Sitting of 15 February 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Settled Land*[95]; Limitation of Actions*[96].
Second Reading —Blind and Deaf-Mute Children [85].
Third Reading— Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) [90], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—THE PUBLIC OFFICERS IN DONEGAL.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn
  1728
  to the fact that all the public officers of the county Donegal, namely, Resident Magistrates, Clerk of the Crown, Clerk of the Peace, Sessional Crown Solicitor, Secretary to the Grand Jury, County Surveyors, High Sheriff, Sub-Sheriff, Sheriffs Returning Officer, Coroners, two-thirds of the Inspectors of Constabulary, twenty-two out of twenty-seven Petty Session Clerks, the whole of the Visiting Committee of the County Prison, the Officers of the County Infirmary, twenty-four out of the twenty-six Governors of the County Lunatic Asylum, the Clerks of the Union, and the Poor Law Inspectors, are persons differing in religion from the great majority of the population of the county; and, whether the Government will make provision in the County Government Bill promised for Ireland this Session for placing all county officials under the County Board?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that his attention had not been called to the subject except by the Question of the hon. Member; and, indeed, he did not know it should have been called to it, as he did not feel it his business to inquire into the religious views of the officials in any county in Ireland. With regard to the second portion of the hon. Member's Question, he had to say that it was not customary to state very important provisions in any Bill in prospect until the Bill itself was introduced.

  IRELAND—CITY OF CORK—MANAGEMENT OF THE BUTTER MARKET.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that the managing body of the Cork Butter Market assume to themselves the power of summoning people before them to answer charges; whether they summon and examine witnesses in support of those charges; whether they impose and levy heavy fines on members of the public dealing in the market, under threat of preventing them from further dealing therein if such fines be not paid; whether their meetings are held with closed doors, with both the public and the press excluded; whether such acts constitute the holding of an illegal court for the purpose of intimidating Her Majesty's subjects; whether the Solicitor General for Ireland was for many years Law adviser to this body; whether four members of that body are

  1729
  magistrates; and, whether the Government will take means to put a stop to such practices?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have sent to Ireland for the information necessary to enable me to answer the Question, but have not yet received it. I suppose there has not been time. If the hon. Member will put the Question down again for Monday, I shall probably be able to answer it then.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in obtaining the information necessary, he would consult, not only the authorities of the Cork Butter Market, but make inquiries amongst the traders?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member may not be aware that his Question is drawn so as, apparently, to set out only one side of the facts. I must hear the other side before I can give him the answer.

  STATE OF IRELAND—CLARE CASTLE, COUNTY CLARE.
  MR. FINIGANasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will cause an inquiry to be made in respect to the refusal of the Military authorities at Clare Castle, county Clare, to send a fire engine and aid to a neighbouring farm, rented by a Mr. D. O'Brien, on the recent occasion of a fire on the premises, by which ninety tons of hay were destroyed; and, whether Sergeant Keogh refused to send the engine and aid when requested, though some fifty men of the 9th Regiment were in quarters at the time, and ready to perform such service?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I will read to the House the telegram which I received this morning on the subject of his Question, from the officer commanding the troops at Clare Castle—
  "Fire not reported until nearly burnt out. Blowing a gale. No supply of water to be got at the farm for the engine."

  THE CONSTABULARY (IRELAND)— ARMAGH POLICE STATION.
  MR. DE LA POER BERESFORDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the intention of the Government to comply with the request of the Towns' Commissioners and Local Magistrates of Armagh,
  1730
  as expressed in their memorial addressed to him on the 11th August 1880, and establish a police station at the Shambles, Lower English Street, in the city of Armagh?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that the matter had been very carefully considered by the Irish Government last autumn, and that they had come to the conclusion that they could not make any change at present in the position of the police station at Armagh. That decision had been communicated to the Town Commissioners on the 8th of October last.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If, before the annexation of the Transvaal, the holding of land by the natives of the country was illegal; and if, in any negotiations tending to give the Boers independence, or semi-independence, he will stipulate that the rights and liberties of the Natives shall be duly protected?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, Article 9 of the Constitution Ordinance of the late South African Republic runs as follows:—
  "The people will not allow of any equality between coloured and white inhabitants, either in Church or State."
  That principle was certainly carried into effect to a great extent in the land legislation of the Republic. The hon. Member will find an explanation of the state of the law, which is somewhat obscure, and could hardly be explained in the answer to a Question, at pages 2 and 3 of the Blue Book (C. 2,482). In any new arrangements which may be made with reference to the Transvaal the hon. Member may rest assured that the interests of the Natives will most certainly not be overlooked.

