOWcould assure the House that, so far as his communications with the farmers went, they had no wish to see their farms shot over by a number of guns; and, in his opinion, the Lords Amendment, as proposed to be amended by the Home Secretary, would meet all the wishes of the tenant farmers.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLhad not hitherto said a word respecting the Bill, for which he had not cared much; but as it had now undergone the examination of both Houses of Parliament, he was opposed to its being made ridiculous. He thought, with the Home Secretary, that the Lords Amendment was a ridiculous and ignorant Amendment, and that it had been moved by one who either did not understand the Bill, or wished to make it ridiculous. If the use of the gun had been altogether excluded, an Amendment of that kind would be intelligible; but an Amendment limiting the number of guns without the smallest regard to the size of the farm, was preposterous. He should, therefore, vote against the Lords Amendment and the proposed alteration.
    MR. RODWELLwas of opinion that the Amendment made in the House of Lords was by no means a ridiculous Amendment, and the farmers were, he believed, perfectly satisfied with having obtained by the Bill more than they expected or asked for—the right to destroy
    1196
    ground game in a way which was much more effectual than the use of the gun for the purpose. The worst way of getting rid of rabbits was by the gun, and he would undertake to destroy more rabbits by snares and traps in one week than by a gun in a whole year.
    MR. NEWDEGATEcomplained that the Home Secretary had quoted passages in support of his arguments, with the consciousness that to reveal the authorship would put him out of Order. One would suppose from the tone of the Home Secretary, that he hoped the Bill would produce those differences between landlord and tenants with almost every Member of the House would, he was sure, regret to see arise.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment as amended."—[Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYremarked, that he regretted the position taken up by the Home Secretary on the part of the Government. To a certain extent he had incurred considerable responsibility in regard to agreeing to accept the Bill containing the limitations it did; but having accepted those limitations, it would be weakness to him to agree to the Amendment, oven as modified by the right hon. Gentleman. It was not so much on account of the limitations themselves that he objected, but on account of the direct consequences that would flow from them. Those who had studied the Bill would have observed that no penalties were imposed for exceeding the limitations; but if the tenant exceeded the powers which were given to him under this measure, he brought himself immediately under the penalties of the Game Act. If the tenant by some inadvertence did not confine himself to the limitations of this Bill he would be exposed to the Game Laws as heretofore. He did not altogether understand what the Amendment meant. Could an authority be given one day to an individual and withdrawn the next, and another authority given to another individual? If so, it could be clearly understood, but he found that the Judges did not exactly interpret Acts of Parliament as they understood them in that House, and he

    1197
    thought it should be made clear and distinct that a tenant should have power to give authority to as many persons as he thought proper, so long as the authority was only used by one person on one day. But supposing that to be so, and the farmer having given authority to his servant, and the servant refused to give up that authority, and the master gave another person an authority, was the farmer to be liable because two persons had his authority, although one was contrary to his wishes? Those were some of the difficulties that would arise under limitations, and which would cause difficulty, trouble, and annoyance. Besides that, there was the risk he ran of exceeding the limitations, and bringing himself within the provisions of the Game Laws. It had been said by hon. Members opposite that the right was going to be conceded to the farmers in a half-hearted and half-grudging manner; but he thought the farmers would be able to see for themselves whether the Government had granted the privilege in a half-hearted, half-grudging manner. There had been a Division taken in the House to the effect that the farmers should not be allowed the use of the gun at all; but as far as his experience had been he thought the farmers would like to get rid of that badge of degradation, because the proposal to deprive them of the gun was a token of their degradation and dependence to the landlords. He must admit he thought the House of Lords had acted very injudiciously and unwisely in introducing further limitations into the Bill, and for this reason. He, for one, had always taken up this ground, that if there was confidence placed in the farmers, and if they were placed in a fair and reasonable position in regard to the ground game, the farmers would keep a moderate head of game on their farms so long as it did not absolutely interfere with their carrying on the business of farming; but when it was proposed to give the landlords a privilege which he was not going to enjoy, he felt himself to be placed by the Bill in a different position from the landlord, and that every restriction would be a means of creating differences between the landlord and the tenant, as there would be still opportunities for the gamekeeper coming in between them as heretofore. Therefore, those restrictions would create much
    1198
    greater difference of opinion between the landlord and the tenant. It seemed to be the opinion of the landlords, as represented in the other House, that landlords and tenants could not get on together on independent terms—that the tenant must stand on a distinctly lower level than his landlord. The tenant must, in fact, go to his landlord, and if, according to the landlord's opinion, he behaved himself, the latter might graciously grant him the privilege asked for. He maintained, however, that farmers in Scotland and England wanted to stand on an independent position in regard to the gamekeepers and landlord. The farmers felt they would keep on better terms, that their relations together would be more cordial, if they were on independent terms instead of one having to go to the other and ask a favour. He was sorry he had to differ with Her Majesty's Government; but he must ask the House to divide upon the question.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTcould tell his hon. Friend and other hon. Gentlemen on the Liberal side of the House, that it was not with goodwill that he asked them to take the course he had proposed. He hoped, however, the farmers would believe that the Government had done its best for them. It had been his desire not to sacrifice the Bill for matters of comparative indifference; and his belief was, that if the measure were sacrificed upon a point such as this, the first people who would have a right to complain would be the tenant farmers themselves. He confessed that if there was one man in the House who ought not to be affected by the Amendment, it was his hon. Friend the Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay). For a long time the hon. Gentleman had an Amendment down by which he refused to tenant farmers in Scotland the use of the gun at all. He (Sir William Harcourt) declined to accept it, and the hon. Member consented not to press it. He was sorry they had changed parts now. The course he now proposed was that which, on the whole, he thought it proper to take.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, he wanted to make an explanation. The Amendment to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman alluded had been placed on the Paper for a few days in deference to the wishes of a large meeting representing

    1199
    the sheep farmers of Inverness-shire. He did not approve of it himself.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURhoped the hon. Member for Forfarshire would not divide the House on the question. There was no one who had fought more for the interests of the tenant farmer than the hon. Member, and having done so, he might justly avoid a Division. He confessed that the Bill did not contain all that the Scotch farmers desired; but next Session they might get more. At the same time, they were much indebted to Her Majesty's Government for what they had done.
    MR. DUCKHAMexpressed his regret that any alteration should have been made in the Bill after it left the House of Commons, as it was one that had been considered most fully by the House; but, under the circumstances, he appealed to the hon. Member for Forfarshire (Mr. J. W. Barclay) not to divide the House, which might result in sacrificing the Bill.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYasked leave to withdraw his opposition.
    MR. BRADLAUGHhoped the House would decide to disagree with the Lords' Amendment, and he relied on the votes of hon. Gentlemen opposite, because it had a tendency to limit the freedom of contract to which they were so much devoted, and he wished to get support on that side because the Amendment was irritating, ungenerous, and unnecessary.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 40: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 166.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the next Amendment they had to consider was one with which he would have no hesitation in telling the House what to do. This Amendment proposed, as against the tenant farmers, to introduce a close time both for hares and rabbits. At the last stage of the Bill, in the other House, an attempt was made to alter the close time so as to confine it to hares; but those who made the proposal negatived their own Amendment. It differed altogether from the Amendment moved by the right hon. Member (Mr. SclaterBooth), for that was for an agreement between the parties to determine a close time of four months, whereas this was a statutory time both for hares and
    1200
    rabbits. He did not suppose that the House of Commons was going to entertain any proposal for a close time for rabbits; and as to hares, that question was not before them. In the House of Commons that proposition had been defeated by a larger majority than that obtained in any other Division on the Bill. Many Conservatives opposed the close time, among them the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. S. Leighton), the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), and others. The defence for this proposal was a most curious one—it was, not that it was desirable to preserve hares and rabbits, but it was that winged game should not be disturbed during breeding time. That was, the winged game was of more consequence than the tenant's crops. Another argument given in support of this Amendment was that foxes should be fed, and that as it was not convenient that they should be fed on pheasants, it was desirable that they should be fed on rabbits at the expense of the tenants. How such an argument could be gravely maintained, he could not for the life of him see. An illustration of the necessity of this Bill was furnished the other day in the Eastern Counties—on the very day the House of Lords was engaged in passing this Amendment—and, as this was the last time the Bill would occupy the attention of the House, he should like to say a word or two about it. On Tuesday last, at Romford Petty Sessions, summonses were issued against four men, including one who was aged 63, and a boy of 12, who were charged with pursuing game on a farm occupied by a lady, the farmer, named Giles, being one of the defendants. There appeared to be a misunderstanding between the manager, General Claremont, and farmer Giles with reference to game. A correspondence took place on the subject, Giles stating that he could not afford to raise any rent under existing circumstances, principally owing to the amount of damage done to his crops by hares which were preserved to a large amount on his farm. The question, therefore, was "hares or rent," and it was left in the hands of General Claremont. Giles's account was that if he had any complaint at any time he was told by General Claremont to write to

    1201
    him, and he would see it was attended to. It was on the faith of that statement that Giles said he signed the lease; but General Claremont's recollection of the conversation was imperfect. Giles stated that when he sowed 148 acres of barley the crop was found smothered with hares, as if the barley had been fed off by sheep, and that on 96 acres—in the close time recommended by the House of Lords—he counted as many as 287 hares. He, therefore, expressed to the owner a hope that she would not put him to any further loss. A warrener was appointed by Giles to walk up and down the farm with dogs to drive off the hares from the barley, and for that he was prosecuted, as the dogs, not unnaturally, got rid of one or two hares. One field suffered damage to the extent of £35 9s. The decision of the magistrate was that, technically, the defendants broke the law, because they could not disturb the ground game without pursuing it; they not unnaturally killed some of the game. Accordingly, they fined each defendant in the case 1d., and costs, and practically did that which hereafter would be done under the 3rd clause—treated the contract as one void in law. When such a transaction as that could be made the basis of a prosecution at the time this Bill was under the consideration of Parliament, it afforded an example of what freedom of contract meant when applied to game. If the House passed this Amendment, farmer Giles—and other persons in his position—would be as badly off as ever, and the state of things that appeared in this prosecution would be kept up. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition present, as he very much wished to have his views on the question. He was glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman had, after a brief absence in the country, returned in ruddy health. The right hon. Gentleman had diversified bucolic delights with occasional speeches, in one of which he was reported to have denounced this Bill and its authors, and to have said that it was intended to sow distrust between landlord and tenant. On the contrary, what had sown such distrust between landlord and tenant were such transactions as those signified in the prosecution to which he had referred. The object of the Bill was to make it impossible that such cases of distrust
    1202
    should arise, and they had a right to know what the Leader of the Conservative Party in that House thought of the Amendment sent to them from the House of Lords. He regretted he did not see more Conservative county Members present. He supposed the 1st of September had had greater attractions for them than that Bill could present. Still, their constituents must have some interest in the Bill, and he saw present some Conservative county Members who, he did not think, would approve of the Amendment they were discussing. That Amendment was not passed with the unanimous consent of the Conservative Party in the Upper House. Some very distinguished names were found in the Division List as voting against it. One of the first names was that of the Duke of Richmond and Gordon, lately Leader of the Conservative Party in the House of Lords, and who was now Chairman of the Agricultural Commission. If, holding that position, his Grace was found voting for a close time of four months for rabbits, it might be said that the ridiculous had almost touched the sublime. He also found the names of Lord Bradford, Cadogan, Egmont, and Tollemache among those who voted against the Amendment. The Government could not agree to this Amendment. He ventured to say that the case of Farmer Giles would be canvassed to-morrow by the farmers in every market-place ordinary and homestead in the country; and it would be known that the House of Peers had proposed an Amendment destroying the principle of a Bill which had for its object to protect the crops of the farmer in the interests of good husbandry. He hoped, therefore, the House would unanimously disagree with the Lords' Amendment. What the consequence of that course might be he did not know, but they had a plain duty before them. It was their duty to assist all classes of the community, and especially those suffering from distress, of whom none were more deserving of sympathy than the tenant farmers. The Amendment would destroy the whole of the remedy offered to the tenant farmers by this Bill; and if, by rejecting the Amendment, the Bill was lost, at all events, the farmers of England—to use the phrase of Sir James Graham—"would know the reason why." It had been said in "another place" that the tenant

    1203
    farmers had drunk the Bill in like mother's milk. That mother's milk might be dashed from their lips; but, whatever might be the ultimate fate of the Bill, its principle could not be destroyed, for it was a principle of justice, and if the Bill was lost now, it would re-appear in another shape. If it disappeared now; it would rise, phoenix-like, from its ashes; and, at all events, the tenant farmers would not say this of the Government, that, having asked them for bread, they had given them a stone, and that, having intended to give a substantial remedy for a real grievance, they had mocked their grievance with sham legislation and delusive remedies. That, he was well assured, would be the feeling of the House, and he now, therefore, moved that the House do disagree with the Lords Amendment.
    Page 2, line 5, the next Amendment, after "months," insert as a new subsection—
    "(3.) The occupier and the persons authorised by him shall exercise the right of killing ground game conferred by this section only from the first day of August in any year until the last day of March in the succeeding year, both inclusive."
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—(Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
    CAPTAIN AYLMERobjected to a close time for hares and rabbits, but thought the object intended by the Lords Amendment—namely, that the birds should not be disturbed at nesting time—would be met by allowing hares and rabbits to be killed, during the four months in question, with dogs and traps, but not by firearms.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he did not wish that there should be a close time for rabbits. It was the wish of many tenant farmers that rabbits might be exterminated in this country. But there was a strong feeling about hares. Many friends had expressed to him that they hoped the Bill would not pass unless there was a close time for hares. He thought it would be difficult to maintain the assertion of the Government that the Bill was not a sporting Bill. If the Bill passed as it stood they would have people going about the roads and hedges with dogs, and disturbing the pheasants and partridges during the breeding sea-
    1204
    son. The interests of sport were identical with those of good husbandry. It was said that hares did great mischief, and, no doubt, this was the case if they were permitted to increase indiscriminately; but if they were kept down to a minimum they would do very little harm. But, considering how much real sport could be got out of a hare, he proposed to insert the word "hares," instead of the words "ground game," thus making a close time.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the time had gone by for the proposal of such an Amendment.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that after the personal allusion which had been made to him, he desired to say a very few words with regard to the Amendment. With reference to his recent speech at Torquay, he maintained the view which he there expressed, and which was substantially the same as he had stated to that House. The difficulty which he had always felt with regard to this Bill was, that it seemed to be a Bill with two faces, and that when attacking it on one side they wore always liable to have the other side turned round to them. He had never been able clearly to ascertain whether the object of the measure was to bring about a reduction in the quantity of ground game for the benefit of agriculturists, or whether the object was to give to tenant farmers a right of sporting which they did not now possess. He had always advocated proceeding with the Bill on the lines of the Preamble, which declared that it was desirable in the interests of agriculture, to make better provision for preserving crops from ground game. He advised his Friends not to divide against the second reading of the Bill, or against the Motion for going into Committee, in the hope that they would be able in Committee to put the measure into a shape which would enable it to fulfil the object of the Preamble. But whenever they asked for clauses which would enable this to be done, and which would not give new rights of sporting to the tenant farmers, they had always been met with the objection that that was showing a grudging and unhandsome spirit. He could not approve the limitations in the Bill. It would be far better to give freedom to both parties to make arrangements by which the objects of the Bill

    1205
    might be obtained. Nevertheless, as they had been assured that it was necessary to give greater protection to the crops, he had been willing to agree to to some limitation of freedom of contract for the purpose of securing what professed to be the bonâ fide and principal object of the Bill. He had been ready to agree to any provisions that might be made in the direction of giving a certain period of the year during which the destruction of these animals should be allowed to the person interested in the crops, or other limitations of that sort, provided that there should be an agreement between the parties as to the terms and manner in which the right should be exercised. They had, however, always been told—and this was his reason for speaking as he had done the other day at Torquay—that to introduce the principle of agreement between landlord and tenant would be to go against the principle of the Bill. He thought, then, he was justified in saying that the principle was to prevent an agreement between a landlord and his tenant and to provide for disagreement—for that was the effect which the Bill was likely to have—though he hoped that the common sense of landlords and tenants would prevent disagreements from arising. He admitted that the case of farmer Giles, to which reference had been made, was one that required further protection; but, in future, all tenants in his position would have a protection from the ground game whether this Amendment of the Lords was agreed to or not, because they would have the absolute right to kill the game during eight months in the year. If they were to take the Bill according to its avowed object he would not be able to defend and uphold the principle of a close time; but if they were to look upon the Bill as being one which was to provide greater sport for the tenants he was not at all sure that a close time would not be very reasonable, at any rate with regard to hares. In many places there would be no indisposition to the establishment of a close time for hares, for a close time would be advantageous in some respects—for instance, with regard to the preservation of winged game from disturbance. But, notwithstanding what he had said, he was not prepared to support the limitation of a close time, or to offer any resistance to the decision of the Govern-
    1206
    ment to reject the Lords Amendment. He agreed with the Duke of Richmond and Gordon and others, that this was not a point on which they ought to make a stand.
    MR. DUCKHAMhoped the clause would be retained in the shape in which it had been sent to the House of Lords. He had received a letter from a tenant farmer in the county which he represented strongly protesting against a close time for the rabbits, and stating that if the Amendment stood in the Bill, it would not be worth the paper on which it was printed. He considered the capital of the tenant farmer would be jeopardized if there was a close time allowed.
    SIR HENRY TYLERsaid, there was a little Amendment, only the alteration of a word, which would be satisfactory to all parties. There could be no doubt that the hares and rabbits did great damage; but they might easily be kept under if the farmers were allowed to snare and trap them all the year round, and shoot in every month except between March and August. If the House agreed to the word "shooting" game in the close time instead of "killing," it ought to satisfy all parties, as it would answer all purposes.
    MR. RODWELLsaid, Mr. Giles told him, about a month ago, that if all landlords would deal with their tenants on this subject as a large landed proprietor did, whom he named, and whose estate was a game preserving one, tenants would never want a Bill of this sort. He hoped, however, he might be allowed to say a few words of comfort to his friends both in and out of the House who looked with gloomy forebodings on the operations of this Bill. He believed that the true interpretation of the Bill was that where the landlords lived on amicable terms with their tenants there would be no difficulty whatsoever created by it, and where differences existed they would be put an end to. The measure, instead of leading to differences, would sweep them away, and he believed that 19 out of every 20 cases of difference between landlord and tenant arose from this unfortunate question of game. It would check the evil of over preservation and protect the crops. He was very glad indeed the matter had terminated so satisfactorily; and he thought those who looked forward to it

    1207
    as likely to interfere with reasonable sport would be surprised at its results.
    SIR ROBERT BUXTONlooked on the Bill as a thorough settlement of the question. He wished to bear his testimony to the fact that if a close time was established for rabbits, the Bill might be torn up as waste paper.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Next Amendment.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYmoved that the Lords' Amendment be not agreed to, as, if he had read it rightly, its effect would be to make a new game law for people who would derive no benefit under the Bill—namely, those people who had a right to ground and other game altogether apart from this Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTassured his hon. Friend that he had not read the Amendment correctly. The Amendment would not have the effect that was imagined.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    Subsequent Amendment agreed to.
    Committee appointed, "To draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of the Amendments made by the Lords to the Ground Game Bill, to which this House hath disagreed:—Secretary Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT, the Marquess of HARTINGTON, Mr. Secretary CHILDERS, Mr. BRIGHT, Mr. DODSON, Mr. ARTHUR PEEL, Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL, and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH. TO withdraw immediately. Three to be the quorum.

    CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.
    (Mr. Flay fair, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, (Lord Frederick Cavendish)
    Order for Committee read.

    THE HOUSE OF LORDS AND THE REGISTRATION OF VOTERS (IRELAND) BILL.
    MR. SEXTONrose to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. SPEAKERwished to point out that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had given Notice of an Instruction to the Committee, and it was for him to move that Instruction before the next Question was put—"That the Speaker leave the Chair,"—and he should, therefore, call on the hon. Member for the City of Cork.
    MR. PARNELLnot being in his place,
    MR. FINIGANasked, in the name of the hon. Member, that he should be
    1208
    sent for, as he (Mr. Finigan) understood his hon. Friend was then engaged considering a more specific mode of settling the question. He thought that was the only reason why the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had risen to move the adjournment of the House.
    MR. PARNELL,in rising to move—
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert the following Clause:—
    (Proceedings on objection made to voters on list other than list of claimants.)
    "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Act passed in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her Majesty, chapter fifty-five, contained, where any person whoso name is on any list of voters for a county, city, town, or borough in Ireland (not being a list of claimants), is duly objected to by some person other than the clerk of the peace, the clerk of the union, the poor rate collectors, or the town clerk, county court judge, the chairman or revising barrister, whether the person objected to does or does not appear before him, shall, before requiring it to he proved that the person so objected to is entitled to have his name inserted in the list of voters for such county, city, town, or borough, or expunging such name, require prima facie proof to be given to his satisfaction of some ground of objection against such person, and, for the purpose of determining whether such prima facie proof is satisfactory, shall examine the collectors of poor rates, clerk of the union, or any other person who may be present, touching the truth of the alleged ground of objection, and if such prima facie proof is not so given to his satisfaction, he shall retain the name of the person objected to in the list of voters; Provided that this clause shall remain in operation for two years from the date of the passing of this Act;"
    said, that his object in moving the clause was to give the Government a last opportunity of taking the only course that, in his opinion, would be worthy of them in reference to the rejection of Irish Bills in "another place," and, in particular, of the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill. He brought forward his Motion not on account of the intrinsic importance of the Bill he had mentioned, but as a matter of principle, and by way of protest against the continual rejection, almost without examination, of measures affecting Ireland in "another place" after they had been passed by large majorities in that House. From the point of view of the Government he thought that in asking them to adopt this course he was asking them to do a thing which they ought to have been disposed of themselves to do without any

    1209
    inducement from him. It was of the greatest importance that this House should show that its power was sufficient for redressing grievances in Ireland. Those who desired to maintain the Parliamentary connection between this country and Ireland in that House should induce such a belief in Ireland. If, on the other hand, the result of all their exertions this Session, with the most Liberal Parliament that had ever been elected, was to establish their inability to add one single measure of any importance to the Statute Book relating to Ireland, what would be the consequence? The belief which was already widespread among the Irish people, that it was practically useless to look to that House for the redress of their grievances, would become intensified; and, being unable to separate the action of the two Houses, they would regard the rejection of their Bills as a confirmation of their belief in the impossibility of obtaining any real reform from the English Parliament. What would be the course of the Government if English Bills had been treated as Irish Bills had been? Would they not have considered whether some fitting reply should not be made to such attempts at obstruction? Would they not have the great English constituencies supporting them in any determined course they might take? But that could not be the case with regard to Ireland. The public opinion of the Irish people was of no avail or weight whatever upon this House or upon English constituencies, and hence it happened that the House of Lords considered that it might with impunity take action against Irish Bills, which they dared not take against English Bills. He regretted that the Government had not made a determined stand before now; but he hoped they would do so at the eleventh hour. This was the third measure that had been treated in this unceremonious manner, and if they allowed themselves to be smitten on the cheek and then turned the other, it would be repeated again and again. He could not find a better argument for showing the necessity of establishing an Irish Parliament than the proceedings in "another place." The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Motion of which he had given Notice.
    MR. SPEAKER: Before putting this Question from the Chair, I think it right,
    1210
    formally to repeat what I stated in answer to a Question put to me yesterday by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. I do not consider that I should be justified in withholding, on a point of Order, such a Motion from the consideration of the House. At the same time, it is right that I should point out to the House that the Motion of the hon. Member is distinctly a tack to a Money Bill, and, as such, is against the established usage of the House and of Parliament. For a long period this House has invariably respected the rights and privileges of the other House by abstaining from adding tacks to Money Bills, as is now proposed to be done; while the House of Lords, equally respecting the rights and privileges of this House, ha3 abstained from amending Money Bills.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert the following Clause:—
    (Proceedings on objection made to voters on list other than list of claimants.)
    "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Act passed in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her Majesty, chapter fifty-five, contained, where any person whose name is on any list of voters for a county, city, town, or borough in Ireland (not being a list of claimants) is duly objected to by some person other than the clerk of the peace, the clerk of the union, the poor rate collectors, or the town clerk, county court judge, the chairman or revising barrister, whether the person objected to does or does not appear before him, shall, before requiring it to be proved that the person so objected to is entitled to have his name inserted in the list of voters for such county, city, town, or borough, or expunging such name, require prima facie proof to be given to his satisfaction of some ground of objection against such person, and, for the purpose of determining whether such prima facie proof is satisfactory, shall examine the collectors of poor rates, clerk of the union, or any other person who may be present, touching the truth of the alleged ground of objection, and if such prima facie proof is not so given to his satisfaction, he shall retain the name of the person objected to in the list of voters: Provided, that this Clause shall remain in operation for two years from the date of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell)
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I wish to state, in a few words, the reasons for which Her Majesty's Government cannot adopt the course advocated by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. In doing so, however, I wish it to be clearly understood that it is with no approval of the late action of the House of Lords that we

    1211
    take this course. I need hardly say that the course proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork is unusual, and you, Sir, stated a day or two ago, and again to-day, that it was a novel one. The hon. Member himself, has had to refer to precedents of 150 years ago. If this course should be taken, which I cannot suppose for a moment will be the case, it must lead to a very serious contest with the other House. The House of Lords has for a long time had a Standing Order directed against the possibility of a tack to a Money Bill, and we must suppose that they would adhere to that Order. The House will allow me, perhaps, to quote very briefly from the work of Sir Erskine May's distinguished predecessor Hatsell, who is rightly regarded as a great authority on this subject—
    "Whenever this measure of tacking to a Bill of Supply is attempted by the House of Commons with an intention of thereby compelling the Crown or the Lords to give their assent to a Bill which they would otherwise probably disapprove of and reject, it is highly irregular, and is a breach of those Parliamentary rules and orders that have been established by law and uniform practice between the two Houses in the mode of passing Bills…To do this in cases where it is known that one of the component parts of the Bill will be disagreeable to the Crown or to the Lords, and that if it was sent up alone it would not be agreed to—for this reason, and with a view to secure the Royal Assent or the concurrence of the Lords, to tack it to a Bill of Supply which the exigencies of the State make necessary, is a proceeding highly dangerous and unconstitutional. It tends to provoke the other branches of the Legislature in the irturn to depart from those rules to which they ought to be restrained by the long and established forms of Parliament, and can have no other effect than finally to introduce disorder and confusion."
    This is an impartial description of the course which it is proposed the House should adopt, and I think it is pretty clear that it would be a great innovation and a dangerous one. We consider it a most valuable privilege that we do not allow the House of Lords to interfere with any Tax Bill that we pass. On the other hand, the Lords consider—and as long as the House of Lords remains as it is they have a right to consider—that we should not make an excuse of this privilege to try to force on them a Bill which otherwise they would not assent to. Therefore, to take this course would, I think, require the most extreme care possible, and we ought to consider almost any other alternative before venturing on such a course. I
    1212
    can hardly imagine any case in which some other course would not be found more effective. The hon. Member has admitted that there is no hurry—next Session a similar Bill to the one rejected will be sent up to the House of Lords early, and I can hardly imagine that they will treat it again as they have treated it recently; in which case we should pass it into law, and it would have the same practical effect that it would have if passed this Session. The hon. Member for the City of Cork says we would not allow an English Bill to be treated in this way. He is mistaken there. I remember having the honour of bringing in the Ballot Bill, which was debated for a fortnight or three weeks, and every line and every clause of which was contested. The Bill was rejected by the House of Lords, and for very much the same reasons as are now alleged. I could give the hon. Member many cases of the Government allowing English Bills to be treated in this way by the House of Lords. I cannot think that this House will adopt the Motion of the hon. Member; if it did, I do not think the feeling of the country would be in our favour. I am sure the feeling of the country, which is now against the House of Lords, might change against the House of Commons. I hope the House will not think that the Government in any way approves of the action of the House of Lords. We very much regret it. I must confess that the majority of the House of Lords has shown little consideration either for this House or for the interests or wishes of the people of Ireland. The Bill which they have refused to consider was supported by the great majority of the Irish Members. Its main object was the assimilation of the Irish to the English law. Its subject-matter was a change—an improvement—in the method of electing Members of this House, and, therefore, most specially the Business of the House of Commons. I am of opinion that we ought not to meet the House of Lords in the way the hon. Member proposes; but, on the other hand, the majority in the House of Lords must not be surprised, after such an interference as this, when we are endeavouring to change and improve the mode of electing our own Members as we think best—not merely an interference, but a contemptuous refusal even to con-

    1213
    sider such a change—if it leads many men, both in this House and out of it, to consider whether, if we have a frequent repetition of such action, we may not think some change in the constitution of the House of Lords will be advisable and even necessary. I confess that the only reason given for this action does not seem to be any justification for what was done. I observe that the noble Lord who moved the rejection of this Bill—who appears to be the Leader of the House of Lords at present (the Earl of Redesdale) based his argument—
    MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to a speech made in the House of Lords this Session. That would not be in Order.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I was not aware how far the nature of the Motion before the House might not make it necessary and justify some allusion to the speech made in the other House of Parliament. But, of course, Sir, I at once bow to your decision, and I would merely say that the argument that has been used, and certainly by an influential person, in a place in which he could give great weight to what he said—[Mr. GORST: Order, Order!]—I shall stop when I am called to Order. The argument that was used was that there was not time to consider the Bill; I do not think that is an argument in which there is much force.
    MR. GORST: I rise to Order, Sir. I wish to ask your opinion whether it is in Order for the right hon. Gentleman to proceed to answer the arguments used in "another place," after you have ruled that a reference to such debate is out of Order?
    MR. SPEAKER: So far as the right hon. Gentleman has gone, I saw no reason to interpose.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Well, I will say the argument used anywhere, for it has been used in many places besides the House of Lords, that when we have sent Bills from this House late in the Session, that they may rightly be dismissed by the House of Lords for want of time to consider them, is open to some remark. I think that if that course was very often taken, it would be exceedingly difficult for the two Houses to work together. It seems to me that this is one of the matters in which, especially, noblesse oblige, and that the
    1214
    House of Lords ought not to have used the argument of personal convenience to prevent the Bills sent from this House at any time of the Session being thoroughly considered. We cannot forget, at all events, the country will not forget, these two facts—first, that we are the hardest worked Assembly of law-makers in the world, and that there is probably no Assembly of law-makers in the world that has so much power with so little demand upon the energy and time of its individual Members as the House of Lords. Nor can we forget the fact that we are the Representatives of the people, and that the power which they have is simply owing to the accident of birth. That being the case, I do not think it is too much to ask that when the House of Commons, with all its difficulties in getting through Business, and the enormous labour that falls on every individual Member, finds itself unable to send up measures to the House of Lords till late in the Session, I do not think it is too much to ask the House of Lords, even at some cost of personal convenience, to give the necessary consideration to those measures. As to the Motion itself I must oppose it, as I think it unwise, inconvenient in practice, and inconsistent with the spirit of the Constitution. I should be quite content to leave the action of the House of Lords to the judgment of public opinion. I am confident that the expression of public opinion will do much to give us less reason to complain, and would probably support the House of Commons in such Constitutional remedy as might be found advisable and even necessary. I cannot help thinking that in some respects the House of Lords do not sufficiently realize their responsibility. When a number of Members of the House of Commons throw out measures they felt that the burden of Government may devolve upon themselves, and if that had been the case here the noble Lord who has taken the place of Leader of the other House would scarcely have taken the course he has thought fit to take, because he would have been brought face to face with the difficulties of governing the Empire, and especially of governing Ireland.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman that the Government cannot accept the proposal of the hon. Member for

    1215
    the City of Cork, was one which was only to be expected from any responsible Leader of this House. Everybody must feel that the relations betwen the two Houses are of a peculiar and delicate character, and that they are relations which involve the greatest respect on the part of one House for the rights and privileges of the other. In matters of this kind we have for many years recognized, as the House of Lords has recognized, the difference in the position of the two Houses as regards Money Bills. The House of Commons has for many years claimed—and claimed exclusively—the right to originate and deal with Money Bills, and has insisted that it was one of its privileges, and that the House of Lords should not interfere or meddle with the details of any Bill having the character of a Money Bill. They can only reject or accept such a Bill. The House of Lords on their side have always conceded that right to the House of Commons. But they have, on the other hand, claimed that Bills should not be presented to them under cover of being Money Bills, and that they should not in that way be deprived of their right and their duty to criticize measures which it is intended to pass. We must, if we expect the Lords to respect our privileges, be prepared to respect the corresponding privileges which have been conceded to them. No one who looks upon the matter impartially can doubt that the right hon. Gentleman has expressed what was rendered necessary by the spirit of the Constitution and the relations between the two Houses. So far as the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman were confined to the course which the Government intends to take in the matter of this Bill, I entirely and cordially concur with him and with the Government. I may say, also, that I entirely concur with the right hon. Gentleman as to the importance of the very measure which has been the occasion of this discussion. But, at the same time, it appears to me to have been a measure of a by no means urgent character. It might perfectly well have waited beyond the present Session. The Government had only recently taken it into their hands from the hands of private Members. It did not appear to be of any great consequence whether it was passed this Session or early in the next. It appears to me that the announcement of
    1216
    the right hon. Gentleman that the Government intended to take up that Bill was as much as could possibly be asked for by the advocates of the measure. It was really somewhat unnecessary for the Irish Members to look upon such an incident as this as being action on the part of the House of Lords directed against the interests and the wishes of Ireland. Reference has been made to the Ballot Bill. Now, that was quite as important a measure, and was equally connected with the representation of the country and this House, as the Irish Registration Bill, and that Bill was rejected by the Lords. So that it is evident that the conduct of the House of Lords was not dictated by views as to the part of the Empire to which the measure relates. On the contrary, the Lords have for a considerable time announced this doctrine—that if they are to be responsible for passing measures through Parliament, and assisting them to become part of the law of the land, it was but reasonable and proper that they should have ample time for the consideration and discussion of such Bills. It becomes a question of degree, whether that is desirable or right or fair on their part, after a particular day or time of the Session—a matter on which there exists considerable differences of opinion. On that question I must say that a great deal is to be said, especially when applied to a measure sent up to the other House on the 1st of September. The Lords may justly say that the measure requires further consideration, longer consideration than it is likely to get at such a time. We had a discussion on this subject in this House on the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour), who pointed out strongly the inconvenience to which Members of this House are subjected if at a late period a number of measures are brought forward which there is no time to consider. We have greater opportunities of making complaints of this kind than the House of Lords, and we must expect them to show their feeling in some manner. I do not think that the present occasion is one which at all justifies—certainly none but circumstances of a very extreme character would justify—the measures proposed by the hon. Member for the City of Cork. If the right hon. Gentleman had been content to express his views upon these points, I should hardly have thought it

    1217
    necessary to rise to say one word. I should have felt that the rights and Privileges of this House, the Constitution of this country, were safe in his hands. I had hoped that under the circumstances in which we are placed it would be unnecessary for anyone, especially anyone sitting on the Opposition Benches, to get up in defence of the Constitution of the country. But I am bound to say, after listening to the language of the right hon. Gentleman, that I do feel it necessary to enter as strong and emphatic a protest as I can against many of the expressions which he had used. The right hon. Gentleman was touching upon most delicate ground. He was touching upon the most delicate parts of the Constitutional system of the country; and apparently that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks, because he gave us to understand that if the House of Lords claims to exercise their own discretion as to whether they had been allowed sufficient time for the consideration and discussion of measures sent up to them, it may be a matter for serious consideration—not, as some Gentlemen might suppose, whether some general arrangements could be made for the better conduct of Business, so that both branches of the Legislature might be fully employed during the time both Houses are sitting—but whether it may not be necessary to consider whether some change in the constitution of the House of Lords was not advisable, and even necessary. [Cheers.] I quite understand the cheers which come from below the Gangway on the other side of the House. [An hon. MEMBER: Both sides of the House.] I do not think it necessary to refer to the cheers from hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway on the Opposition side of the House, because their views go even beyond the question of the constitution of the House of Lords; and, therefore, they not unreasonably think it a matter for consideration whether the Constitution of the United Kingdom does not require to be revised. But it is one thing for hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to express opinions of the sort, and it is quite another thing for a responsible Minister of the Crown to stand up in the House and to throw out suggestions of the kind. These are matters which, if they are to be dealt with at all, should be carefully and
    1218
    deeply pondered over by Ministers of the Crown; and they ought to make no proposal until they are prepared to explain the nature and the meaning of their proposal. What does the right hon. Gentleman mean by his alarming sentences? Do they mean anything, or do they mean nothing? Are they equivalent to those dark suggestions made the other night about the possibility of the Government having to support injustice in Ireland in some imaginable case which he did not anticipate would arise? Is the threat against the House of Lords a threat of the same character? Is it a threat of certain action against the House of Lords which he does not anticipate will be carried out, or is it simply a sop thrown to those hon. Gentlemen whom he feels it necessary to conciliate at the present time? I, at first, thought they were accidental expressions which simply slipped from the right hon. Gentleman on the spur of the moment; but when I heard him proceed to argue beyond the necessities of the case upon the relative amount of Business done by the two branches of the Legislature, and upon the position of the House of Commons as Representative of the people of England, and the House of Lords, who sat there simply owing to the accident of birth, it struck me that there was more in the suggestions of the right hon. Gentleman than had at first occurred to me. The words of the right hon. Gentleman contained complaints, threats, or warnings, or whatever we may like to call them, which it will be well we should consider and take to heart. It is not altogether to be regretted, if these are the views of the Government, that they should be brought to the light of day, and that the country should know of them. I cannot pass over the observations of the right hon. Gentleman, which, I must say, I listened to with considerable amazement as well as very great regret. I would rather not put the question to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, for I should be sorry to hear that the Government confirmed the very serious character of the utterances of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant; but I must say that, whilst entirely agreeing with the course which the Government propose to take with regard to this Amendment, and entirely concurring in the doctrines which the right hon. Gentleman began by