  THE LAW OF DISTRESS (ENGLAND).
  MR. BLENNERHASSETTasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether he is aware that the following instance of the operation of the Law of Distress has recently taken place. A landowner in Norfolk hired from a proprietor of steam-engines and threshing machines some machinery for the purpose of threshing his crops. Upon the work being completed, the

  1731
  same machinery was immediately hired by a tenant of the landlord, and, upon being removed to the holding of the said tenant, was thereupon seized by the landlord for rent due; whether, upon consideration of these facts, the following resolution has not boon unanimously adopted at a general meeting of the Agricultural Engineers' Association: —
  "That a case of a landowner who seized an engine and threshing machine hired by his tenant, for rent due by such tenant, having come before the general meeting of the Agricultural Engineers' Association, the members present desire to express a decided opinion that the time has arrived when landowners should be deprived by the Legislature of such an exceptional power, and that, in respect of money due to them for rent, they should be placed upon the same footing as other creditors;"
  and, whether he can hold out any prospect of such legislation during the present Session?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, his attention had not been called to the case only by the Question of the hon. Member; but it was very probable that such a case might have occurred. As to the prospect of legislation on the subject, he was very glad to be able to answer in the affirmative, because there was a Bill, which had been introduced by the hon. Member for Midhurst (Sir Henry Holland), and which stood for second reading on Wednesday next, the object of which was to exempt live stock and agricultural machinery, not being the property of the tenant, from distress for rent. That Bill, no doubt, would receive the earnest consideration of the House.

  MERCANTILE MARINE—ROCKET APPARATUS.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, in view of the number of lives annually lost by shipwreck round the coasts of the United Kingdom from want of proper knowledge of the use of the rocket apparatus, he is of opinion that the examination of officers of the Mercantile Marino as to the use of it is efficient for the purpose?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, for upwards of 15 years masters and mates of the Mercantile Marine have been required, when under examination for certificates of competency, to prove that they are fully acquainted with the use
  1732
  and management of the rocket apparatus, in the event of a vessel being stranded. Besides the officers, there are upwards of 20,000 seamen belonging to the Royal Naval Reserve who have actually been drilled in the use of that apparatus. Training ships are also supplied with models, and also with worn sets of the gear, so that the boys may be taught and practice in the use of it. Further than that, an enamel placard is prepared and nailed up in every ship as she is registered, showing how to use the apparatus, and printed instructions, with illustrations, are distributed freely at the ports. Finally, when a line is fired on board, it takes with it a wooden label containing directions in French and English. The hon. Member alludes to the number of lives lost annually from want of proper knowledge of the use of the rocket apparatus. I may, perhaps, mention that the average number of lives saved in each of the last 10 years by this apparatus is over 200, and from June, 1880, to the present time, 523 lives have been so saved—in the gale of October last 264 lives, and in the gale of January last 139 lives.

  AFGHANISTAN—GENERAL KAUF-MANN AND THE AMEER SHERE ALL
  MR. J. COWENasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is correct, as stated by General Kaufmann to Shere Ali, in his despatches of the 2nd January 1879, and the 7th January 1879, that the Russian Ambassador had "obtained a promise from the British Minister to the effect that they would not injure the independence of Afghanistan;" whether Her Majesty's Government are bound, by any promise made by themselves or by their predecessors to the Russian Government, not to remain in occupation of Candahar; and, whether he will lay upon the Table the terms of the promise alluded to by General Kaufmann?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the statements made by General Kaufmann in his letters to the late Ameer on the 2nd and 7th of January, 1879, are a mere repetition of those contained in his letter of November 26, 1878. I have no knowledge of anything having passed on the subject

  1733
  between the Russian and British Governments between the well-known interchange of views in 1875 and General Kaufuiann's letter of the 26th of November, 1878. Subsequent to the latter date two conversations took place between Lord Salisbury and Count Schou-valoff—namely, on the 10th and 12th of December, 1878, and the subject of those conversations is recorded in a despatch of Lord Salisbury's dated December 13, 1878, to Lord Augustus Loftus, and which has already been laid upon the Table. This record does not appear to bear out in any way the statements made by General Kaufmann to the Ameer. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, are not to their knowledge bound by any promise on the part of their Predecessors in Office not to remain in occupation of Candahar; and they certainly are not so bound by any promise they have made themselves.

  STATE OF IRELAND—PRISON REGULATIONS (NENAGH).
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that on January 22 a number of men were returned for trial by the Thurles bench of magistrates, on a charge of having "walked in procession round a piece of grazing ground;" whether bail was refused; whether these men were removed to Nenagh Gaol handcuffed in pairs; whether they were kept without food from early on Monday morning till the following morning, and were then informed that they would not breakfast till they worked for it; whether, on their refusal to work, they were kept fasting till mid-day; whether they can see their friends only through an iron gate, and are held during the interview by two warders; whether they are allowed only one hour for exercise during the day, and are threatened with the black hole if they speak to or even smile at each other; whether he will order a sworn investigation into this case; and, if he find that the facts are as above stated, whether he will mark his disapproval of these proceedings, and give adequate compensation to the sufferers? The hon. Member said, that he was not responsible for the terms in which the first paragraph of this Question appeared on the Paper. After the
  1734
  Word "magistrates" the words "in a bailable offence" should be inserted.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he should prefer to answer the Question as it stood on the Paper, the statements in the first part of it having been frequently repeated in the same spirit in the course of the debate on the Protection Bill. The charge against these men was a very serious one of riot and unlawful assembly, and nothing could be further from the fact than to describe the charge against them as merely that of "walking in procession round a piece of grazing ground;" and bail was refused, first by the magistrates, and subsequently by the Queen's Bench. The prisoners had been handcuffed in pairs on their way to the gaol at Nenagh. The outrage committed had been considered a very serious one; and as there was a change of trains at the station, causing some delay, and as no police were there, it was thought necessary for the security of the prisoners to have them handcuffed. They had been subjected to no other hardships; on the contrary, they had received every possible kindness from the constabulary. [Laughter.] If it was necessary to arrest men, it was necessary to take them in safety to the place of confinement. There was no foundation for the allegation that the prisoners were kept without food from early on Monday morning till the following morning, and were then informed that they would not breakfast till they worked for it. They were committed to the custody of the Governor of Nenagh Gaol at a quarter to 1 o'clock on the Monday afternoon. They then had provisions with them, and their friends immediately made arrangements to supply them, and that had been done regularly ever since. None of the prisoners had come upon the dietary of the gaol, and they were abundantly supplied with provisions, including wine and porter, by their friends. It was untrue that the men had been kept fasting in consequence of refusing to work, for they had not been asked to work; and it was also untrue that they could only see their friends through an iron gate. They were allowed to see their friends in accordance with the Prison Rules as regarded visitors; and it was quite untrue that they were held by warders during their interview with them. They were not permitted to

  1735
  speak to each other; but they had never been threatened with the "black hole," and they had two hours' exercise daily. Therefore, under the circumstances, it was not a case for the Government to mark their disapproval of the proceedings.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman on whose authority he has made this statement to the House; and, secondly, whether prisoners who are allowed only two hours' exercise every day, and who are not permitted to speak to each other, are not undergoing practically all the horrors of solitary confinement?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think that is the general definition of solitary confinement. The 2nd of the existing Prison Rules with respect to prisoners awaiting trial states that—
  In order to prevent such prisoners from being contaminated by each other, or endeavouring to defeat the ends of justice, they shall be kept separate, and shall not be permitted to communicate with each other.
  Under the 2nd sub-section of the 5th Rule, reference is made to the exercise of prisoners, and provides for their exercise apart and with a selected number of untried prisoners. These arrangements rest with the Visiting Committee. It was very much on account of these two Rules not bringing prisoners of this kind within the description of treatment proposed that I thought we ought to take powers to make fresh Rules in reference to the Bill which now stands for third reading to-night. It does not appear to me that the Nenagh Committee are transgressing the Rules in force for their guidance. With regard to my sources of information, I may say it came from the Governor of the gaol and the resident magistrate.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Are not the prisoners—[Cries of "Order!"]—are not the prisoners kept for 22 hours out of the 24 hours in the cells alone, and is not that solitary confinement?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the hon. Member wishes to ask further Questions upon the subject he must give Notice.

  HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—THE PAYMASTER GENERAL IN CHANCERY.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYasked the Secretary of State for the Homo Department, Whether it is the fact that com-
  1736
  plaints have recently been made that applications to the office of the Paymaster General in Chancery have in some cases remained unattended to for three, four, and even six months; and, whether such delay is owing to the insufficient number of clerks employed in that office; and, if so, whether he will consider what steps can be taken to remedy the inconvenience thereby occasioned?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES),in reply, said, it was quite true that great delay had lately arisen in dealing with applications to this office. That delay was owing to the insufficiency of clerks; but arrangements had now been made to increase their number.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—MILITIA FORCES.
  MR. ROSSasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is correct that adjutants of Militia regiments attached to brigade depots have been deprived of their lodging allowance, and, in place thereof, been given an ordinary quarter (viz. one room) in barracks; if so, whether Government will consider the advisability of restoring the lodging allowance, or appropriating a special quarter, as in the case of Militia quartermasters; and, whether, if neither of these courses be adopted, the Government will consider the propriety of increasing the pay of adjutants of Militia, as in the case of acting adjutants of brigade depots?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, assuming that the Question of the hon. Member refers only to adjutants appointed permanently before 1872, I can only say that, now that quarters have been built for all Militia adjutants, it is somewhat anomalous to leave these particular quarters vacant and to continue the allowance. But the question is under consideration, and I have no wish to do anything harsh.