    1219
    laying down as to the relations between the two Houses, I do think that the sentiments and observations with which the right hon. Gentleman closed his speech are of a character which go far beyond anything that is called for, and, considering the quarter whence they came, far beyond the Amendment itself. The Amendment is not one to be spoken lightly upon, for it cuts deeply into the relations of the two Houses; but I do say that language such as that which has been used by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland is very much more alarming, to my mind, than the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork City.
    MR. DILLON,in rising to move, as an Amendment, a further Instruction to the Committee, said, he thought that if anything were added to this Bill it might be the tack which would most interest the people of Ireland. He thought this would be admitted to be a sufficiently urgent matter to justify a departure from the ordinary procedure of the House. The Irish people regarded the English government of Ireland very much as a whole. They had to deal not with the House of Lords, but with the outcome of the Session, and what was done by the Government as a whole on behalf of Ireland. The outcome of the present Session for Ireland had been nothing, and the only means at the disposal of the Irish Members to get something done for the good of their country were those which they were now adopting. He complained that the House of Lords was governed and affected in its action by the force of English opinion, while the force of Irish opinion never reached it at all. Even the Irish Lords were guided in their course by English opinion, and not at all by Irish opinion. The Irish Members were not merely attacking the House of Lords as such, but were attacking it as a portion of that system of government which, in every one of its parts, was ruinous and disastrous to their country.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "Clause," in order to insert the word "Clauses" (in order to insert additional Clauses):—
    (Procedure in county courts.)
    "Any tenant in Ireland rated at or under thirty pounds ordnance valuation may, within fourteen days of being served with a notice of
    1220
    ejectment for non-payment of rent, lodge with or tender to the landlord or his agent a portion of the amount of rent or arrears of rent claimed. Should the amount so lodged or tendered be considered reasonable, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, by the chairman of the county, the chairman may dismiss the application for a decree for ejectment.
    (Procedure in superior courts.)
    "If the application for a decree is made in a superior court, the court may dismiss the application, provided it is shown that a reasonable sum has been lodged or tendered within the fourteen days: Provided, That this Clause shall remain in operation until the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one"—(Mr. Billon.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'Clause' stand part of the proposed Instruction."
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, he considered the subject one of the gravest importance. It was impossible for him to have noticed the hesitancy with which the Speaker allowed the present proceedings, and the speeches which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman on the Front Benches, without being impressed with its importance. He did not consider the Bill, to which the Amendment referred, as one of great urgency, considering that they had just passed through a General Election, and considering also that, having regard to the promise made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Bill would probably be enacted almost as soon as if it had been accepted at the present time. The speech which had been made by the Chief Secretary reflected, as he and the House knew very well, the intense public opinion of the country. In regard to the Amendment, the people of the country were thinking, not of the registration of voters in Ireland, but of the course which had been taken in "another place" with regard to at least three measures during the present Session. The difficulty which was expressed in regard to that "other place" was specially not in regard to measures of that sort, but in reference to measures relating to property. Difficulty was, and would be experienced in referring to that House, composed, in the main, of Representatives of property, questions affecting property; and everyone who considered the present Amendment must have in his recollection the mode in which another and far more important measure was

    1221
    dealt with by the House of Lords in the early part of the Session.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House was an Instruction on a Money Bill, and he must not debate other measures.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD,continuing, said, with regard to the Amendment, if he had found that the Committee had no choice but to adopt it, he should have had far greater hesitation than he now had in regard to the course he was about to take. When he heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote), and of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, he felt it would be practically impossible to give a vote distinctly asserting that a course which had not been taken for 150 years should be taken upon this occasion with regard to a measure which he did not consider of first-rate urgency. But if he voted for the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell), as he intended to do, it was because that Motion was not an "Instruction" to the Committee, but merely empowered the Committee to avail themselves of a change of mind in the House of Lords. He had a genuine respect for the House of Lords. He wished to leave them an opportunity of retreat. He believed that the House of Lords was in a relenting mood; that they might be anxious, even at the present moment, to re-consider the course which it could not be doubted, from the language held in that House, was fraught with danger. Their Lordships might be anxious to put themselves right, as far as possible, with the people of the country. It was with this view that he should give his vote in favour of the Amendment.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) to the Motion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was evidently intended, if not to accelerate the action of the hon. Member for Cork City, at all events to show that there were other Irish Members of the section which for four or five Sessions had acted together in the House, who were more extreme in their views than the hon. Member for Cork City. The Amendment was illustrative of the feeling and desires which prompted the Amendment, for it proposed that the House of Lords should reverse its course, not upon one
    1222
    subject alone, but upon two subjects—["Hear, hear!"]—the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill and the Compensation for Disturbance (Ireland) Bill. To that he had the assent of the hon. Member who uttered that cheer. It explained beyond the possibility of a doubt what was the object of the section of the House which had taken its place on the Benches below the Gangway. That object was to coerce the House of Lords. This House had been compelled to adopt a Standing Order to avoid the coercion which the hon. Member for Cork City, and those who acted with him, had practised in this House; and, not deterred by the resistance they had met with in their attempts to coerce this House, the hon. Members now sought to attack the other branch of the Legislature. The objects of this section were avowed. The speech which they had just heard from the hon. Member for Tipperary explained the objects of this section. He said that he was opposed to the whole form of the government of this country. He (Mr. Newdegate) greatly doubted the right of the hon. Member to speak for the whole of Ireland, though he assumed that right. What, according to these hon. Members, was the object of this Amendment? It was to excite rebellion against the entire government of this country as at present constituted. [Cheers.] Hon. Members and the House would observe that cheer. What, then, had the House to deal with? The proposal itself was unconstitutional and distinctly a phase of rebellion. Perhaps some hon. Member would rise and endeavour to qualify the explanation that had been given by those with whom he was associated. But that could not alter the fact that this was a distinctly revolutionary proposal; and when the people of England knew that a direct attack was intended upon the form of government under which they lived, and over which they exercised a direct power, he felt sure it would meet from them exactly the same answer which they gave to the revolutionary movement of 1842. In his constituency in North Warwickshire, with only 19 soldiers and 45 policemen to aid the yeomanry and special constables, the revolutionary movement of 1842 was stopped. He had the honour of commanding the special constables on that occasion, and he could tell hon. Mem-

    1223
    bers that they were engaging in rather a hazardous undertaking. He believed that the people of England expected their Representatives to represent in this House the spirit which arrested the revolutionary movement of 1842. He could not doubt that the people of North Warwickshire had the same spirit now that they had then; and that, when a section of the Irish Members undertook in this House to bully both Houses of Parliament, the people whom he represented would desire him to act in the spirit in which they and he had acted in the year 1842. [Laughter.] The laughter in which the section to which he referred thought fit to indulge was very hollow. It was his firm conviction that the Members who were returned to the House by the Democratic Party of England and Scotland, to say nothing of those who entertained Constitutional principles, would betray their constituents if they did not meet this attempt as it deserved to be met—that was, by absolute repudiation. It was 150 years since the House of Commons was betrayed into any such "tacking" as was now proposed; and he felt sure that the House would forfeit the confidence of the great majority of the people of England and of Scotland if they did not directly repudiate this attempt to bully both Houses of Parliament, and to involve this House in an unseemly conflict with the House of Lords.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was quite unable to follow the arguments of the hon. Member who had just sat down, and who had given the House such exciting and interesting details of the conquests achieved by himself. If the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had not had the presence of mind to be his own trumpeter, he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) was afraid that posterity would not have heard anything about the hon. Member's wonderful achievements. It was to be hoped that the present crisis would not call for another gathering of yeomanry and special constables in North Warwickshire, under the command of the hon. Member for that constituency. As, however, the insurrection anticipated by the hon. Member was expected to come off in Ireland, it did not appear how he and his band of special constables could take any effective part in it. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to
    1224
    the Lord Lieutenant had made a speech which was very energetic and impressive for the most part, but which would have been more consistent if spoken in support of, instead of in opposition to, the Motion of the hon. Member for Cork City. If the situation was so serious as the right hon. Gentleman in his speech assumed it to be, it was a time for passing over what he might call the etiquette of Constitutional arrangements, and for taking some unusual course in regard to the action of the House of Lords. If it were a time when a leading Member of the Government might suggest the possible necessity of taking into consideration the propriety of changes in the relations between the two Chambers, then, surely, it might be allowed to be a time to justify so mild a course as this tacking of a new clause to the Appropriation Bill. It must be remembered that one great reason why the Irish Members took their present course was not only that the House of Lords had contemptuously rejected the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill, but that they had been guilty of a series of actions the result of which was to leave Ireland no legislative fruits whatever out of this active, and what ought to have been useful, Session. In the speeches made by the right hon. Gentlemen on either side of the House, allusion had been made to the action of the House of Lords in reference to the Ballot Bill. But there was this distinction between this case and that. The House of Lords might well consider the Ballot as a great, comprehensive, and complete change in the whole system of the constitution of Parliament. The Ballot Act contained a principle which had been opposed by leading statesmen of both Parties, among others by Lord Palmerston; and the House of Lords had every reason to say that so great and sudden a change of principle required grave deliberation. But what was this Registration Bill? It was simply a Bill to make the system of registering voters in Ireland like the system already accepted and adopted in England, and there was no excuse for saying that to consider such a measure required many studious days and sleepless nights. The truth of the matter, as Ireland would understand it, was that the House of Lords were wholly contemptuous and indifferent as regarded Irish legislation; that they believed it had

    1225
    not many friends in the House or the country, and that they felt sure the Government would not take any energetic action to resent their conduct. Complaining of the apathy of the Government, he might recall how different was the conduct of Liberal Governments when the Lords rejected the Bill for the Abolition of Purchase in the Army, and the Bill for the Repeal of the Paper Duties. The question for Irish Members was not merely whether the Peers were, or were not, going too far, but whether there was any security for justice to Ireland when measures put forward by a friendly Government seemed to have no chance of passing the Upper House of Legislature. The fact that such measures were thus treated and likely to be treated justified the unusual course of action which was recommended by the hon. Member for Cork City. All that Parliament had done of late had been to pass Bills allowing Ireland out of her own resources to save herself from the approach of famine; but what was now wanted was the adoption of a course which would show that the Government were in earnest in their professed desire to secure the passing of measures which would be for the permanent benefit of the Irish population. He would, indeed, be glad if, on this occasion, the Irish Party had had the assistance of the Liberal Members. No doubt, such help would be cordially and readily given in resisting undue action on the part of the House of Lords; but, as regarded peculiarly Irish complaints and grievances, he could only say that he hoped to hear from them something like the expression of a generous and earnest sympathy. He confessed that he liked his Liberal Friends very much better in Opposition than on the side of the Ministry, for he was afraid that there was something enervating about the atmosphere of the Ministerial Benches. As for the statement that the proposal of the hon. Member for Cork City was exceptional, he admitted it; but the conduct of the House of Lords, which compelled the making of the proposal, was still more exceptional. It was not easy, perhaps, to raise the spirit of hon. Members opposite; but he hoped for their assistance on that occasion.
    MR. WARTONremarked, that the eloquence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland had burst out in a manner that
    1226
    was perfectly astonishing. He confessed to a feeling of sympathy for the Irish Members, because he knew well that they were disappointed. At one time, he believed, they had the game in their hands; but when they withdrew their obstruction to the Constabulary Vote on a certain understanding they seemed to have been entirely deserted by the Government. On that ground, therefore, he could understand and sympathize with the complaints which they made and the language in which they expressed themselves. But several English Members who had no such grounds of complaint to urge, and who ought to know better, had thought proper to indulge in the same extravagant expressions. He thought, however, that while Irish Members had reason for their disappointment, and, perhaps, for their resentment, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had absolutely no excuse for the violent and democratic language in which he had inveighed against the House of Lords; and other English Members were equally without justification for acting in a way which they must know was not consistent with their duty. The House of Lords had always shown themselves actuated by a sincere desire to promote the public good, and they had invariably acted under the highest sense of duty. After all, it was perfectly intelligible that they should refuse to discuss Bills hastily submitted to them at that period of the Session.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, that if it were not for the importance of the subject he would not have addressed the House, because he did not feel in a state of health to deal with this weighty question. He thought that the action of the other branch of the Legislature had been in the highest degree injudicious, and of that character which had been usually attributed to the proceedings of Irish agitators, for it was, in every respect, calculated to disturb and aggravate the situation. The destruction of the measure which the House of Lords had just rejected, out of no other feeling than the narrowest and the pettiest, must place in the hand of everyone who was desirous of stirring up ill-feeling against British government of Ireland a weapon of the most potent description. He was an Irish Nationalist of a very thorough type; but he had never concealed his conviction that Irishmen should do all

    1227
    in their power to seek the redress of their grievances in a Constitutional way to bring about a permanent reconciliation with the sister country of England, but that England should be in a frame of mind capable of being reconciliated; and when he saw the hereditary branch of English Legislature, with its great weight of every kind in the country, in mere wantonness, in the reckless childishness which only sought an opportunity of harassing and exasperating—when he saw it, time after time, throwing out measures the most humble as well as the most important, he said that the charge of recklessly provoking agitation was removed from the shoulders of Irishmen to the shoulders of the English nobility and the classes supporting them. He did not wish to say one word offensive to the Liberal Party. He had, on former occasions, expressed his conviction that the salvation of Ireland, so far as it could be gained from any English Party, was to be gained from English Liberals; but he maintained that the latter were not dealing with Irishmen as they would deal with Englishmen under similar circumstances. It was little short of a mockery for Englishmen to tell Irishmen that they enjoyed equal rights and equal laws, when the liberties and the rights of masses of the people of Ireland could be struck down by one branch of the Legislature with hardly a protest from the English masses; whereas, if any similar indignity were offered to English liberty, an agitation would arise which would shake the very foundation of English society. It was not sufficient for the English Liberal Party to be Liberal in name when it ought to be Liberal in reality; and the refusal of justice to Ireland ought to be resented by all true Liberals. The Irish Members, who were just a little handful of men from Ireland, had asked their countrymen to trust to the calm justice and dispassionate reasoning of the House of Commons; but where, he would ask, was English justice and English fair play. They were all conscious of the good intentions of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But the presence of even such a man in the Cabinet was as nothing unless he was thoroughly and seriously supported by his Colleagues. It was impossible for the Cabinet to apply a remedy to the present state of things in Ireland, even of the most moderate kind,
    1228
    unless they took it up and carried it through as if they were really interested in it; but so long as the Government were not in earnest, and allowed their legislation for Ireland to be checked by the House of Lords, it was not sufficient for the Chief Secretary to have good intentions, or for Ministers on the Front Treasury Bench to make half-a-dozen good-natured speeches. But the Government must recognize the fact that the Irish Question must be dealt with thoroughly and at once. Unless they did that, it was a delusion and a snare to place at the front a statesman like the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The responsible official for Ireland had not received from the Government that thorough and resolute support which he ought to receive. The noble Marquess, at present the Leader of the House, had come forward more than once and assured the Irish Party that there was little difference between his convictions and the convictions of the Irish Members; and he wanted to know whether the noble Marquess's statements were mere words or realities? He could assure the House that complimentary speeches and assurances of the good intentions of the Government, whether from the Chief Secretary or the noble Lord, would effect nothing unless they had measures which corresponded with declarations. What was the object of such declarations, if they shrank from censuring or placing on record some tangible proof of the conduct of the other House, which really and practically had ostracised the Irish people? They had seen how measures of slight importance had been passed by the House of Commons while Ireland was left to suffer; and such a policy was such as to invite the rejection of measures of goodwill to Ireland, and such a policy would sow the seeds of bad blood between England and Ireland. The English Parliament would never do full justice to Ireland; but so far as they brought in measures for the good of Ireland the Irish Members had supported them, although they fell far short of what was necessary. But how were they to be satisfied when they saw-English Members bringing in measures and asking the support of the Irish Members; and then, after the Irish Members had been amused by these protestations of goodwill, they saw these measures cast out by a House over which the Irish

    1229
    Members had no direct control. That was like playing with the seriousness of the Irish situation. In those circumstances, he would stand by his Colleagues to mark the sense of the lightness of heart and indifference of feeling with which the Liberal Party had supported the good intentions of the Chief Secretary. This was no case of refusing the demands of the advanced Irish Party, for their demands were supported by moderate men, and by Englishmen as well as Irishmen. They had learnt the lesson that their most moderate demands had so little hold over the English hearts and convictions that the almost puerile spite of the other House had been vented on the Irish Bills without raising the slightest indignation in England. When the noble Lords complained of the delay in the presentation of important Bills from this House, why did not they take notice of the Liberal obstruction to the Irish Registration Bill? The complaint of the Lords as to this Bill was fictitious, and only covered their hostility to the wants of the Irish people. An important Bill had been presented late to the House of Lords, which went very much against the grain of the noble Lords; but they did not venture to reject it, because they knew the great mass of the English people were behind it. They did not make a stand for their noble dignity, because the people of England wished for the Bill; but when an Irish measure of the first importance was presented to them they adopted a pretext to refuse the most elementary and fundamental reforms. The real fault lay in the Governing Party of this House; for when the House of Lords saw that this House was in earnest about any measure, then the noble Earl of Redesdale and all his noble faction thought once, twice, and a third time, before they presumed to exhibit their little lordliness. There was no use for this House to try and shirk their responsibility; and if the noble Lords did wrong to Ireland it was because of the indifference of the English Liberals. If they wanted Ireland to be prosperous, industrious, and contented, they must deal fairly to Ireland. He did not believe in their United Kingdom, because they treated Ireland as if it was not part of the United Kingdon.
    MR. SPEAKERreminded the hon. Member that he was travelling wide of
    1230
    the subject immediately before the House.
    MR. O'DONNELLthanked the Speaker for his reminder, and he would conclude by urging England to treat Ireland as they would their own Business. Until they had exhausted the English platform they would go hand in hand; but it was hard to find that they were not receiving mere justice.
    MR. SLAGGsaid, he felt that the reproach cast on Liberal Members of want of sympathy with Irishmen was undeserved. They, however, felt a difficulty in co-operating more strongly with Irish Members, because they were impressed with the conviction that the Government now in power meant to do all that was possible for the good of Ireland, and they could not go into the Lobby with the Irish Members, who were continually putting difficulties in the way of that Government. The words "Home Rule" appeared to scare a great number of persons; and although he did not stand there to advocate Home Rule, yet, considering the character of the Irish Land Laws, which were unsuited to Ireland, the extreme distress which existed, and which might be relieved by wise legislation, and the long term of misgovernment to which that country had been subjected, he could not deny the reasonableness of the demand for self-government. He hoped that the time would come, and before long, when the Irish Members could work with the English Members in carrying through Parliament necessary reforms. But, with regard to the matter before the House, he was of opinion this was rather a futile mode of giving expression to views which before long must come to the front. As it had been announced to the House that the Government felt it impossible to support the Motion, and as that would be an inopportune time to deal with the question, he thought the Irish Members would do well in abstaining from fighting so big a battle upon so small an issue, and especially as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had promised to bring this question forward next Session. It seemed to him a feeble way of expressing their protest, and it looked like discharging a rifle when a whole battery of artillery should be fired. He (Mr. Slagg) had no ground whatever to qualify him in asking the Irish Members to adopt a certain course