  ARMY—THE 20TH HUSSARS.
  MR. LEAHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If the report is true which appeared in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 19th instant, that the 20th Hussars, when passing through Athy, whore they were billeted on the night of the 18th instant,

  1737
  committed a number of outrages on the unoffending inhabitants; knocked down a child, and pitched a man into the street, and marched through the streets uttering a peculiar kind of yell, and wanted to get their guns to clear the streets; and, if so, whether he would order steps to be taken to bring the offenders to justice?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have road the report of this occurrence in The Freeman's Journal, and I hope the hon. Gentleman, if he has not already done so, will read the letter which appeared subsequently in the same paper from the acting adjutant of the regiment in question, who gives an entirely different version of the occurrence. I have written to the Inspector General of Constabulary to obtain information on the subject; and the fact that no reply has yet been received by him, I think, proves that the affair must have been exaggerated by a local correspondent.

  POST OFFICE (TELEGRAPH DEPARTMENT).
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSasked the Postmaster General, Whether any, and, if so, what decision has been arrived at as to the petition of the clerks of the staff of the Central Telegraph Office?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, on several occasions during the present Session I have been asked a Question similar to the one which is now addressed to me by my hon. Friend. I can only repeat that the position of the telegraphists at the present time engages my most careful consideration, and that there has been no unnecessary delay on the subject. I am very anxious to fairly and completely investigate the matter; and it may, perhaps, be well to say that before arriving at a decision I shall ask some of the telegraphists (both Provincial and Metropolitan) to come and see me, and speak to me unreservedly as to their grievances on the subject.

  BURMAH— REINSTATEMENT OF THE POLITICAL AGENT AT MANDELAY.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether the Government see any prospect of reinstating the political agent formerly stationed at Mandelay?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, from the most recent in-
  1738
  formation received from India, there was no prospect of the officer in question being reinstated.

  ARMY—THE FIRST-CLASS ARMY RESERVE.
  MR. W. HOLMSasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will inform the House what course he proposes to take with regard to men of sections A and C of the First Class Army Reserve who rejoined the Colours in 1878, and had, on the 31st July, 1878, a minimum service of fourteen years' service towards pension, there being at present no Law under which pensions can be granted in such cases?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, my hon. Friend can hardly be aware that I have already, several times, answered this Question both this Session and last year. My reply was that a Bill will be introduced on the subject.

  TURKEY AND GREECE—THREATENED HOSTILITIES.
  MR. BOURKEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that a Royal Decree has been published at Athens calling the Reserves into active service; whether, considering that Her Majesty's Minister at Athens has stated that he knows it was the intention of the late and present Government to call out Reserves "only at the last moment before active military operations" were commenced, he will inform the House if Her Majesty's Government, or any of the other Powers, have made representations to the Greek Government upon this step; and, whether, as "the last moment before military operations" appears now to have arrived, Her Majesty's Government intend to issue a Proclamation of Neutrality?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, the Greek Government have not called the whole of the Reserves into active service, but only certain classes. It had been the intention of the Greek Government to call out the Reserves generally; but, on the Representatives of the Powers expressing disapproval of that proposed step, the more limited action was taken, and accompanied by the explanation that the measure was not to be considered as a menace. Her Ma-

  1739
  jesty's Government have advised the Greek Government not to take any step that might have the appearance of an attempt to force the hands of the Powers now engaged in negotiations at Constantinople. The Powers have also agreed to invite both the Turkish and Greek Governments to abstain from acts of hostility during the negotiations. I believe that Proclamations of Neutrality are only issued when a state of war exists.
  MR. BOURKE: Is the step taken by the Powers a collective step?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Each Power has made separate representations.
  MR. BOURKE: Identical?
  [Sir CHARLES W. DILKE did not reply.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS, CO. LONGFORD.
  MR. ERRINGTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to a very serious statement that evictions on a largo scale were likely to occur on a property in the county of Longford; and if he will consider the advisability of providing some means for mitigating the harshness of the existing Law pending the satisfactory settlement of the land question promised by the Government, which cannot be carried out for a considerable interval?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I suppose the hon. Member's Question refers to certain rumoured evictions said to be about taking place on Lord Annaly's property. Now, I have a good many Questions to answer about facts, and I cannot give information as to rumours and intentions; but my own impression is that there is great exaggeration in the statement which was made. The facts in regard to the county of Longford are as follows:—In the January-Session the number of ejectment orders issued in the county of Longford for non-payment of rent was three; and the cases of ejectment for over-holding on title were only two in number.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE BASUTO WAR (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. CARINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any, and, if so, what stops
  1740
  have been taken by Her Majesty's Government to insure fair and reasonable terms of peace being offered to the Basutos?
  MR. GRANT DUFE: I think, Sir, the best answer I can make to the hon. Member's Question will be to put the House in possession of our latest news from the Cape. This is contained in two telegrams from Sir Hercules Robin-son, to which my noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has sent a reply, which I will also read. The House will see, from the first telegram of Sir Hercules Robinson, that his attempt to put an end to the war by inducing the Basutos to put themselves in his hands has thus far not been successful. On the 23rd of February, Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed to the Secretary of State as follows:—
  "Cape Town, Feb. 23.—Reply from Lerothodi and other Chiefs in rebellion unsatisfactory; professes gratitude and desire for peace, but practically rejects my offer of friendly intervention by declining to submit to the authority of the law until they are first informed of the nature of the terms and treatment which will be extended to them.
  "I have telegraphed to Chiefs my disappointment at their reply, and stated that I would send it on to Ministers, who would communicate with the Chief Magistrate on the subject of it. I added, I would still use my influence in favour of leniency; but I thought their position would have been stronger and their claim to merciful consideration greater if, instead of seeking to bargain beforehand, they had at once desisted from armed rebellion against the Crown, and placed themselves unreservedly in my hands."
  The message ends—
  "I will telegraph to you presently course decided on by Ministers."
  Later, on the same day, Sir Hercules Robinson telegraphed as follows:—
  "Ministers have telegraphed to Chief Magistrate, Basutoland, the following eight conditions which they are prepared to advise in the event of rebels at once submitting to the authority of the law: —

  "(1.) Submission to the authority of the law means submission to the Colonial law and Government.

  "(2.) Arms to be surrendered immediately.

  "(3.) An amnesty will be granted to all who have taken part in the rebellion except Masupha, Lerothodi, and Joel Molappo, who will have to stand their trial, but whose lives will be spared.

  "(4.) Basutos will have to pay such tine as Parliament may determine.

  "(5.) No portion of Basutoland proper will be taken, except such small allotments as may be required for any magisterial station that Parliament may consider it expedient to establish.

  1741

  "(6.) Quthing district, commonly known as Morosi's country, will be dealt with as Parliament shall determine.

  "(7.) These terms to he accepted or rejected within 24 hours of their being handed to Lerothodi; they will not be open to discussion with the Government, and, if not accepted absolutely within time mentioned, hostilities will recommence at close of armistice.

  "(8.) If these terms not accepted and hostilities recommence, Government will not be bound by present offer.

  In a telegram dated the 25th of February, sent to Sir Hercules Robinson, the Secretary of State, in reply to these communications, says: —
  "Her Majesty's Government have learned with much regret, from your telegrams of the 23rd, that your attempt to interfere in order to bring about a settlement of the Basuto War had come to an end, and that your Ministers have made a peremptory and severe demand upon Lerothodi, consisting of eight conditions, the non-acceptance of which absolutely within 24 hours will be followed by the renewal of hostilities."
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he should like to ask his right hon. Friend, Whether, when the Basutos were invited to place themselves in the hands of Sir Hercules Robinson, it was as the direct Representative of the British Crown, or as an authority subject to the will of Mr. Sprigg and his Colleagues in the Cape Ministry?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: The best answer which I can make to that is to refer my hon. Friend to the Instructions to Sir Hercules Robinson, which have long been in the hands of hon. Members.
  MR. RITCHIE: Is the House to understand that the Government, having condemned the terms which have been offered to the Basutos by Sir Hercules Robinson, have not accompanied the condemnation by any suggestion for their modification?
  [No reply was given to the Question.]

  ARMY (INDIA)—THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF AT BOMBAY.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that the office of Commander-in-Chief at Bombay has just been filled up; and, if so, whether it is to be understood that the recommendation of the Simla Army Commission as to the abolition of the offices of Commander-in-Chief at Madras and Bombay has been rejected by the Government?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that he had recently heard of the nomination of an officer to succeed to the appointment of Commander-in-Chief at Bombay. The officer named was General Arthur Hardinge, who would be appointed on the understanding that the appointment would be made subject to any arrangement that might be effected as to his tenure of office. The recommendations of the Army Commission were at present under the consideration of the Government of India, and he expected shortly to receive from them some recommendations founded on the Report.