    1231
    in preference to another; but he was anxious to place on record, before the end of the Session, that his own sympathies were with Irish Members, and, whenever he found he could co-operate with them, they would find that his best efforts would always be at their call.
    SIR HENRY TYLERthought that matters were getting worse and worse. Last evening there was an attack made upon the Church of England, and this evening the Chief Secretary for Ireland had aided the Irish Members in an attack upon the House of Lords. The noble Marquess the Leader of the Government was absent; and he (Sir Henry Tyler) was anxious to know if the views expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with regard to the House of Lords were those of the other Members of the Government?
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 60; Noes 18: Majority 42.—(Div. List, No. 167.)
    Main Question put,
    "That it be an Instruction to the Committee that they have power to insert the following Clause:—
    (Proceedings on objection made to voters on list other than list of claimants.)
    "Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Act passed in the thirteenth and fourteenth years of the reign of Her Majesty, chapter fifty-five, contained, where any person whose name is on any list of voters for a county, city, town, or borough in Ireland (not being a list of claimants), is duly objected to by some person other than the clerk of the peace, the clerk of the union, the poor rate collectors, or the town clerk, county court judge, the chairman or revising barrister, whether the person objected to does or does not appear before him, shall, before requiring it to be proved that the person so objected to is entitled to have his name inserted in the list of voters for such county, city, town, or borough, or expunging such name, require prima facie proof to be given to his satisfaction of some ground of objection against such person, and, for the purpose of determining whether such prima facie proof is satisfactory, shall examine the collectors of poor rates, clerk of the union, or any other person who may be present, touching the truth of the alleged ground of objection, and if such prima facie proof is not so given to his satisfaction, he shall retain the name of the person objected to in the list of voters: Provided, That this Clause shall remain in operation for two years from the date of the passing of this Act."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    The House divided:—Ayes 23; Noes 58: Majority 35.—(Div. List, No. 168.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
    MR. MELDONsaid, he had a Resolution on the Paper, to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the rejection of a Bill solely affecting the right of persons to be registered as Parliamentary Voters is highly inexpedient; and this House is further of opinion that the granting of aid or supply for the maintenance of another Chamber is undesirable so long as measures relating solely to the acquisition of the Parliamentary franchise are by the action of such Chamber prevented from passing into Law."
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he did not think such an Amendment in order upon the Motion before the House.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD,who had an Amendment on the Paper, to move—
    "That, in the opinion of this House, the rejection of Bills which have been accepted by this House to promote the welfare of Ireland has gravely increased the difficulties of the Executive Government, and, by exciting disaffection, tends to endanger the sufficiency of the Supply granted to Her Majesty,"
    said, he had reason to believe that there was a similar objection to his Amendment.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Clauses and Schedule A agreed to.
    Schedule B.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that the Schedule contained an item of £332,666 for the balances and expenses of officers to the House of Lords. £4,900 was put down as the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords (the Earl of Redesdale), and that was the salary he wished particularly to get at. He had intended to put his Motion in such a form that it would be perfectly evident what object he had in view; and he intended to do it in such a manner as would be found in accordance with the Rules of the House. In the first instance, he presented at the Table a clause to reduce the Vote by the sum of £1,800; but he found that he would not have been in Order in putting his Motion in such a form, and that, in order to make his protest against the salary of this particular official (the Earl of Redesdale), it was necessary for him to put his Motion in a general form against the entire Vote. Now, he

    1233
    hoped he would not be misunderstood when he said it was a notorious fact that the Chairman of Committees in "another place," like the Chairman of Committees in that House, exercised a considerable control over the deliberations of the House. He was not aware whether it was one of the privileges of Mr. Lyon Playfair to have the votes of 30 or 40 Members of this House in his pocket; but rumour had it that the Earl of Redesdale was in that happy and proud position. The consequence of that was this—that all the legislation in this country was at the mercy of a particular individual, and that individual an official of the other House; because it was quite evident to every observer that at a certain stage of the Session the whole procedure of Parliament could be easily controlled by a very slight action. In the last few days of the Session it depended upon "another place" whether certain Bills should or should not pass into law: and what he wished to point out to the Committee and to the country was, that if an individual had in his pockets the votes of Members of any portion of the Legislature it would happen that in the expiring days of the Session the whole legislation of the country depended upon the arbitrary will of that individual. The country, he supposed, would be surprised to be acquainted with that fact, because it was generally imagined that we were a self-governing country, and that Parliament was the representative of the national will, and not that of a particular individual. It was in reference to this individual that he thought he should be in Order in making a few observations. He was glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) in his place, because it was a speech which the right hon. Gentleman himself delivered that suggested to the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) the course which he thought it right to take on going into Committee on the Bill. Several hon. Friends pointed out to the hon. Gentleman a passage from a speech made by the right hon. Gentleman on the 10th of August, 1860. The passage was as follows:—
    "In the year 1734 there was a case in which the Government of the time wished to save the country gentlemen from the pressure of a heavier land tax, and they agreed to take not
    1234
    less than £1,200,000 for the service of the year out of the Sinking Fund, and apply it to purposes for which, of course, it was not originally intended. When they Drought that Bill into the House it consisted only of two clauses. They moved, on going into Committee, that the Committee should he instructed to receive clauses of appropriation; and they hound up the appropriation clause of the year with those two clauses. They took £1,200,000 from the Sinking Fund and appropriated it to the service of the year, and the two matters together in one Bill went up to the House of Lords, and were passed by that House. Well, there is an Appropriation Bill to he yet passed by the House of Commons this Session; and I say the House of Commons itself, if it possesses, as Mr. Canning said in 1827, a spark of spirit left in it to maintain its own privileges and rights, will avail itself of that, or of some other equally proper mode, for the purpose of restoring itself, at the end of the Session, to the independent position which it occupied when we met. But there is another mode which I would recommend to the noble Lord. He will see that I am merely offering suggestions for his consideration and for that of his Colleagues in the Cabinet. There is a mode, nearly resembling that which Mr. Canning adopted in 1827. On that occasion the House of Lords rejected, by a substantial alteration, a Bill which modified the duties leviable upon foreign corn. Immediately afterwards—I think the very next day—Mr. Canning came down to this House, and in language of a severity exceeding anything that has been used with regard to the Peers during the discussion of this question, asked the House of Commons to take a course to maintain their rights. But he said, as Minister, he felt that it was his duty, if possible, to prevent any collision between the two Houses; and, therefore, he asked the House not to pass exactly the measure which had just been neglected, but to pass another Bill, including its provisions, but limited to a duration of nine months."—[3 Hansard, clx. 1121.]
    Now, the Committee would plainly see that, in pursuing the course his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) did, and which he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) was now endeavouring to pursue, they had before them the advice which was given to the House under practically similar circumstances by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Furthermore, Mr. Canning, in 1827, said—
    "I agree, Sir, with the hon. gentleman, that something is necessary to be done; but the rule I should lay down upon the subject is a very plain one. As, I presume, the House of Commons is not so reduced as to abjure what its members have declared to be necessary principles, to rescind their deliberate resolutions, and to throw away as waste paper that bill which they have so much, and so carefully considered, merely because in a certain assembly, which, for many reasons, is entitled to our respect, they did not happen to be entertained with that courtesy which might have been expected, but was made the subject of an amendment, which not merely went to re-

    1235
    scind what we had enacted, hut to introduce principles, that, besides being new, were positively contrary to what we had determined to he necessary. Let the House themselves feel this as they may. If there be a single spark of pride or of shame in it, they will not submit to it."—[2 Hansard, xvii. 1308.]
    He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) would not trouble the Committee with further quotations, for he thought that the two that he had made showed conclusively that his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell), in adopting the course he did, and he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in adopting the course he had adopted, were justified by illustrious examples as to the form their protest should take in regard to the action of "another place." Now, he wished, in the friendliest spirit, to offer a word of warning to the Ministry in regard to "another place." He told the Ministry that either they would have to overcome "another place," or "another place" would overcome them. He had some experience of the meetings of "another place" before he came into this House; and he ventured to remark that the attendance of noble Lords during the first days of this Session was far larger, and far more interested, than even during the days when they were ringing the chorus of Jingoism in the country; and everything that had happened during the Session went to show that they intended to give the Liberal Government and Radical Party all the trouble they could.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must draw the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that we were discussing a purely Money Bill, and that the hon. Member should confine himself to the question whether the Vote should be reduced, and not discuss the general subject.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, of course, he bowed at once to the Chairman's ruling. His intention throughout had been to show the Committee a reason why they should refuse this allowance to "another place." It was perfectly within their competence to refuse to "another place" this allowance; and if they came to the conclusion that this refusal should take place he thought he was in Order in giving the reasons which dictated the refusal. He should bow to the Chairman's ruling, and conclude his remarks on the general subject by saying that if they did not make a firm stand—if the Government did not make a firm
    1236
    stand—they would find their position attenuated, and that either their legislative measures would be destroyed, or their functions and prestige would be seriously endangered. That the Chairman should not be under the painful necessity of calling him to Order again, he would now confine himself to the money part of the transaction. What he wished to show to the Committee and to the country was this—that these officials, who were opposing the interest of the country, who were blocking the measures for the amelioration of the condition of the country, were the paid servants of the country. That they were simply servants was proved by the fact that their salaries were to be provided by this House; and these officials, paid with money voted by the Representatives of the people, were showing their gratitude by completely disobeying the wish of the Representatives of the people. If the country were decided to teach these high officials their duty with regard to the interests of the country and the Representatives of the people they had a very easy remedy in its hands; and he proposed it should take that remedy at the present moment, and mark their indignation by refusing to these refractory servants their salaries.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 9, line 8, leave out the words "No. 1. For Salaries and Expenses in the Offices of the House of Lords, to complete, £32,666."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Schedule."
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that he could hardly suppose the hon. Member seriously intended to press this Amendment; but he had humorously adopted it as a form of protesting against a proceeding of the House of Lords, of which, whatever might be the proportion of importance attaching to it, everyone in the House and out of it must disapprove. He had known for a great many years the noble Earl to whom the hon Member had referred. Many years ago, before he was a Member of that House, he belonged to a branch of the Legal Profession which came particularly under the noble Lord's purview. The noble Earl was Lord and Master, Czar and Despot of Private Bill legislation. He was bound to say that the noble

    1237
    Earl was an excellent man, of the greatest integrity, and of the best intentions; but there never was a man who had more completely absorbed into himself the spirit of unmitigated despotism. He was so in the habit of controlling Private Bill legislation, governing Parliamentary Agents, and setting aside Parliamentary counsel, that he had come to think he could act in the same manner with regard to public measures and Public Business; and, finding himself unexpectedly in the position of undisputed Leader of the House of Lords, he acted as he was accustomed to do with Parliamentary Agents. He would ask the House to take that view, instead of putting it on other grounds. He believed that that was the real history of the matter. The object of the Earl of Redesdale in dealing with this Bill was not to attack the Irish Members or the whole Irish people. On the contrary, it was an Irish opposition started entirely in the interests of one particular Irish Member of that House. He had reason to suspect that if the Bill passed it would be injurious to the prospects of a Conservative seat in Ireland. Means were taken to convey to the Earl of Redesdale the desire of hon. Gentlemen opposite that the seat should be secured; and he had thought, as persons did who took great measures for the accomplishment of small objects, that the best way was to throw out the whole Bill. That, he believed, was the history of the whole transaction; and hon. Members on both sides of the House would do best only to look at the matter as it really Was, as a piece of recklessness and of thoughtless despotism on the part of the Earl of Redesdale.
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. He said that it had been ruled by the Speaker that it was not in Order to address Members of the other House by name. So long as the right hon. Gentleman confined himself to hinting at the noble Lord in question he did not interfere; but he now begged to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman was to be permitted to make a personal attack by name on an officer of the other House?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that unquestionably the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary was in Order. He was referring, in debate, to the action, not of "another House," but to an officer whose salary was mentioned in the Vote.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, that when the hon. and learned Member had interposed he was endeavouring to bring the Committee to a sense of feeling that the mischief which had been committed in this case was from what he might call want of apprehension. It was men like Lord Redesdale and the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) who caused all the mischief, not from any bad intention, but merely from sheer inability to understand the situation. Half the mischief in the world was not accomplished by people who set to work to do it, but by people who did not understand the situation. If people would only see that what was done the other day was really done by people who did not understand what they were doing he hoped this question would pass away, and that the hon. Member opposite would not persevere in a Motion which would injure a great many other persons besides Lord Redesdale.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, that he wished to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary upon the temperate and admirable speech which he had just made. But if anything more were wanted to complete the case raised by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) against the Earl of Redesdale it was to be found in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. Before hearing that speech it might have been fairly supposed that the utmost wrong done by Lord Redesdale was to allow some personal prejudice of his own to influence him contrary to the duties of his Office; but, after hearing the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, it appeared that the Earl of Redesdale had been guilty of an attempt much more inexcusable, for he had lent himself to a plot, contrived by a group of Tory Members in the interests of a well-known Tory Member, a Member of the late Government, who knew that if the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill passed persons would be entitled to exercise the elective franchise, which would render his seat insecure. Fearing that if the Bill passed his seat would be gone this plot had been contrived. He could not assent to the doctrine that that Committee ought to vote the salary of a Nobleman who had not only proved himself thoroughly despotic, but had proved himself the willing instrument of a group of Tory magnates. Whatever might be

    1239
    the truth of the charge brought against the Earl of Redesdale he should vote for the Amendment.
    MR. MELDONsaid, that he also must thank the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for the able and amusing speech which he had delivered to the Committee; but that speech afforded a reason why the Motion should be carried. What they were then seeking to do was to avail themselves of one of the greatest rights possessed by the House of Commons—a right by the exercise of which they could only hope to be victorious in any contest between this House and the House of Lords. He wished to call attention to two points put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary as reasons why the Vote should not be reduced. In the first place, he had told them that the Chairman of Committees of the other House was known to be a despot, and in exercise of that duty had thrown out the Bill. Was it a proper thing that an official should use his official position in the mischievous way that the Earl of Redesdale had done? But the right hon. Gentleman also said that the real reason why the Bill was thrown out was that a number of Irish Peers threw out the Bill in order to save a Conservative seat in Ireland. Was it possible that the Chairman of Committees, who had stated that the only reason that he had moved the rejection of the Bill was that it was sent up so late in the Session—was it possible that an official in the other House could deliberately make a representation of that kind when he was really acting from such a motive as that now disclosed? He had been under the impression that the Earl of Redesdale had moved the rejection of the Bill simply because he was acting as a despot, and because he did not think fit to discharge the duties of his Office any longer. Observations coming from the Earl of Redesdale had shown an intention to obstruct Business; and it was sufficient reason why they should refuse to pay the salary of an official if he showed such an intention. The Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill was one dealing solely with the privileges, under the franchise, of that House, and it was stretching Parliamentary courtesy to the utmost to throw out such a Bill. It would, however, be unfair that the
    1240
    other officials of the House of Lords should suffer by the misconduct of one of their body. He did not know whether, as a matter of Order, the present figure could be omitted and a lower one inserted. This was an Appropriation Bill, and sums were not specifically appropriated; but sums not exceeding a certain sum were appropriated. He thought, therefore, that they might reduce the maximum to be appropriated by the Bill, and move that the Vote should be reduced by the sum of £2,500, the salary paid to the Earl of Redesdale. The opinion of the Conservative Party as to the action of the House of Lords in this matter was evident from the empty Benches which they saw opposite. They knew that this action of the House of Lords could not be defended, for if it could be there would be plenty to defend it. From their absence there they could only suppose that they entertained the same views of this matter as he did. Supposing the whole of these salaries to be disallowed, the Government would have no difficulty in recouping the officers who might lose their salaries during the present year; and, by adopting the Motion of his hon. Friend, they would be expressing their opinion of the way in which the House of Commons and the Government, and, above all, the people of Ireland, had been treated in this matter. Therefore, he hoped that the Government would not object to the Motion. He would remind the Committee that such an opportunity as this might not recur for a long time.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that he must explain that it was not competent for an hon. Member to move the reduction of the Vote, which was part of the sum already granted to Her Majesty. The sum could not be appropriated to the specific purposes for which it was granted if it was reduced.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he should like to know whether he could not appropriate part of the sum he proposed to reduce to some other officer? If so, he would be happy to propose to transfer the amount now paid as salary to the Earl of Redesdale to the Secretary of State for the Home Department in consideration of his most amusing speech.
    MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that he heartily sympathized with the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell), being