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) put a Question to me yesterday in reference to a Resolution passed in this House at the Sitting of the 25th and 26th of January, which gave precedence to the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland and the Peace Preservation Bill over all other Notices of Motion and Orders of the Day; and he inquired whether the Government, having announced their intention of asking the House to go into Committee of Supply on Monday, it was intended to make a Motion in reference to that Resolution in order to sot it aside. I trust that it will be possible for my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury to be in his place on Monday, and to make the Statement he has promised in reference to Public Business generally; but I am sorry to say that it is not certain that that will be the case, and, if so, I will endeavour, to the best of my ability, to state on that occasion the intentions of the Government in regard to Business. With reference, however, to the particular Question put by the right hon. Gentleman, I am prepared to state now that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland will propose to-night to postpone the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill until Tuesday. Under these circumstances, the Resolution of the 25th of January will not technically have any operation on Monday, because a Notice of Motion which is not upon the Paper

  1743
  cannot have precedence of other Notices or Orders. But we quite admit that if the Government should resolve to post-pone the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill for any considerable time, it would only be respectful to the House that it should be consulted before the Resolution of January 25 should be allowed to become practically inoperative. I do not wish, and I think the House will not desire, that I should anticipate the statement which I trust my right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Treasury may be able to mate on Monday with regard to the intentions of the Government as to the Peace Preservation Bill, the Land Bill, and the Business of the Government generally. I am, however, prepared to say, in reply to the Question put to me by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that in such a contingency as that to which I have adverted—namely, the postponement for any considerable time of the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill, my right hon. Friend will make a Motion at a convenient time to enable the House to discuss the Resolution of January 25 and 26.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish, Sir, with your permission, to put a Question to you upon a point of Order, arising out of the answer just given by the noble Lord. As I understand it, the House, having given precedence to the introduction of this measure for the Preservation of Peace in Ireland, has given up both Government nights and private Members' nights for precedence to that particular measure. I wish to know whether, if the Government waive that precedence on Monday night, they will have the power to resume the precedence for this measure on subsequent private Members' nights over the Business of private Members, or whether private Members, who gave up their privileges on January 25 in order to facilitate the progress of a Bill which was represented to be of great urgency, will find their rights revived, when the Government consider that the Business is not of sufficient urgency to require that they should have precedence over all other Business? In other words, what I ask is—Whether the Government will be able to play fast and loose with this Resolution by taking advantage of it on private Members' nights and disregarding it on Government nights?
  MR. ONSLOW: I also desire to ask you, Sir, whether, when the right hon. Gentleman brings on his Motion, at what the noble Lord calls a reasonable hour, it will not be left in your hands to decide what shall be a reasonable hour; and whether it will not also be in your power to close the debate, in order to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity of making the Motion; and whether, if Notice is given of the Motion, it can come on after half-past 12 as an unopposed Motion?
  MR. SPEAKER: What Motion?
  MR. ONSLOW: The Motion that the introduction of the Peace Preservation Bill be postponed until Tuesday.
  MR. SPEAKER: I may remind the House that the Resolution in reference to the two Bills in question is in these terms—
  "That the introduction and the several stages of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Pill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion, from day to day, until the House shall otherwise order."
  I apprehend that the qualification in those words of the Resolution— "until the House shall otherwise order" — clearly leaves it with the House, if it thinks proper, to postpone the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to a future day. But it is my duty, until the House has thought proper to set aside altogether, or to discharge, the Order of the 25th of January, to place that Motion at the head of the list for consideration each day until that Motion is disposed of. In regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) I have to say that, assuming urgency to be declared, no doubt the debate of any Motion before the House—supposing urgency to apply to it—would be considered under the Rule of Urgency; but I apprehend that a Motion of the character now indicated would not come under the Rule of Urgency.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, in reference to the ruling of the Speaker, that he should like to know, if the Government proposed to postpone the consideration of the Arms Bill, whether a discussion on the point could be raised? The House had placed its entire time at their disposal for a specific purpose, and that purpose was to be gone forward with from day to day. If the Government

  1745
  abandoned the purpose, and on further consideration found that the measures declared urgent were not urgent, he wanted to know when they proposed, to alter their plans, whether the House would be allowed an opportunity of reviewing the whole subject, as well as of passing judgment on the course the Ministry intended to follow?
  MR. SPEAKER: I apprehend that it could be postponed until a future day, because the terms of the Resolution are "until the House shall otherwise order." I infer from that that the House has power to postpone it if it thinks proper; but it is my duty, so long as it stands upon the Paper, to give it precedence over every other Business of the House.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I wish to ask a Question upon a point of Order in regard to which I find that some misapprehension exists on the part of some hon. Members. I want to know whether, in the event of the third reading of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, it is your intention to declare that the state of Public Business is no longer urgent?
  MR. SPEAKER: Assuming that the Bill is read a third time to-night, I should consider it my duty on Monday next, at the meeting of the House, to declare the state of Public Business to be no longer urgent.
  MR. CHAPLIN: In the event of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant not proceeding with the Arms Bill, can any other Business be taken, if objection is raised, until the Order giving precedence to the Arms Bill is discharged?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the House thinks proper to postpone the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman to a future day, it will, of course, be open to the House to agree to the proposition; and, in the meantime, the House will proceed with the Business appointed for the day, and if the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary is not set down for that day, it cannot be proceeded with.
  MR. CHAPLIN: Then, Sir, I bog to give Notice that, in the event of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary moving to postpone that Motion, I shall oppose it.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: I wish to ask you, Sir, whether, when you call on hon. Members who challenge your de-
  1746
  cision to stand up in their places, the fact should not be notified in the usual way by ringing the bell, so as to afford hon. Members a few minutes' time to enter the House and take their places.
  MR. SPEAKER: The object of that Rule was that the House should be saved the trouble of a division in the event of only a small minority supporting a particular view. If the bell were rung and Members were summoned to their places that object would be defeated.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I am not quite sure whether I made myself quite clear in a statement which I made upon this matter yesterday. I said then that it was very necessary that some progress should shortly be made in Supply, and that it was specially necessary that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) should, as early as possible, make the important Statement he has to make on the Army Estimates. In endeavouring to explain to-day that, supposing the Government possess, as I believe it does possess, the power of temporarily suspending the operation of the Resolution of January 25, by postponing the Motion of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, for the introduction of the Arms Bill until Tuesday, I intended to assure the House that the Government had no intention of abusing that technical liberty by postponing the Motion for any considerable time. But if, on Monday, the Government decide to postpone the introduction of the Bill for any considerable time, they will consider themselves bound, in due respect to the House, to give the House an opportunity, as soon as possible, and at a convenient hour, of re-considering the Resolution which was arrived at on the 25th of January.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: We understand that; but what I think the House does not understand is whether the noble Lord claims as a right to postpone the Motion for the introduction of the Arms Bill from to-night till Tuesday, or whether he will take the sense of the House on the subject?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I presume that the matter will be settled in the same way as similar questions are always settled. When the Notice of my right hon. Friend is reached, my right hon. Friend will name a day, to which it will be postponed, as is always

  1747
  done in similar cases, and it would then be for the House to say whether it assents to that day or not.
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to mo that it is important to clear up a point which has been raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin). The hon. Member gave Notice that when the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant proposes to postpone his Motion until a future day—
  MR. CHAPLIN: Until Tuesday.
  MR. SPEAKER: That he would object to that Motion. Now, I apprehend that an objection of that kind cannot be made, because the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stands in the same category as all ordinary Motions, and can be postponed from time to time without any Amendment in regard to the postponement. The only difference between this and all other Motions is that by a Resolution of this House precedence is given to it.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The point upon which the House appears to be anxious is that some assurance should be given by the noble Lord as to the mode in which the Government mean to exercise the remarkable privilege given to them by the Resolution of the 25th of January. According to the ordinary practice, if the Chief Secretary gives Notice to introduce the Arms Bill on Tuesday next, which it seems he has a perfect right to do, it would stand below the other Notices on the Paper, the Notices, for instance, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, and other hon. Members who have Notices. But as things are now, the Notice of the Government would not stand below, but above, those of private Members, and would take precedence over those of private Members on that night by virtue of the arrangement made on the 25th of January, when the House made a concession to the Government on the understanding that the matter was so important that all other questions should give way. If the House deliberately makes a different arrangement for a different purpose, cadit question; but if the Government claim the right to be able to get precedence whenever they choose, and dispense with it whenever they choose, and only exercise it by taking away the nights set apart for private Members,
  1748
  and not using their privilege on Government nights, then the House will have a right to complain that the spirit of the Resolution of the 25th of January has been broken. I do not for a moment mean to imply that the Government have any such intention.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: I wish to ask the noble Marquess distinctly if the sense of the House is to be asked tonight to the postponement of the Motion of the Chief Secretary for the introduction of the Arms Bill, or do the Government claim to postpone it themselves by right? If the House is not to be asked to assent to the postponement of the Motion from to-night until Tuesday, how does he reconcile that with the assurance given to the House to-night that it would be consulted when any departure from the Rule of Urgency was to be made?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I understand that the assent of the House is not necessary to the postponement of the Notice of my right hon. Friend. I understand you to have ruled, Sir, that it is within the power of my right hon. Friend, whenever that Notice is called, to postpone it. My right hon. Friend proposes to postpone the Motion which stands in his name to-night until Tuesday. I have already stated the reason why he desires to take that course—namely, because the Government are anxious to go into Committee of Supply on Monday. But I think it quite necessary to say that the Government claim no such right as that indicated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) to take possession of private Members' nights for the purpose of prosecuting their own measures, and without consulting the House, unless they are also prepared to sacrifice their own time. I have asked the House to agree to the arrangement I have suggested, in order to enable my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to make a statement upon the Army Estimates. If the Arms Bill were postponed beyond Tuesday, the Government would consider it their duty to consult the House.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAY: May I be allowed, after what has fallen from the noble Marquess, and with all respect to you, Mr. Speaker, to put a Question, as to the proper interpretation of your ruling. Am I to understand that the