    1241
    interested in all questions connected with the Irish people and their welfare. The course taken in "another place," not only with regard to this Bill, but also with regard to another Government Bill, had created great embarrassment to the Government, and had increased their difficulties in carrying on the government of Ireland. If any evil consequences followed, the House of Lords would be responsible. But, sympathizing as he did with the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, he could not support his Amendment, nor could he support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) which was now before them. His reason was this—that they had a legislative machinery that existed for the purpose of legislation; and they must do nothing which would, technically speaking, put that machinery out of gear. They ought to do their best to enable this House to carry on legislation without hindrance; and to be at issue with the House of Lords would be to create a block to Public Business. He, for his part, could not lend his support to any such course. Therefore, though reluctantly, he should be obliged to vote against the Motion. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had made one of those kindly, good-humoured speeches which they knew it was in his power to make, although he did not often so indulge them. He had, however, brought forward one of the strangest arguments in opposition to this Motion which he had ever heard. He had thought that the noble Lord, whom he described as a kind of despot—an official martinet—had determined to snub the House of Commons; because, in his opinion, it had not treated the House of Lords with due consideration, and in order to save a seat in this House to his Party. If this statement were correct, a more unjustifiable, he would say a more corrupt act on the part of a public man could not have taken place. The right hon. Gentleman had said that because certain Irish Peers were interested in the particular seat of a Member of this House, the House of Lords, under the influence of an official person in that Assembly, threw out a Bill passed in this House, and which would have been beneficial to the people of Ireland. By reason of that miserable, petty, Party,
    1242
    motive, the Bill was thrown out. He repeated, that if that were so a more corrupt, a more indefensible action could not be committed by a public man. He could not believe that Lord Redesdale was capable of such an act, and he was inclined to think that he was influenced by the circumstances first described by his right hon. Friend—namely, that, from being in the habit of choking off Private Bills in the House of Lords the habit of despotism had grown up through many long years, and had induced him to play the part of an official martinet, when the proper Leaders of that House had abdicated their functions. He could well understand how a person so situated might have lost his head for a moment, and come to the conclusion that he must do his duty by his order, although his family were only a recent accession to that order. He could not think that Lord Redesdale could possibly have been actuated by the motives which his right hon. Friend had attributed to him. But the question now came to this—whether they were going to descend to the low, petty, level of this Nobleman, or whether they were going to maintain their dignity? Because an official, who received pay from that House, had chosen to adopt a certain course, were they going to say—"We will stop your wages." In his opinion, that course would not be consistent with their dignity. Let them not descend to the level of a Member of the other House, who had set the dignity of his order against the well-being of the people. Although, he could not but sympathize with his hon. Friend who had brought forward this proposal, yet he hoped that it would be withdrawn after the expression of opinion that had been elicited in that House, and especially after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. If they now gave way to any petty resentment, and prevented the noble Lord from getting his salary, the opinion of the country, which was then with them, might be against them. Let them have his salary, and let the House be content with the protest which had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary and by the discussion which they had had that night in which English Members had been as outspoken as Irish. He hoped the proposal would be withdrawn.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that he was very much delighted to hear the hon. and learned Member for Dewsbury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) praise the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for his good temper. He took the liberty of calling the right hon. Gentleman to Order when he was speaking, because, although in Order when referring to the salary of Lord Redesdale, he was not so when speaking of him as a despot or a Czar. So long as the right hon. Gentleman was discussing the mere question of a salary and of a Vote to be paid to a certain Member of the House of Lords he was in Order; but when he went beyond that he did not think that he was in Order, and for that he asked for the judgment of the Chair.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he should like to know whether it was in Order for the hon. and learned Member for Bridport to question the decision of the Chair?
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was in Order in the observations he was making.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that, whatever his incapacity might be, he thought he was, at all events, capable of discriminating between the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman as to the salary of Lord Redesdale and as to his being a despot or a Czar. He thought it very ungenerous of the right hon. Gentleman to rake up all the reminiscences of a Parliamentary counsel with reference to Lord Redesdale's treatment of Private Bills. As the right hon. Gentleman was always good-tempered and good-humoured, it was hardly becoming of him to do what he did, and apply the words "despot" and "Czar" to a noble Lord in the other House. What would have been thought of the Members of the House of Lords, if some Member of it had accused an hon. Member of the House of Commons of being a "despot" and a "Czar?" They would, no doubt, resent it. Let them not, therefore, do to the other House what they would not like the other House to do to them. Let them treat their Lordships with the respect that was due to them, and abstain from scurrilous and antagonistic tactics. That was all he would ask. Let them not indulge in scurrilous and abusive language under cover of good temper. And now to come to the point. ["Hear hear!"] Well, he would tell them why he came to the point. He had
    1244
    been challenged when there were only two Members of the Opposition present—nay, only one if he was not mistaken—to say what the Opposition thought of the conduct of the House of Lords. To say, at the risk of repetition, what he had said at a previous stage of the inquiry, the course adopted by the House of Lords was dictated, as it seemed to him, by this simple principle—that the Government having thought it right to keep the House of Lords waiting all the Session without Bills, and having at this late period sent them up, the House of Lords said—"We shall draw a line at the 1st of September, that is the only way to bring the Government to reason, and to prevent them from treating us in the same way in future Sessions." With regard to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to which reference had been made—["Order, order!"]—he would appeal to the Chairman—there was no occasion for cries of "Order!" He would yield at once and not refer to the speech in question. The indications of the Chairman's countenance were quite sufficient, and he would sit down; but he had no doubt that ere long the speech of the right hon. Gentleman would be referred to in other quarters.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he was sure the Committee would receive with due consideration the speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, as he had been sitting alone on the Opposition Benches for a large part of the evening, filling the gap and protecting the interests of the Conservative Party—a watchful and vigilant sentinel over the Constitution of the country. Recruited as he had been by two equally heroic souls, he might now exclaim—
    "Of the Three Hundred grant hut three
    To make a new Thermopylœ"
    His hon. Friend the Member for the City of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had followed the Constitutional precedent. When the House of Commons had to impeach the Government it stopped the Supplies; and when the hon. Member wished to impeach the House of Lords he moved to stop the Supplies. Only one Member of the House of Lords had been singled out; and let him say, before he went any further, that he expected the Home Secretary would be severely taken to task on Monday or

    1245
    Tuesday for the speech he had made and the statement he had put forward as to the motive for the action taken by the House of Lords. The reason which animated the little group of Conservative Members in that House in opposition to the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill was a matter of notoriety among Irish Members. He stated, on his own responsibility, that they had been personally reproached with this story—"Oh! won't this extinguish poor A and B," naming them. Of course, the measure would have extinguished some hon. Members. There was no doubt that for some Sessions past the reason why there had been fighting against the assimilation franchise scheme was because the Conservative Party knew the measure would extinguish some of their supporters. The Earl of Redesdale in the other House, his Colleagues and Friends in this House, having manufactured for him the needed excuse, turned round saying—"It is too late to pass this Bill." Why was it too late? Because his Friends in this House, by their obstructive "blocking Notices," played their part of the game here, in order that he might play his part there. This Bill had been brought in again and again, Session after Session. At last it passed the Commons, and was sent up to the House of Lords, where it was rejected on the Motion of the noble Earl. Let him say that he should be very sorry to find fault with the action of a noble Lord when that noble Lord was strictly within his rights. As long as there was a House of Peers—so long as a Peer sat—let him with his Conservative majority fight his battle as they in this House fought theirs. But when a Member of the other House assumed a quasi-judicial office, he would say that there devolved upon him the duty of dropping a little of the partizan. When a Member of the other House was not an independent Member of the Conservative or Liberal Party, but filled towards the country—towards the taxpayers of Great Britain—the position which the noble Earl held, it would better befit him, not only as a matter of good taste, but as a matter of public propriety and public duty, to forget, on critical occasions like this, that he was a partizan, and to remember that he ought rather to facilitate the action of Her Majesty's Government, as
    1246
    they were responsible for the peace of Ireland—responsible for the proper protection of life and property in that country during the coming winter. He should not adopt a course which even the most violent partizan would think too strong and too severe, face to face with the circumstances that now menaced the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It had been said by some of their Liberal Friends opposite that they did not consider sufficiently what the right hon. Gentleman's difficulties were. Perhaps some speech had from time to time dropped from some of his Colleagues that might seem to give ground for the imputation; but let him say—speaking for himself and many, if not all, of his Colleagues—that there was not a Member on the Benches opposite who more thoroughly appreciated the difficulties, nor more rightly valued and esteemed and sympathized with the character of the right hon. Gentleman, than he and they did. But let them not judge too harshly of an angered phrase or a warmth of manner, or an impatience—perhaps very often a too great impatience—of the Irish Members. Let the House remember that behind the Irish Members they had a people maddened with a sense of exasperation and suffering and wrong, and let them remember that the Irish Members had their own difficulties behind assailing them at this time. This would excuse a great deal that might otherwise be censured. He would say to the right hon. Gentleman and the Committee—"At a moment like this, when the strongest hand and the coolest judgment that ever ruled Ireland are needed in the Chief Secretary, or will be needed in the coming five months, it is not the time for a public official to come forward and hurl an incendiary message across the Channel." The salary which they were called on to vote that night—and which he, for one, refused to vote—should put a seal on the lips of the noble Lord, not, indeed, to make him do an unworthy act, but to impose on him the reticence of statesmanlike prudence. The difficulties of the Government would be sufficient in Ireland, during the coming winter, without this message of war from England. In voting for the proposal before the Committee he was not voting for the abolition of the House of Lords. He was a bit of a Tory in some things, and

    1247
    his Friends around him had taunted him with it. He reverenced some of the institutions of this country which, however illogical in theory, had not been made, but had grown up and had worked out magnificent results. There was not, in the whole history of Governments, one like that of Great Britain. It had grown up during a thousand years, and was attended with a Constitution which, when they attempted to transplant it elsewhere, or imitate it, almost invariably broke down. He had an old Tory's reluctance to change these things; but let them beware of forcing people to the wall—of forcing the political intelligence and judgment of the country to dive into these fundamental questions and ask why the Peers were there? Let them beware of forcing the people to investigate the physiological phenomena of hereditary wisdom, and ask why "the tenth transmitter of a foolish face" should be permitted to perform these incendiary freaks? He refused to vote this money to the noble Lord. The noble Lord might be within his right in what he had done; but, knowing Ireland as he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) knew it, he could tell him and the House of Commons that his action would have a more inflammatory and mischievous effect on that country during the next five months than a dozen Land League orators on a dozen Land League platforms. Nothing was more destructive of what he might call "orderly public life" in Ireland than the feeling of passionate despair, which his hon. Friends knew they had to combat when the people turned round and said to them, when they were impressing upon them Constitutional lines of action—"We are fighting a vain battle." The people beat them upon this point. They said—"It is hard enough and wearisome enough for our nation to have to plead its cause until it has convinced the public mind of England, as represented in the elected Parliament of England, as to the justice of our demand; but when we are asked to go further than that, and knock at the door of an Assembly that represents nobody but themselves, that is elected by nobody, that is amenable to nobody—an Assembly bowing to no public opinion at all, and that will, without reasoning, shut the door upon us and bar our claims—we ask, whenever was a people asked to stake its destinies, its fortunes, its
    1248
    opinions, its very existence on so monstrous a theory?" Could they blame the Irish people if they declined to trust the fortunes of their country and their lives and happiness to the caprices of men who, as they had seen during the past fortnight, could so easily forget the duties of Office and the dictates of good statesmanship? He would ask hon. Members to oppose the Vote, but not for the sake of going against the Government, and he would expect the Government to weigh the matter well before they entered into a conflict with the House of Lords. Such a conflict should not be entered into before they had chosen their battle-ground, and before the public outside had thoroughly made up their minds. He did not like fighting little battles for tremendous issues. He thought the Government had behaved well; but he should have been delighted to have seen them show—if he might be excused such a phrase—a little more temper, a little more earnest resentment, on the present occasion. Perhaps the Government was right, and his Celtic nature was all to blame, in thinking that a Government ought to exhibit anger; but he had to remember that he and his hon. Friends would have to go back to Ireland with empty hands from the present Session. If they had given them, he would not say an Olive branch to carry over to Ireland, but even one leaf from an Olive branch to carry there, they would have been satisfied; but they sent them home with empty hands. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members said "No!" He responded most warmly to the belief that there had never sat in the English House of Commons an Assembly more determined to act justly towards Ireland than the present Parliament and the present Government; but when he said "you" send us home, he spoke of the institution—the Parliament—as it was viewed from across the Channel. They were to be sent home empty handed, not only without an Olive branch, but with a message of war. First one measure, which the Government itself declared most solemnly was necessary to prevent injustice, was rejected on a certain pretext. Then another, which could not be objected to on its merits, was defeated, ignominiously, "for want of time to consider it," as it was alleged. On the very same day that the latter was

    1249
    rejected on that excuse, a measure involving a most useful, but still most contentious, principle—a measure promoted by an hon. Member opposite dealing with assaults on young persons—was read a second time, and ultimately passed by the Lords. How were they to explain this action? Surely the noble Lords, and the noble Lord who had done these things, had made his (Mr. A. M. Sullivan's) position untenable in a certain sense in Ireland. In 1873 he had stood up in the presence of his hon. Friends around him at a National Conference in Dublin, and had defended the right of Irish Peers to be represented in any form of National Government. He pleaded then, as he had always pleaded, for the conservation of those forms of society that had come down to them from a former time, his object being to effect the maximum of good for the people with the minimum of social and political disturbance. But who could uphold that view in Ireland if the House of Lords were to continue their present action? Not in Ireland only, but in England also—and much he regretted it—they were sowing the wind, and would have to reap the whirlwind.
    MR. JOHN BRIGHT: The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in his speech on this question, has made a quotation from a speech of mine which he remembers much more accurately than I do, spoken as it was nearly 20 years ago. I do not remember precisely what was the cause of it. [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: It was on the Paper Duty.] Now I do recollect it, on being reminded what was the cause of it. I think on that occasion that the House of Commons might have behaved with a little more sternness in the conflict into which they were drawn by the conduct of the other House of Parliament. However, perhaps what the House did on that occasion was sufficient, for in the succeeding Session the measure which the House of Lords had rejected—so unwisely in my opinion—was passed by them without the slightest opposition; and it has been a measure productive of enormous gain to the country, inasmuch as it has really set free the Press and given us the advantage, as I believe, of buying the cheapest and the best newspapers that are to be found anywhere in the world. Now, the question that we have before
    1250
    us to-night is not without its importance; but I cannot help thinking that the discussion has run too much on the part which one Member of the other House has taken. It must be remembered that whatever was the course taken by the noble Lord to whom so much reference has been made, he was only one of a considerable number who voted against the Bill, the loss of which we so much regret. But, more than all, it should be remembered that in the division on that occasion the Chief of the Conservative Party (the Earl of Beaconsfield) was one of the majority by which that Bill was summarily rejected. Therefore, I am not at all disposed to join in the idea, or the expression of it, that the Chairman of Committees in that House is to bear the whole of the blame which we may bring upon the decision which was then come to. Now, to my mind, the course that has been taken is one very unfortunate, and in my opinion one likely to be productive of great evil, looking at the various Bills which have been sent up during this Session. It seems to me that the real mischief is this—that it would appear as though the other House of Parliament, while we were endeavouring to conciliate and be just, has been endeavouring to make something like a declaration of war against the people of Ireland. I am told—I am not sure that I am accurate, but I understand—that the only Bills which have been rejected this Session by the other House have been Irish Bills. One was introduced by the Government, and was, the Government thought, of first importance; another referred, I believe, to the cost of certain legal proceedings about which there was no dispute in this House; and the third Bill is that which we are in some degree now considering, and which passed this House by the almost universal consent of all those who took any interest in the measure. What I regard as of far greater gravity than the eccentricity of a particular Member of the other House of Parliament is the general temper that has been displayed there, not so much with reference to the proceedings of this House, as with regard to the state of feeling there as to the wants of the people of Ireland. I may say, too, that I think that the temper that has been exhibited is one that may lead to very great danger; but, if that be so, I think we are hardly dealing

    1251
    with the question in a serious or dignified manner if we endeavour to cut off the sum of £2,000, or something less, which is the salary of an independent Officer in that House. We must make allowance for age; we must make allowance too for those years of power which that Officer has enjoyed, and which he has exercised with a very iron hand in many cases. But, allowing all that, I still think it would not be dignified, and I think it would be hardly just in this House to obstruct the passage of this Vote, and to interfere with the salary which—I do not know whether by the authority of that House, or of this, or of Parliament—he is entitled to receive for the services which he gives in the House of Lords. I, therefore, would, without entering at any length into the question, ask the Committee whether the protest which has been made, and made in strong language with much feeling, and sometimes even with a little temper, might not be considered quite sufficient. I generally have observed that in the other House, when there has been a rather passionate exercise of power, there comes a time of great calm, and it is much more accessible to reason. In point of fact, it becomes a little ashamed of itself: temper passing away, reason takes its place, and it becomes more moderate. Now, there may come occasions, they may come soon, when this House may have some very grave question to discuss with the other House of Parliament. It will be time enough to look to any strong, direct, and offensive opposition when that question shall arise, and when it does arise I hope the House of Commons will, as in past times, sustain its character and maintain its rights. I think quite enough of blame has been laid either upon that House or upon this particular Member of it, whose conduct has been thus freely criticized. I am afraid that to-morrow morning he will not feel quite comfortable in regard to the past exercise of his power, and whatever has been said tonight, he may rely upon it that a great deal more is thought than said which may serve as a warning, not only to him but to his associates, not only in the remaining portion of this Session, but in the next Session and in those that are to come. There is no doubt that if we are asked—as we are often asked, and as we have been asked during the past
    1252
    week—to make concessions to the prejudices and judgment of the House of Lords, it becomes that House, whose foundation is far less stable than the foundation of this House, to have respect to the opinions expressed by the great majority—the great majority not of this House alone, but, looking upon us as the true Representatives of the people, of the nation, of whose Government they have for so long a time formed an eminent and distinguished part. I ask, therefore, that the Amendment should be withdrawn, and the Committee allowed to proceed. I am quite sure that if it be possible that anything we can say or do will bring about a better state of things in "another place," it will be done by what has already been said; but it will not be advanced in any degree by anything we can do in regard to the Vote of Money for the Officers of that House.
    MR. DILLONwished to say only two or three words. If he had his way, so far from reducing the noble Earl's salary, he would double it. The reason he entertained that view was this, that he had all along considered that the protection of the Irish people was to be expected chiefly from their own action. He would not trust either to this House or to the other House for that protection. He believed that that determination which was required amongst the people would be supplied by the action of the House of Lords, and he would, therefore, increase rather than reduce the salary. In this respect he differed slightly from the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), and would be inclined to encourage every noble Lord who devoted himself to so useful a function as that which the House of Lords had performed this Session. The first time the Lords served Ireland was when they rejected the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, for, by so doing, they increased the power of the Land League in Ireland, and they had reduced the Irish landlords to a position which would prove far more profitable to the Irish people than the passing of the Bill would have reduced them. He thought it necessary to say these few words in explanation of his refusal to vote for any reduction in the salary of a noble Lord who had shown himself, by his action, to be so good a friend to the Irish people.
    SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that it was hardly decorous and hardly worthy of the dignity of the House of Commons to discuss, at that late period of the Session, the great Constitutional question as to whether there should, or should not be, any alteration in the House of Lords, or whether, in fact, it should exist at all. The real question before them now was not merely the conduct of the noble Lords in "another place"—not merely whether Lord Redesdale should be deprived of his salary—but whether they were to take away the salaries of all the Officers of the House of Lords. It had been pointed out by the hon. and learned Member for Dews-bury (Mr. Serjeant Simon) that several Bills had been rejected by the other House. As regarded the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, it ought to be remembered that in the Upper House it was practically thrown out by the Liberal Peers. If no Conservative Peers had voted at all the Bill would have been thrown out. So far, therefore, as this Vote was concerned, the Compensation for Disturbance Bill ought to be taken out of consideration. He deeply regretted that the Irish Registration Bill was thrown out; but he thought it was fair to consider the argument that was used by Lord Redesdale, who, in his judicial functions, was bound to consider the honour and dignity of the House of Lords. The reason why, as he (Sir Henry Holland) understood it, that Bill was mainly thrown out was that it was sent up to the House of Lords at so late a period of the Session that their Lordships could not give sufficient consideration to it. The rejection of the Bill was intended, he understood, to act as a protest against important Bills being sent up at the close of the Session. It might be that Lord Redesdale had governed with an iron hand; but he would ask the Committee in common fairness to consider the good work Lord Redesdale had done for many years in regulating Private Bills and the Business of the House of Lords. It had been said that the reason why the Irish Registration of Voters Bill was brought up so late was that it was obstructed from the Conservative side of the House. There was no obstruction offered to the passage of the Bill by the Conservative Members. ["Blocking!"] The Bill had only been blocked to secure a fair discussion of it
    1254
    at a reasonable hour; and it could not be honestly said that what was now called Obstruction was offered to the Bill by any Member of the Party to which he had the honour to belong. He hoped that they would not be led any further into the argument as to whether the House of Lords should continue to exist or not; because the point before them was simply whether they should vote this year's salaries, not only to Lord Redesdale, but to all the Officers of the House of Lords.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was not satisfied with the apology for the existence of the House of Lords which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) had given. He (Mr. Newdegate) considered that the House of Lords was the Senate of this country, and he was not prepared to see this country governed by a single Chamber. He would point out to the Committee that the House of Lords was largely recruited by Gentlemen who had been Members of this House, and that at no period had the House of Lords contained so many Peers who had served a long apprenticeship in the House of Commons as it did at present. Therefore, when they said that the House of Lords represented nobody, the existence of these noble Peers contradicted that dictum. Besides this, how had it been ascertained that the House of Lords did not represent the nation? For many centuries they had done so. They were largely connected with property in the country, and being dependent upon the safety of that property, the ordinary instincts of human nature made them thoroughly representative of the nation.
    GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURrose to Order. He desired to know whether the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was not travelling beyond the subject before the Committee?
    THE CHAIRMAN: So far as the hon. Gentleman has gone, I have not seen that his remarks have any reference to the money part of this Bill.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was just coming to the money part of the Bill. By the Constitution of this country the House of Lords had no power over taxation; but, in order to its joint existence with this House, certain salaries paid to the officials of the House of Lords were authorized by this House, and if this

    1255
    House were to refuse those salaries, it would show in the most practical manner its desire for the abolition of the House of Lords. This Vote, therefore, had a particular significance; and he trusted, as he believed, that the hon. Members from Ireland, who had so distinguished themselves that night by their revolutionary opposition to these salaries, would not think it prudent to oppose the Vote for the salary of the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords. He had long known the noble Lord (Lord Redesdale), and he thought that if they were to refer to those who were connected with the great mercantile undertakings of this country, they would be told that, perhaps, no man living had done so much good service for mercantile interest as Lord Redesdale in his judicial capacity. He knew that that was the opinion of a great number of the leaders of mercantile transactions in the country. As to the noble Lord's objection to the Registration of Voters (Ireland) Bill which had caused such excitement, he (Mr. Newdegate) was in the House of Commons when it passed. Two stages were taken because there were no Members on the Conservative Benches to support the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) in his objection to the measure. He now spoke from what he saw happen. He was, therefore, in a position to tell the House that it was owing to the non-attendance of the Opposition that the Bill passed unquestioned. Lord Redesdale had induced the House of Lords to pass a Resolution to the effect that they would refuse any Bill but a Money Bill after a certain period—he believed it was the end of June or the middle of July. The noble Lord had done a great service to the House of Commons by carrying that Resolution, and he trusted Lord Redesdale would be able to carry it in future Sessions. It might not be generally known to the Members of the Committee, but Lord Redesdale and other noble Peers had complained this Session that for months they were kept sitting without employment. It was only reasonable and right, that when measure after measure was forced upon them at any unseemly period, they should reject some of them in pursuance of the Resolution which Lord Redesdale had carried as much for the better regulation of Business in the House of Commons
    1256
    as in his own House. This was one among the many services the noble Lord had rendered, and he trusted the House of Lords would accept his services in another Session, and adopt any Resolution that should induce the Commons to send Bills to the Upper House at a period when it was possible for them to be duly considered; for, after all, the House of Lords was the most ancient, as it was still the most honourable Assembly.
    MR. WATKIN WILLIAMSsaid, that although he rose with great reluctance to speak upon this subject, he rose to support the Motion of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor); and he did so mainly upon the very ground that that Motion was opposed by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate). He entirely objected to the notion that this country, or the legislation of this country, ought to be governed by one Chamber; in fact, he was one of those who were strongly in favour of an hereditary Senate. But, at the same time, he was confirmed in the opinion that the hands of the Government, the responsible Government who were merely supported and practically placed in their position by the electors of this country, required strengthening at the present moment. The House of Commons had given way this Session several times most unnecessarily to the House of Lords. He had most reluctantly abstained from taking part in the discussions upon the subject whether they should conciliate those in "another place," when the country had made up their minds to legislate through the House of Commons. It seemed to him that they had given way far too much to the House of Lords, and, as an independent Member of this House and as the Representative of a large constituency, he gave it as his opinion that they were bound to do that which he believed he was now doing—namely, strengthening the hands of Her Majesty's Government in resisting the recent action of the House of Lords, by which noble Lords were undermining both the safety of the country and their own existence as a branch of the Legislature. He did not think that he should go into the details of the measures the House of Lords had thwarted, for what he desired was that this matter should not end in talk. He desired to have a

    1257
    Vote, in order that they might mark by a distinct action in this House their opinion and sense of the course adopted recently by "another place," and for that reason he should insist, as far as he could, upon a division.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, it seemed to him that the House of Lords had done more in the last two weeks to injure their position than they had done in centuries before. He would like to illustrate the view he took of the matter by a simple reference to one Bill. The Compensation for Disturbance Bill was one which, reasonably or unreasonably, excited a panic amongst landlords.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Unless that Bill has special reference to the salaries of the Officers of the House of Lords, it cannot be discussed.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he was about to say that although there might have been several Bills sent to the House of Lords very late in the Session, his impression was that one Bill—the Limitation of Costs Bill, was sent early in the year, so that it could not be rejected on the ground that there was not sufficient time afforded to discuss it.
    THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member cannot discuss anything that has been before the House. He can only discuss the question whether the salaries of the Officials of the House of Lords shall be allowed or not.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he would only say that, in his opinion, the conduct of the Members of "another place" and the conduct of the noble Earl (the Earl of Redesdale), whose salary was particularly called in question, was such that they ought not to hesitate to protest against it. He felt that they could not expect to succeed in reducing the salaries in the present year; but he should vote for the Motion before the Committee by way of protest.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that if, unhappily, a division were to be taken upon this occasion, he hoped they would proceed to it at once. He thought that the rejection of this Vote would be a proceeding utterly unworthy of the dignity of the House of Commons; and, on that ground, he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Gal-way (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). He had no doubt that the conduct of the House of Lords in regard to the Irish Bills was undutiful, unwise, and unworthy, and it
    1258
    had done much to add to the difficulties of the Executive Government.
    CAPTAIN AYLMERsaid, that the assiduity of Lord Redesdale, in his official capacity, must be patent to everyone; and it would be unworthy of the House of Commons to refuse his salary. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright) had condemned very severely the House of Lords for their late action. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned various Bills thrown out by that House, quite forgetting that the Compensation for Disturbance Bill was thrown out by a majority of Liberal Peers; and then he went on to say that the action of the Lords was virtually a declaration of war against Ireland. He (Captain Aylmer) protested most strongly against such language. No Member of this House, especially a Minister of the Crown, had a right to say that anything done by the other House was virtually a declaration of war. Such remarks were neither more nor less than suppressed treason against the Constitution.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he regretted that he could not accept the advice given him in reference to the withdrawal of the Motion. He considered he was called upon by the highest interests of politics, and by loyalty to the Party to which he belonged, to persist in this division. He altogether objected to the statement of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) that this was an undignified proceeding. His Motion was in perfect accord with the highest Constitutional principles and privileges, for it was an expression of opinion of a Representative Chamber by proposing to cut off Supply. The object of a thorough Radical was to fight against old and worn-out institutions, and he wanted to show the country what the House of Lords meant. He could only do that by showing that the House of Lords meant a single Member of that body, and that that single Member was simply a servant whom this House had a right to pay or not. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary had appealed to him to withdraw from a Division. He was thankful for the excellent observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, though he was acquainted with a great deal of what he had said long

    1259
    before the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it. What had been said as to the principles which guided the Earl of Redesdale. He simply confirmed his determination to express, by a division, his feelings and the feelings of those who agreed with him on this question.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion, because, if he persisted in a division, he would only display the weakness of his cause. He should certainly vote against the Motion; but, in so doing, he hoped it would not be considered that he was approving of the conduct of some Members of the other House in many things they had recently done. He did not think that this House ought to come into conflict with another branch of the Legislature except in a dignified way, and for grave and sufficient reasons. They ought to act in a fair and equitable manner towards the House of Lords, and avoid all unseemly conflicts. When any real contest took place between them and the House of Lords, they, as the Representatives of the people, must insist upon having their own way. He did not think it would conduce to the dignity of this House, or assist in carrying out what they all had in view if they went to a division on such a question as this, which really was of a small and undignified character, and, he was afraid, unworthy of this House.
    Question put
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 81; Noes 18: Majority 63.—(Div. List, No. 169.)
    Question proposed, "That Schedule B stand part of the Bill."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that he was so satisfied with the discussion that had taken place, that he should not proceed to move another Amendment which he had intended to move.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the discussion that had taken place. The Government had made no announcement of their intentions with reference to matters under the jurisdiction of the Local Government Board. He had a Question to put to the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board which he could not put while the right hon. Gentleman was absent from the House, having been unseated on Peti-
    1260
    tion in consequence of what the Judges stated were corrupt practice on the part of his agents. He had since gone to some refuguim peccatorum at Scarborough; but, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman, he could not bring the matter forward. He had, however, given the President of the Local Government Board private Notice of the Question, and he told him of the facts upon which he relied; but in so giving him private Notice, he had been treated with cowardly insolence by a subordinate. An hon. Member for a Lancashire borough was a subordinate, but he was always courteous. The right hon. Gentleman had been returned for Scarborough, and no Petition had been presented against him. ["Question!"] That was the Question. ["Order!"] Who said "Order!"—who presumed to say it? Would anyone rise in his place, and say "Order!" Last year he moved for a Return as to Roman Catholic chaplains in Irish Workhouses. It was presented on the 11th of February last, and was an impertinent and insolent Report. ["Order!"] He heard a Baptist Member crying "Order!" But he wanted to know why he sat where he did? His remarks should be delivered from below the Gangway, and not from the Front Opposition Bench. He repeated that it was an insolent Return. So far as that Return related to Ireland it was; true, and so far as it related to Scotland it was true; but so far as it was under the control of the right hon. Gentleman the late Representative of the corrupt constituency of Chester—[Cries of "Order!"]—he would not be put down by the intolerant opposition of an ignorant, Radical, Nonconformist, Infidel majority. ["Order!"]
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the hon. Member purposes to omit any portion of this Appropriation Vote, his remarks will be in Order; but unless he does so his remarks upon the general conduct of the Local Government Board are out of Order.
    MR. CALLAN: Mr. Playfair, I take your interference to be unnecessary. ["Order, Order!"] I think your interference is unnecessary, because I will conclude with a Motion—a most material Motion. Therefore, I think the cries of "Order!" from an intolerant and tyrannical majority are most impertinent. What has been the rule

    1261
    in Ireland with respect to providing religious education in workhouses? Hon. Gentlemen may as well remain silent, because this is the Appropriation Bill, and I will carry out my rights; and, therefore, I will not yield to any intolerant, Radical, Nonconformist, ignorant majority.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that he rose to Order. He desired to know whether the hon. Member was in Order in using such language?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think that the hon. Member is addressing the Committee with the courtesy which ought to be observed.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that he did not require a rebuff from any Scotchman. ["Order!"] They might as well hear him quietly as not. No utterance, even from temperance Members, would prevent him from exercising his rights. He had always found that temperance advocates, though temperate in the matter of drink, were intemperate in the matter of language, and they had disgusted the British public with their intolerant ideas on that point. He found that in Ire-, land, in his own county, in Ardee, they had 200 Catholic paupers, for whom they paid £60 a-year, and they had four Protestants, for whom they paid £20 a-year. In the North they had 275 Catholics, for whom they paid £75 a-year, and one Protestant, for whom they paid £20 a-year. In the other division of the county, Drogheda, they had 330 Catholics, for whom they paid £80 a-year, and five Protestants, for whom they paid £25 a-year. That was what they paid for religious ministration to paupers in his own county. Some weeks ago he brought before the House the question of what was paid for the prisoners who were incarcerated. They had now had a Return in Ireland, and he had gone over it very carefully. He found that in the entire of Ireland a great disproportion existed between the amount paid for chaplains for Catholic and Protestant paupers and prisoners. ["Divide!"] They would not divide until to-morrow. He would go through his statement, independently of the interference of a Scotch Presbyterian or ignorant Infidel.
    MR. BRADLAUGHbegged to move that the words of the hon. Member be taken down. It was the second time that he had heard the word "Infidel."
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that the hon. Member was using the expression "Infidel" towards Members of that House, and that expression ought to be withdrawn.
    MR. CALLAN: I will not withdraw that expression.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I beg to move that it be taken down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that these words be taken down?
    Question put, and negatived.
    MR. CALLAN: Then, Sir, I am in Order. I used the words "Infidel Member of this House." I repeat the expression. I challenged you to take down my words and you have not.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I rise to Order. I beg to ask you, Sir, on a question of Order, as I have moved that the words used by the hon. Member be taken down, a formal decision ought not to have been taken on that Motion?
    THE CHAIRMAN: The general opinion of the Committee appeared to me to be that the words ought not to be taken down. At the same time, I expressed my opinion that the words of the hon. Member were not courteous or proper to address to Members of the House.
    MR. CALLAN: I decline to recognize your opinion as to courtesy. If I am—
    MR. ONSLOW: I beg to rise to Order. I am sure that the scene which we now have should be put an end to. I, and those who sit on this side of the House, would always support your ruling, Sir. You have ruled that the words spoken by the hon. Member are discourteous, and I think that the hon. Member, after your ruling, ought to withdraw those words.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The opinion of the Committee appeared to be that it was not necessary to take notice of words that might have been used in heat by the hon. Member. If the hon. Member states that he declines to accept the ruling of the Chairman, I do not see that you can avoid taking some notice of it.
    MR. CALLAN: The noble Marquess is wrong. I have not declined to accept the ruling of the Chairman, and the noble Marquess knows it well. I withdraw nothing. I have not declined to take your ruling; on the contrary, I am

    1263
    acting in accordance with your ruling. So long as the observations which I am making are not out of Order, I decline to accept the orders of the temporary Leader of the House, or of the Nonconformist Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLrose to Order, and asked whether the Chairman had not already said that the hon. Member was out of Order?
    THE CHAIRMAN: I have already said that I think the expression "Infidel," as well as other discourteous expressions directed towards to hon. Members, were improper and ought not be used by the hon. Member.
    MR. CALLAN: When you have decided that my observations are out of Order, I am prepared to accede to your ruling.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I think that the words were out of Order; that they were not within the discretion that ought to be observed in orderly debate.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he would not repeat them. ["Withdraw!"] How could he withdraw the observation after what the hon. Member came to the Table and declared in their presence? Let it go by—let it slide; he would not repeat the observation. With reference to the Catholic chaplains in Ireland, what did he find? He found in Ardee, Dundalk, and Drogheda, the three electoral divisions of his county, that every Catholic, Protestant, and Presbyterian was amply provided for in the matter of religious ministrations; but what did he find in London? ["Divide!"] He would have his facts out, no matter how he might be interrupted. He found that there were 10 Unions in Ireland containing paupers for whom there were no religious ministrations. He found that in the Metropolis of London there were 10,000—[Laughter]—it might be a laughing matter for Infidels——
    MR. BRADLAUGHagain rose to Order. The same phrase had been again used by the hon. Member.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I must tell the hon. Member that he is disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that, if an offence of that kind is repeated, I must name him.
    MR. CALLAN: I am quite prepared to accept the responsibility of being named because I am alluding to the Metropolitan District of London, and I
    1264
    make no reference to the hon. Member for Northampton.
    THE CHAIRMANsaid, that it would be very much more convenient to the Committee if the hon. Member would explain the nature of the Motion with which he meant to conclude, because the Committee were at a loss, as he was, to know with what Motion the hon. Member intended to conclude. If the hon. Member would tell them of what nature the Motion was, it could then be seen whether he was in Order or not in making it upon the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. CALLANsaid, that his Motion had reference to the salaries of the Local Government Board. He thought this formed a fit subject for discussion upon the Appropriation Bill. He found that there were in the workhouses of London 4,943 Catholics. ["Divide!"] No device should prevent him from having this matter out, and he was not to be prevented from doing so by an intolerant, Radical, Republican majority. In the whole of Ireland there were 1,000 less Protestants than there were in the Metropolitan Districts. In the Metropolitan Districts of London there were over 4,000 Catholics for whom not 1d. was paid, and in Ireland there were 3,985 Protestants, and for those they paid £3,500 a-year. Now, was that fair? Take Kensington, there were 135 Catholics there; Paddington, 30; Chelsea—where was the hon. Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke)?—St. George's, 287; St. Marylebone, 290. It was so in the Return. The result of the Return was this—there were 4,943 Catholics in the Metropolis of London; and while the House paid £6,800 a-year to Protestant chaplains, they did not pay 1d. to Catholic officials. Was that not discreditable? And who were the Catholics? They were not the aristocratic House of Lords. They were the Democratic, Radical, Infidel supporters of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor)—the Infidel, Radical Members, the petty shopkeepers—
    MR. BRADLAUGH: I must rise to Order. I have listened with great surprise to the repetition of these words, and I now ask that they be taken down.
    THE CHAIRMAN: I do not think the hon. Member was this time referring to Members of Parliament.
    MR. CALLAN: No, Mr. Playfair; I refer to the ignorant contemptible shopkeepers of London—the Infidel, contemptible, ignorant, despicable, shopkeepers of London, who refuse to pay 1d. [Laughter.] Oh, I am right here. Take, for instance, Liverpool itself—and I see some Lancashire Members present—there are 3,321 Catholics in the workhouses there, and there are 4,175 Protestants. Now, how are they treated? The 4,000 Protestants have chaplains to minister to their religious wants, to whom they pay £1,100 a-year; but for the 3,300 Catholics you do not pay 1d. Is that fair? Is not that a piece of bigoted, ignorant, Democratic, Radical—
    THE CHAIRMAN: I cannot see how the remarks that for the past quarter of an hour have fallen from the hon. Member have any reference to the Motion for a reduction of the salaries of the Local Government Board officials. Unless the hon. Gentleman comes speedily to that which he is going to move, I should say his remarks are out of Order on the general subject of the Appropriation Bill.
    MR. CALLAN: I am not in the slightest degree surprised that the remarks I have made should be unpleasant to Scotch Members, and—
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: I rise to Order.
    THE CHAIRMAN: Mr. Callan, I name you as disregarding the authority of the Chair.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Mr. Playfair, Sir, as you have thought it your duty to name the hon. Member for Louth as disregarding the authority of the Chair, I have, under the Standing Order passed during the first Session of the present year, to move—"That Mr. Callan be suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this sitting."
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Callan, Member for Louth, he suspended from the service of the House during the remainder of this day's sitting."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That the Chairman do report the said Resolution to the House.
    MR. CALLAN: I beg to speak—
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is now my duty to report this Resolution to the House.
    House resumed.
    MR. LYON PLAYFAIR reported that Mr. Callan, Member for the County of Louth, had been named by him to the Committee as disregarding the authority of the Chair, and that the Committee had resolved that Mr. Callan, Member for Louth, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting, and had directed him to report the said Resolution to the House:—
    MR. SPEAKERthereupon forthwith put the Question to the House, "That Mr. Callan, Member for the County of Louth, be suspended from the service of the House for the remainder of this day's sitting," which was resolved in the affirmative, and Mr. Callan was thereupon directed by Mr. Speaker to withdraw.
    Bill again considered in Committee.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Playfair, in response—
    THE CHAIRMAN: Schedule "B"—that this be the Schedule of the Bill.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I am sure the Committee will indulge me for a few moments in consequence of what has just taken place.
    THE CHAIRMAN: It is not open to the hon. Member to discuss a question which has been decided.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: Mr. Playfair, I bow to your ruling. I do not intend to discuss the question. I merely wish to say that, as it was within the province of the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) to call attention to the insufficient payment of Catholic chaplains in the workhouses in London and elsewhere, so it is quite within my province also to do the same. I rise, however, for the purpose of saying that I regret what has taken place, because I think it has prejudiced a very important question. Under the circumstances, I am not able to follow the hon. Gentleman, and to give him whatever support might have been in my power towards remedying the grievance which he endeavoured to state.
    Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the third time To-morrow.

    CITY LANDS (THAMES EMBANKMENT) BILL.— [Bill 295.]
    (Mr. Alderman Fowler, Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Cotton, Mr. Robert Fowler.)

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Alderman Fowler.)
    Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
    House adjourned at Eleven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Heading—Facilities for Interments (215), negatived.
Second Heading—Committee negatived—Expiring Laws Continuance*(218).
Committee—Report—Irish (Relief of Distress) Loans Amendment*(207); Mulkear Drainage District*(212).
Third Reading—Assaults on Young Persons*(213), and passed.

AFGHANISTAN—MILITARY OPERATIONS—THE LATEST TELEGRAMS.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELLENBOROUGHasked the noble Viscount the Under Secretary of
  1158
  State for India, Whether he could give their Lordships any information, favourable or otherwise, with regard to Afghanistan, particularly as to the neighbourhood of Candahar?
  VISCOUNT ENFIELD: My Lords, half-an-hour ago, the following telegram was received at the India Office:—
  "From Sir R. Sandeman, Sept. 3.
  "General Phayre telegraphs through Chaman:—'Roberts attacked and dispersed Ayoub's force. Captured 27 guns. Cabulis retreated up Argandab.'"

LOCAL COURTS OF BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) BILL—PROGRESS IN HOUSE OF COMMONS.

  NOTICE OF MOTION.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES): My Lords, I beg to give Notice that, to-morrow, it is my intention to move the following Reso-lution:—
  "That, in the opinion of this House, the action of the House of Commons in neglecting to pass the Local Courts of Bankruptcy (Ireland) Bill, brought into this House for the benefit of Ireland by the Lord Chancellor, and sent down to the House of Commons on the 10th of June, and read a first time there on the 15th of June, the motion for the second reading of the same, after more than 25 Notices of it had been deferred, having been only made on the 30th of August for the 31st, and then deferred to the 2nd of September, when the Order for the Second Reading was discharged and the Bill withdrawn, is strongly to be condemned as injurious to the interests of the Irish people, and must tend to strengthen their belief in the hopelessness of looking to the Imperial Parliament for the redress of their grievances so long as the Home Rule Party in that House continue to persevere in their unjustifiable obstruction to the proper course of Public Business."
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I can only express my extreme regret that the noble Earl should have thought it right to give Notice of a Motion such as that which he has just read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Earl refers to me, or to the Lord Chancellor of Ireland; but I fail to see the slightest similarity between the case he mentions and the Bill which was rejected by your Lordships on Wednesday; It is to me a matter of the most profound astonishment that, with his experience, my noble Friend, who prides himself upon maintaining the dignity of this House, should have thought it consis-

  1159
  tent with the dignity of this House to give Notice of any such Motion as that which he has just put upon the Table.

  FACILITIES FOE INTERMENTS BILL.
  (The Lord Denman.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD DENMAN,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that the question of interments, at a distance from a church, was forced upon his notice in 1866 by the warnings of an eminent medical gentleman; and he had last year watched with anxiety every Bill upon the subject in "another place," and rejoiced to see one of them carried in this House by the votes of 13 spiritual Peers, against Amendments tending to increase the Burial Board system; but he regretted to find that, although the noble Earl now the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had at one time expressed a wish that a rate might be legalized for maintaining cemeteries, yet there was no easy method for the local sanitary authorities to levy a rate for the purpose, as had been the case with church rates. He (Lord Denman) could not hope to carry this Bill through a second reading this Session; but as a noble Earl (the Earl of Feversham) had declined to complete an intended gift of two acres of land to Churchmen and Dissenters, severally, through the state of the law, he (Lord Denman) had persisted in advocating this Bill, which only differed from the Bill read a first time last March, in exempting small parishes alone from the burdensome need for providing a chapel or chapels in cemeteries; and as, in the words quoted by the right hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) at the recent Cutler's Feast—"All things come round to him that waits!"—he would not abandon this Bill, which, in order to preserve the just rights of founders, might—in any event, as to the Bill sent from the Commons—continue now and hereafter to be necessary.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2ª."—{The Lord Denman.)
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.

BURIALS BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS.
  Commons Amendments considered (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in asking their Lordships to take into consideration the Commons Amendments to the Bill, said, that he had much pleasure in being able to state that, according to the view which he, at all events, had taken of this measure, the Bill came back to that House with its essential character unchanged. Besides embodying in the Bill those provisions which were intended to settle this question, and to put an end to the long and painful conflicts to which it had given rise, it had been his anxious desire, as the organ of the Government in the preparation of the measure and its introduction into that House, to show all possible consideration for the feelings of the clergy of the Church of England, to soften and mitigate its effect, and to prevent any of those mischiefs arising from its operation of which some persons were apprehensive. There were two provisions in the Bill to which, for those reasons, he had attached much importance. One was the provision that such religious services, other than that of the Church of England, as might be allowed to be celebrated in the churchyards, should be of a Christian character. That provision had been the subject of considerable discussion elsewhere; and he apprehended that its intention had been misunderstood by those who alleged that it was inconsistent with the principle of the Bill, which was to recognize, as a civil right to be enjoyed on terms consistent with religious liberty, the right of burial in the churchyards of this country. The civil right was to interment alone, and did not include the right to read any particular burial service, or any religious service at all. The inconsistency in the present state of the law which the Bill was intended to remedy was, that the civil right of interment was accompanied by, and fettered with, an ecclesiastical condition which required all who did not come under certain categories to be buried by clergymen of the Church of England, with the services of the Church of England; and, in introducing that measure, he had ventured to state his belief that, it was not possible to justify a state of the law

  1161
  which accompanied the civil right of interment with such a restriction. He had never suggested that the civil right of interment entitled any person to be buried with any kind of religious service. What he had said in introducing the measure was, that it would be wise on the part of their Lordships to go as far as they reasonably could, in permitting interments to be accompanied by religious services. It would, however, be going too far, and much further than any sound principle required, if they were to permit the churchyards to be made use of for the purpose of anti-Christian demonstrations, whether they were or were not called religious services, and he saw no way of drawing a line in the matter, except by saying that the services should be of a Christian character. He had intentionally used that word in its widest sense; and had proposed that every person who professed Christianity might be buried with his own religious service, which could not be presumed to be of a character to give offence to other professing Christians. He rejoiced to say that the House of Commons had, by a considerable majority, retained in the Bill that safeguard. For that he was very thankful. By another clause in the Bill, reference had been made to certain recommendations which had been made by the two Convocations of Canterbury and York. The House of Commons had struck out the words referring to those recommendations. There was found in the House of Commons, a general disinclination to adopt that clause as it stood; and that not only on the part of supporters of the Government, but on the part also of many Members of the Opposition, including some who were certainly not hostile to the Church. The clause, indeed, met with so little support, that no Division took place in reference to it, and an Amendment was adopted embodying the main substance of the recommendations of Convocation, but without any distinct reference to them. He had carefully considered the clause as it now stood; and was of opinion that it hardly departed at all from the substance of the original proposal. Indeed, it was so far more favourable to the clergy, that it provided that any service might be used to which the Ordinary had given his assent, without certain restrictions which the Convo-
  1162
  cation of Canterbury had proposed, and which, in his own judgment, were better omitted. He hoped, therefore, it would receive the approval of their Lordships. There was another matter, as to which he regretted to see that some of their Lordships thought they ought not to agree to the Commons Amendments. He referred to the striking out of that which had been the 7th clause, one which was inserted in the Bill in the course of its passage through their Lordships' House. That clause limited the operation of the Bill to parishes in which there were no cemeteries. He regretted very much, at the time, that their Lordships agreed to that clause; as its tendency was to prevent a settlement of the question, and to keep the controversy alive for polemical and political purposes, while it would encourage agitation to procure cemeteries for parishes, in which they did not exist, for the mere purpose of taking those parishes out of the Act. The Government were of opinion that the settlement of the question was of vital importance, even to the Church itself, and that great evils and dangers would arise from keeping it open. The House of Commons took that view, and, by a majority of between 80 and 90, rejected the clause; and to that Amendment, he hoped, their Lordships would agree. The remaining Amendments related to matters of detail, and did not change the substantial effect of the Bill.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he could not understand how the rejection of the 7th clause was essential to a settlement of the question, when Mr. Osborne Morgan's Bill of 1873, when the present Government were also in Office, contained a provision to this effect—"No burial shall take place under this Bill in any parish where a cemetery is provided." If it was essential that cemeteries should now be dealt with, for the purpose of closing the question, the framers of the Bill of 1873 fell very short of that which it was their duty to do. The Burials Acts were now to be repealed, as they would be unworkable under the Act, and they were at least a compromise. The motto on which the Nonconformists were acting was—"What is yours is mine, and what is mine is my own." They were to have the right to their own ground in cemeteries, and an unlimited power of using other people's. Churchmen would bury

  1163
  only in the consecrated ground, and would never dream of going to the unconsecrated ground; but Nonconformists in many cases preferred and would have the power to go to the consecrated portion, even though they had the unconsecrated ground open to them. The question would then arise, how were they they to proceed to get new burial grounds. Mr. Marten's Act, passed last Session, was said to be practically unworkable; the expense of adopting it was too great, and its conditions were too onerous; and there was no other mode of obtaining a cemetery, except such as the Burial Acts provided. Were they to ask the parish to form a cemetery with two chapels; and were they to say, that one belonged to the Church, with full right to Nonconformists to come in, and the other to Nonconformists, with the right to Churchmen to come in? This practically amounted to a confiscation of property in the case of the existing cemeteries, and to almost an insuperable obstacle to the formation of new cemeteries. If the Burial Acts were to be superseded, let them be repealed and something substituted in their place. At the proper time, he should move that the Lords Amendment on the clause be agreed to and the Commons Amendment disagreed with.
  Several Amendments agreed to.
  Moved, "To agree to the Amendment made by the Commons in Clause 1, page 1, line 13, to leave out from ('place') to ('or') in line 15."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKopposed the Motion.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he was not such an admirer of the system of cemeteries as his most rev. Brother. The existence in them of two chapels opposed to each other appeared to proclaim to the whole world that the English nation was divided equally into two bodies—one belonging to the Church, and one to Dissent. This was a state of things that he would not regret to see altered. Therefore, if this Bill brought about a discontinuance of the system of having a consecrated and an unconsecrated chapel in the same burial-ground, he, for one, would not object to it. He did not think the clergy were much enamoured of these cemeteries. They were very expensive to the ratepayers. The existence of a Burial Board in a parish
  1164
  deprived a clergyman of certain rights and advantages he at present enjoyed. Of course, provision must be made when the parish churchyard was full. But additions could be made to churchyards in most agricultural parishes. These additions, which need not of necessity be contiguous to the existing churchyards, would be infinitely more popular with the clergy than the establishment of cemeteries. He, therefore, agreed with the Amendment of the Commons.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEdid not think the objections of the first most rev. Prelate were met by the most rev. Primate. There wer6 many cases in which they could not enlarge the churchyards. Sanitary considerations required the establishment of cemeteries. If a cemetery was to be established, was it to be all consecrated? If it was, the Nonconformists would regard it as an unwarrantable concession to Church privileges. If it was all left unconsecrated, Church people would not be satisfied. It would be an absurdity to divide it into consecrated and unconsecrated ground, while the law gave the Nonconformists power not only to use the unconsecrated portion, but to have free use of the consecrated portion as well.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he might be very dull, but he could not see the absurdity of the position. They would have in cemeteries both consecrated and unconsecrated ground. While the Bill would permit Nonconformists to use the consecrated ground, which they would wish to do when relatives had been buried there, it would not compel them to use it. The consecrated ground would be open to those who conscientiously preferred it.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had supported the Government throughout upon this Bill. He thought, as regarded graveyards, there should be no distinction. That system had worked well in Scotland and Ireland, and he did not see why it should not work well in England. As regarded consecrated ground, he wished to know whether Episcopalians and Roman Catholics would, by this Bill, be placed on an equality; or whether, in the part of public cemeteries now set apart for Roman Catholics only, Roman Catholics could be buried? He feared this would be the working of the Bill, and, if so, it

  1165
  would give an unjust advantage to the Roman Catholic Church, instead of putting all Christian Churches on an equality.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that where parishioners had rights of burial in consecrated ground, whether of Roman Catholic or of Anglican consecration, the operation of the Bill would be exactly the same. With regard to cemeteries, he might state that the House of Commons were unanimous. They did not divide on the Question whether cemeteries should be included under the Bill.
  LORD DENMAN,in reference to a remark of the most rev. Primate, stated that, in his view, it would be impossible to do away with the Burial Boards already established.
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)put it to the most rev. Prelate, whether it was necessary to divide on this Amendment? The Division might be taken on the 7th clause.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he gave his Notice on Clause 7 under a mistake. That clause was very much wider than the Amendment he supported. He simply wished to maintain the authority of the two or three Burial Acts.
  On Question? Their Lordships divided:—Contents 61; Not-Contents 26: Majority 35.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Belper, L.

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

  Camperdown, E.

  Clonmell, E.

  Brabourne, L.

  Derby, E.

  Braye, L.

  Granville, E.

  Breadalbane, L. (E. Breadalbane.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Lucan, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Morley, E.

  Carew, L.

  Northbrook, E.

  Carrington, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Suffolk and Berkshire, E.

  Churchill, L.

  Clermont, L.

  Sydney, E.

  Congleton, L.

  Dormer, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Ebury, L.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Emly, L.

  Ettrick, L. (L. Napier.)

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Gwydir, L.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Llandaff, L. Bp.

  London, L. Bp.

  Lawrence, L.

  1166

  Leigh, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield.)

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Monson, L. [Teller.}

  Sudeley, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Mount Temple, L.

  Vaux of Harrowden, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Romilly, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Waveney, L.

  Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)

  Wolverton, L.

  Wrottesley, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  York, L. Archp.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Northumberland, D.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Winchester, M.

  Amherst, L. (V. Holmesdale.)

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

  Bagot, L.

  Bateman, L. [Teller.]

  Beaumont, L.

  Feversham, E.

  Denman, L.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Redesdale, E. [Teller.]

  Forester, L.

  Hawke, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Melville, V.

  Wynford, L.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Zouche of Haryngworth, L.

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Hereford, L. Bp.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Further Amendments agreed to.
  Moved, "To agree to the Amendment made by the Commons, to leave out Clause 7."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE EARL OF MOUNT EDGCUMBEsaid, that in considering this question he had always endeavoured to put himself in the position of a Dissenter, and to realize the grievances which Dissenters might suffer. Any real grievance on their part he would be willing to redress; but this matter was being used as a grievance throughout the country by men whose object was the disestablishment of the Church of England, and the overthrow of the Church. It would be admitted by all that no compromise would be accepted by the Liberation Society. When the churchyards were opened in the manner proposed, then the necessary standpoint would be provided for establishing concurrent rights to the churches also. He believed that the clergy themselves, if they felt that what they conceived to be the interests of the Church were abandoned by those to whom they looked for support; if they felt that their sentiments were disregarded, and that

  1167
  they had no hope for the future, would be very much inclined to prefer disestablishment, in order to put an end to the uncertainty in which they wore placed. Many persons had built churches and given land with the distinct intention that both should be the property of the Church alone, in the same way as others had given similar gifts to other denominations, and if they believed that their gifts would have boon interfered with they would have taken stops to give effect to their intentions. If the burial ground had been detached from the church, he would gladly hail any proposal for the removal of anything like a wall of partition between denominations in the last stage of our common humanity. In that case there would be no heartburnings. But with the burial-ground attached to the church, the clergy would be placed in very trying circumstances, and many occasions for ill-feeling would arise. All he could say in regard to the measure was that if the clergy were capable of great self-control under circumstances very trying both to their consciences, their prejudices, and their self-respect, and if agitators, who did not desire peace, refrained from stirring up strife, this measure might be a message of peace; but he could not but feel that if these things were not noticed the Bill would be the cause of great heartburning. He thought the clause he proposed was a proper one, and he would rather see it restored in an amended form by leaving out the word "unconsecrated." At the same time, seeing the feeling of the House, he would not press the Amendment. He would, however, ask their Lordships to consider well whether it would not be worth while to promote some better way than this Bill of arriving at a satisfactory conclusion upon the question; and with that object in view, he suggested that the whole matter should be postponed until next Session. It would be better to stand by the Church while she existed, and to look all possibility of disestablishment boldly in the face rather than to give up every point one by one.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  In reply to a noble LORD,
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the Bill would affect all parts of all parish churchyards; a burial trust, there-
  1168
  fore, to be exempt from the Bill, must be a trust entirely separate from that of the proper parish burial-ground. There was a provision to exonerate a clergyman from all penalties for officiating in unconsecrated ground. The noble and learned Lord then moved that the Commons Amendment, striking out the reference to Convocation, should be agreed to. He reminded their Lordships that he had already stated the reasons why he should advise their Lordships' House to adopt the Amendment.
  Moved, "To agree to the Amendment made by the Commons, striking out the reference to Convocation."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYvindicated the title of Convocation to have settled the form of alternative service to be used in cases when the clergy had scruples about using the full service. Whatever might be the opinion of the House of Commons about Convocation, they ought to recognize it as long as it existed. Although he should have preferred the retention of the words struck out, yet as the same relief of the clergy was substantially secured by the clause as it now stood, it would be foolish to quarrel about the form. He should not, therefore, put the House to the trouble of dividing upon the matter.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKremarked, that Convocation did exist, and that the mere fact of striking out this reference to it in the clause would not affect its position. But for the certainty of defeat, in the present condition of their Lordships' House, he should feel bound to divide against the Commons Amendment. Convocation did much useful work, although it was the habit of some people to refer slightingly to it. He agreed with the most rev. Primate that the substance had been secured.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEthought the clause confused in its language, because it spoke of a minister being authorised to perform the burial service in cases in which the performance of such service was forbidden. He also objected to the expression "unconstitutional" being applied to Convocation, which was referred to in the Act of Uniformity as an ecclesiastical authority.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDexpressed his regret at the way in which the Convocation Clause of the Bill had been dealt with in Parliament. Such objections to the mention of Convocation

  1169
  seemed to him to betray the influence of a somewhat illiberal prejudice, and of a very imperfect acquaintance with the facts of English history. But, as some of the clergy had disclaimed the wish to have the recognition of Convocation, which the Bill originally contained, it was hardly worth while to insist upon it in opposition to the Commons Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORreminded their Lordships that the real responsibility for this change in the Bill was, at least, shared with the House of Commons by Convocation itself, and by some of the strongest champions of the Church. In the final debate on the Bill, before it left their Lordships' House, one of the most eloquent Prelates on the right rev. Bench pulled the recommendations of the two Convocations mercilessly to pieces, and bestowed upon the whole clause something very different from a parting Episcopal benediction. He had been told, that in the Lower House of the Convocation of Canterbury itself, language had been hoard from some, from whom it might least have been expected, encouraging the House of Commons to throw out the clause, and he himself had been present in the House of Commons, when a right hon. Gentleman, one of the Members for the University of Cambridge, who moved the rejection of the Bill upon the second reading, told the House that they would not be fulfilling the wishes of Convocation if they adopted that clause; inasmuch as both the Convocations had declared that they did not wish any recommendations of theirs to be carried out unless an Act of Parliament were first passed to regulate, in a manner suggested by them, the whole course of legislation as to Liturgical questions; and no such Act had been passed, or was likely to be proposed. Very little was said for Convocation by the Conservatives in the other House. Under circumstances such as these, he really thought that those right rev. Prelates who felt the importance of the object aimed at by this clause might have been as much rejoiced as he was that the Bill was not more radically changed in its passage through the other House.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Remaining Amendments agreed, to.
  Moved, "That a Message be sent to the House of Commons to inform them that this House hath agreed to their Amendments of the Burials Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  THE BISHOP OF LINCOLN: My Lords, as I felt it my duty to move the rejection of this Bill when it was first presented to your Lordships, three months ago, I will ask leave to offer a few remarks upon it now that it has virtually become law. I am fully persuaded that this Bill was intended by its framers to be a message of peace; and that it was designed, according to the announcement made in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of this Session, to be an equitable settlement of a painful controversy. But I very much fear that the expectations of the promoters of this measure will be greatly disappointed. I fear that this Bill will be the cause of bitter strife and endless animosities; and that, instead of being a message of peace, it may prove—unless great caution and forbearance are used—the signal for the outbreak of a religious war. My Lords, these are not times, as it seems to me, for discountenancing and discouraging loyalty, and for inflicting pains and penalties on those who are well affected to our national institutions, and who earnestly desire to maintain them. But this Bill, I fear, will be found to have inflicted heavy pains and penalties on one of the most loyal classes of Her Majesty's subjects—the clergy of the Church of England. I cannot find words adequately to express the grief and sorrow, the consternation and alarm, with which this Bill is viewed by them. A very short time ago I received an address from between 600 and 700 of the clergy of a single diocese, the diocese with which I am connected—the diocese of Lincoln—and representing those feelings of sorrow and alarm; and I am persuaded that these sentiments are shared by an overwhelming majority of the clergy of the Church of England. I feel bound to declare my concurrence in the opinion of the clergy, that this Bill was unnecessary; that it is unreasonable and unrighteous; and that it may lead to such sacrilegious desecrations of holy things, and of holy places, as may be expected to be visited by Divine judgments. But, my Lords, in saying this, I am bound now to recognize the fact that this Bill has virtually received the sanction of the Legislature; and, in re-

  1171
  cognizing that fact, I am bound also to acknowledge that it will be my duty to endeavour—within my limited means and powers—to mitigate and neutralize the evils which I apprehend from it. I, therefore, feel constrained to state publicly that I have heard with regret an announcement that some of the clergy—I hope they are not many—are combined in a deliberate resolve to resist the operation of this Bill by an energetic and organized, if not by a violent, opposition. I cannot, indeed, advise anyone to do anything contrary to his conscience. I cannot recommend any clergyman to violate or contravene any of the solemn vows to which he was pledged at his ordination. But I feel bound to say that the clergy are ministers of peace, and ought to be supporters of order and law; and that, if they cannot in conscience comply with a legislative enactment, they are bound to submit patiently to the penalties annexed to non-compliance, and even, if need be, to resign their cures. But I am sure that none of your Lordships would desire that any of the clergy should be driven to such an alternative, or that anything should be done which might lead to a secession from the Church, or to a disruption of it; and while I trust that, in their present very painful position, the clergy may be guided and animated by a spirit of wisdom, patience, and charity, it is to be hoped that others also, who differ from them, may be influenced by a similar temper. And, my Lords, suffer me to add one word more. Whatever trials may now await the Church of England—and many things seem to indicate that a time of severe suffering is before her—I trust that she will never forget that she has a Divine commission and a Divine constitution, independent of, and superior to, all temporal accidents and secular powers; and that if she is true to her Divine commission, and mindful of her Divine constitution, she is sure of Divine support, and may even be strengthened by suffering and grow by persecution. And, also, I earnestly hope that, whatever treatment she may receive from the secular power, she will never be provoked to retaliate, or be betrayed into angry feelings and acts of impatience and resentment; but will render good for evil, and endeavour to promote the cause of peace and order, loyalty and law, and to maintain the
  1172
  welfare and prosperity of our national institutions, and of all classes of the community.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, their Lordships were all aware of the conscientious objections which the right rev. Prelate entertained to the Bill, and that fact rendered all the more valuable the sound, excellent, and Christian advice he was prepared to give to the clergy.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.

EMPLOYERS LIABILITY BILL.

  CONSIDERATION OF COMMONS AMENDMENTS AND COMMONS SEASONS FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in moving—
  "That the Commons Amendments to the Lords Amendments and Commons Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments be considered;"
  said, that he should move that their Lordships do not insist on the Amendments which the House of Commons had rejected, and that they agree to the changes made in that which the House of Commons had amended.
  Motion agreed to.
  Commons Amendments and Commons Reasons considered.
  Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment made in page 1, lines 13 to 17 (the said Amendment being to leave out subsection (3.) of Clause 1)."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD BRABOURNEsaid, that after what had occurred in "another place," he had nothing to do but to retreat from the position he had taken up with what grace he might. A taunt had been thrown out "elsewhere" that the omission of this sub-section had been moved by a Liberal Peer; but as 74 out of 77 Peers who supported that omission were Conservative Peers, there was not much political capital to be made out of the circumstance. The noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had stated, in the course of the discussion on the Bill, that he (Lord Brabourne) had acted in the interest of the employers, and had only stated, by way of postcript, that he believed his Amendment would be beneficial to the workmen. It was true that

  1173
  he had moved the Amendment in consequence of a Resolution passed by employers of labour, representing an immense amount of capital, requesting him to do so; but he would not have done so if he did not conscientiously believe that it was for the interest of the employed as well as of the employers. He believed still that it was for the best interest of the workmen to feel a community of interest with their employers. The Bill, he feared, would disturb that feeling and plunge the workmen into litigation, so that the only persons who, in the long run, would benefit by it would be the lawyers. The vast majority of accidents were caused by what was called "contributory negligence" on the part of the workmen; but that would now be constantly denied, and litigation would follow. He (Lord Brabourne) begged specially to remind their Lordships that, in the course of the debates upon the Bill, he had ventured to deny the assertion of the Attorney General, and had stated that he did not regard the Bill as a compromise, but that it would lead to fresh agitation. In confirmation of his views, he had only to call attention to the fact that the Gentleman who represented the trades unions, and had a seat in the other House, had deliberately stated that he would only regard the proposed limitation of the Act as the period for which the trades unions would have to wait before getting an ulterior measure which would embody all their demands. He had only again to say that, in taking the course he had adopted, he had felt great regret at having been obliged to oppose his personal and political Friends; but, in spite of the abuse which had been showered upon him, and the imputation of motives which had never entered his head, he had acted only for what he firmly believed to be the public interest, and nothing should ever deter him from doing that which he felt to be his duty.
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon the Amendment made in page 2, line 13 (the said Amendment being to leave out ('four') and insert ('three')."—(The lord Chancellor.)
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Amendment made by the Commons in the
  1174
  Amendment made by this House in page 4, line 44 the said Amendment being to add the words (and shall continue in force till the thirty-first day of December one thousand eight hundred and eighty-two, and to the end of the then next Session of Parliament, and no longer, unless Parliament shall otherwise determine, and all actions commenced under this Act before that period shall be continued as if the said Act had not expired) by leaving out (two) and inserting (seven)."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question? Resolved in the Affirmative.

AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAR.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  LORD WAVENEY,in rising to move—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that negotiations be commenced in order to constitute Candahar with the dependent territory into a free city and emporium of commerce under British administration and government,"
  said, that their Lordships would probably remember that the period when he first gave Notice of his Motion was signalized by the fact of a British force having met with a most serious disaster—one of those occurrences which human foresight could not always prevent; and, as a consequence, he was recommended by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville) to postpone it, on the ground that the time was inopportune for its consideration. That recommendation was shared in by his noble Friend (Viscount Cranbrook), and he (Lord Waveney) willingly gave way; but, in doing so, he must say he had not the least intention of abandoning it; and now, when he again desired to bring forward the Motion he had placed upon the Paper, time had brought about a very different state of things, as they had just had the good fortune to learn by telegram that the army of Ayoub Khan was dispersed, and that out of 30 guns composing part of its strength, no less than 27 were now in the possession of the British forces. Judging from that telegram, he thought it might be said that the disaster they deplored had been repaired, and the enemy was either now in retreat back to the place from which he started, or he might turn northward to Cabul, and develop the perturbed forces which were seething in Northern Afghanistan. However that might be, it was not his inten-

  1175
  tion to detain their Lordships with many observations either on the political or military position; hut he believed the events of this war were looked to by the people chiefly as a means of consolidating the Empire. What was their posiat the present moment? Year after year they had pursued a certain policy there; but he would only ask their Lordships to look at the last two years. They thought they would have been able to settle the question in one campaign; but a second and a third campaign had been necessary; and it was impossible, according to the policy adopted, to consolidate their rule. Their policy had been to have a strong, a friendly, and an united Afghanistan to serve as a bulwark against the confusions and intrigues of Western Asia. The question was, whether some more fixed and bettor system could not be discovered—whether some further security could not be obtained in return for the thousands of lives that had been lost and the millions of money expended owing to the disturbances among the hill tribes of Afghanistan. But there had been an order to separate Candahar from the rest of Afghanistan. Was that done for the purpose of obtaining greater security for lives and property in that country? He believed that by returning to the old paths of British statesmen, and consolidating our resources, India would be rendered secure for the future. If that were done in regard to Candahar, they would now secure opportunities for good which should not be sacrificed. They would take the opportunity of inaugurating a new and beneficent system external to our present territory, endeavouring to develop the national industry under favourable circumstances, and taking care that it was exercised under conditions which should secure the honour and dignity of the Empire. As to the political question, he might say that they found themselves, for a second time, in secure possession of Candahar, and he had framed his Motion with as much care as possible. The first point in it was, that there should be negotiations, although, after all the sacrifices we had incurred, and after the gratuitous and wanton attack which had been made upon ourselves, we should be justified by the law of arms and of empire in fixing our standard on the fortress of Candahar.
  1176
  He did not, however, wish to do that; but rather to enter into negotiations in order to make it a free city, a proceeding as to which he thought there could be no objection, seeing that that Prince would have been a wanderer on the face of the earth but for the British strength which supported him. He did not believe there had reverted to the Imperial Exchequer one single rupee as a recompense for the loss of all the British lives and blood which had been poured out like water. Surely it was time, in the interest of humanity, to discharge the duty we owed to India, and to see, once for all, that our Indian Empire was made secure, by constituting a strong frontier in the North-West of India, which should be under British administration. The opinion of all military men who knew the country well was that, whatever might become of Herat, Candahar could be retained in the British power. He was told it was capable of substantial defence at a very slight cost. He conceived that such territories might be assigned to it as would form a military zone within which peace, commerce, and equal laws would flourish under British administration. As to the opinions on this subject, he could quote from those of authorized representatives of public writers in India and in this country, and of commercial bodies like the great Chambers of Commerce whom he had had an opportunity of consulting, and who thought that what he now proposed was possible to be done. They would only have to make a railway of about 277 miles in length, and they would be able to convey bales of goods from Liverpool to Candahar at a comparatively small cost, and troops and arms from Woolwich might be placed in the country in from six to seven weeks. With British commerce and arms at Candahar, they would, in the course of time, bring about a very different state of things in Afghanistan. Candahar had in all ages been the key of India. As he heard it well remarked to-day, it had been the gate through which invasions had poured into that country; and it had been one of the principal routes of Asiatic commerce. It would be greatly for the advantage of commerce were Candahar placed under British administration; for by means of an improved communication with India, it might become a depot of exceeding value. He

  1177
  did not desire to establish a high-handed military despotism at Candahar, but to make that city a centre of commerce, under the protection of Great Britain. He could conceive nothing more advantageous for the distracted cities of Afghanistan than that Candahar should become a nucleus of civilization, which would undoubtedly spread around and bring with it peace and prosperity. On the other hand, if the course he proposed were not taken, they would probably leave the country a prey to all the evils of anarchy. He also considered that such territories might be added and placed under the protection of England as would secure the passes into India. He had put his Motion into the shape of a Motion for an Address to the Crown, as it was the most convenient form; but he had no wish to divide on it if it was understood that before any decisive step was taken the whole subject would receive the careful consideration of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Lord concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Moved, That an humble Address the presented to Her Majesty praying that negotiations be commenced in order to constitute Candahar with the dependent territory into a free city and emporium of commerce under British administration and government.—(The Lord Waveney.)
  LORD DENMANagreed with the noble Lord as to the importance of the subject. In his work, published at Paris in 1671, Bernier, who had been Physician at Aurungzebe, wrote—
  "Apropos du Government de Kabul qui confronte avec le Royaume de Kandahar. Kandahar cette forte et importante place, qui est la capitale et la maitresse de ce beau et riche royaume de mesne nom."
  But, in the present state of the atmosphere, it was impossible to decide what arrangement could be made.
  LORD LAWRENCEsaid, it had been stated that we were wantonly attacked by the Afghans, but he could hardly conceive that such was the case. What he feared was that we had wantonly attacked them. He would remind their Lordships that it had been stated, over and over again, that Candahar was perfectly secure; but we had now been in occupation for over 18 months, and had every opportunity of concentrating our position, yet the position had not proved one of perfect security. The opinions of certain
  1178
  Chambers of Commerce had been referred to; but they had no proof that those Chambers of Commerce knew anything about India. If that which they were in favour of would extend commerce, their opinions were sufficiently accounted for, and they might have effect given to them without running any risk on their part.
  THE EARL OF NORTHBROOKsaid, that the time at which his noble Friend (Lord Waveney) brought forward his Motion was a highly inconvenient one. In the present condition of affairs in Southern Afghanistan, it appeared to him to be undesirable that any discussion should take place as to the steps which Her Majesty's Government might think necessary when those affairs were settled. He should be very ill representing Her Majesty's Government if he did not take that opportunity of expressing the great gratification which they had felt at the receipt of the telegram which had been read to the House that evening. The arrangements made by the Viceroy and the Government of India, the success of the march of Sir Frederick Roberts from Cabul to Candahar, showing, as it did, the endurance and discipline of the troops, both British and Native, and the successful action of which they had received the news that day, were circumstances which could not but give to every Englishman feelings of the liveliest satisfaction. And those feelings were still more gratifying because they pointed to some not very remote time at which the arrangement of the affairs of Afghanistan might be concluded. With respect to the Motion which his noble Friend had made, as he did not propose to take the sense of their Lordships' House upon it, he (the Earl of Northbrook) would venture to ask for indulgence if he abstained from entering into the arguments his noble Friend had advanced. He asked that indulgence for a reason which he thought their Lordships would appreciate, and that was that at that moment there was but one noble Lord (Lord Denman) representing the Benches opposite, and it would be impossible for him to discuss, with any degree of satisfaction to himself, a considerable portion of his noble Friend's speech without, perhaps, using expressions or making allusions from which he would prefer to abstain unless those who, in the late Government, were responsible

  1179
  for the conduct of affairs in India were present. He would only say, in reference to what fell from his noble Friend (Lord Lawrence), that he had almost always entirely agreed with the opinions expressed before their Lordships on the subject of the war in Afghanistan by his revered father the distinguished late Viceroy of India. He hoped their Lordships would not agree to the Motion of his noble Friend. His noble Friend who, and those with whom he was associated, had assumed the somewhat exclusive title of the Patriotic Association, had represented their opinions to the Secretary of State for India. He did not for a moment doubt the sentiments of patriotism which animated them, nor did he doubt they might have advanced some suggestions which were worthy of consideration; but he had always thought that the gentlemen who belonged to those associations might show with advantage a little more courage, and not be so much alarmed at possible future evils and dangers which they were always bringing before the public. He (the Earl of Northbrook) thought, on the contrary, that the British Empire in India was amply strong enough to protect itself against any attack. The lesson, moreover, which we ought to learn from what had taken place both in our own campaigns in Afghanistan and in the Russian campaigns in Turkestan, was, he thought, that many, at any rate of the apprehensions expressed by the Patriotic Association were not founded upon any real or substantial reason.
  LORD WAVENEY,in reply, said, he was not a member of the Patriotic Association, and he would remark that if the noble Earl (the Earl of Northbrook) had told them that associations were not to be formed for considering the improvement of the government of Afghanistan, the mist of Simla must have obscured the noble Earl's vision.
  On Question? Resolved in the Negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow Two o'clock.