  1749
  assent of the House is not to be asked for the postponement of the Motion? In the event of that being the case, will it be possible for you, Sir, to put that Motion otherwise than as the first Order of the Day, in pursuance of the Resolution of the 25th of January, which you read just now, and which gives precedence to it over all other Business?
  MR. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant can postpone his Motion, as all other Motions are postponed, without taking the sense of the House upon the matter. I have to say, further, that upon whatever day that Motion is appointed it will stand as the first Business upon the Paper.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I still wish, Sir, with great respect and for my own guidance, to ask your opinion on this point of Order. The House having ordered the Arms Bill to have precedence over every other Business, it is my intention, as long as that Order remains in force, to object to any other Business being taken before it. I wish to ask your opinion, if it is proposed to take any other Business before the Arms Bill, and if I or any other Member rise in my place to object to its being taken, on the ground that it would be contrary to the Order of the 25th of January, it would be regular to proceed with that other Business?
  MR. SPEAKER: It would not be in Order. I assume that the House has appointed Supply as the first Order of the Day for Monday next, and, of course, the House can deal with that Order of the Day when it is called on.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: When the Government propose to fix Supply for Monday, will it be competent to take the sense of the House upon that proposition, and to raise a discussion? I wish, Sir, to have your opinion upon that point.
  MR. SPEAKER: When the Motion for Supply is put, of course that Motion, as the House knows perfectly well, will be open to Amendment.
  MR. MONTAGUE GUEST: If Supply is taken before the Arms Bill, when the Arms Bill comes on will urgency be still in force?
  MR. SPEAKER: If I understand the Question of the hon. Member for Wareham (Mr. Guest) correctly, it is this—he wishes to know whether Supply can
  1750
  come on, notwithstanding the Resolution of the 25th of January. I apprehend that Supply can come on, notwithstanding that Resolution.
  MR. W. H. SMITH: The House, on the 25th of January, ordered—
  "That the introduction and the several stages of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill and the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill have precedence of all Orders of the Day and Notices of Motion from day to day, until the House shall otherwise order."
  Do I understand you, Sir, to say that it is in the power of the Government, if they think fit, to disregard that Order, so far as Supply on Monday is concerned? I think it is most desirable that we should have a clear ruling on the subject.
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not understand that it would disregard the Order, for the Resolution says "until the House shall otherwise order."
  MR. W. H. SMITH: With great respect, I wish to remark that you have already ruled, Sir, that it is not open to the House to object to the postponement of the Notice of Motion when made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The House, therefore, will not be consulted, and will make no Order on the postponement of the introduction of the measure. The House has ordered that the Peace Preservation (Ireland) Bill shall be introduced and proceeded with. The House has further ordered that the introduction of the Bill shall have precedence over all Orders of the Day, and Notices of Motion; and I understand you, Sir, to say now, that it is in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to disregard that Order of the House, and to allow 24 hours and a Sitting of the House to elapse before he takes advantage of the opportunity that is open to him if he thinks fit to use it, and that it is in the power of the Government to appoint other Business for that Sitting.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Before you settle that Question, Sir, I wish to put another to you in this form. Does not the mere setting down of Supply and giving it precedence over a measure previously declared urgent altogether do away with the existence of urgency? And must not Notice be given, and the Motion carried by a majority of three to one, in the prescribed form, before urgency can be set up again?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I wish to put this Question, Sir, to you. The hon. Member who has just sat clown seems to me to have mixed up two things altogether different—namely, the question of urgency and the question of this Rule. They are two totally distinct matters; and. I wish to ask whether, in point of fact, the matter has not been determined already by the circumstance that the debate upon Judicial Appointments was interposed between what is generally called the Habeas Corpus Act Suspension Bill and what is usually termed the Arms Bill? [An hon. MEMBER: No, no.] I am not asking the hon. Member, but I am asking Mr. Speaker. I was asking you, Sir, whether or not the House has not interposed between these two Bills already, without any special Order, a debate upon an entirely different matter—namely Judicial Appointments. If that be so, does it not answer the Question put to you, Sir, by hon. Members, whether that Order did not lay down that whenever the Habeas Corpus Act Suspension Bill came to an end the Arms Bill must necessarily follow, or else the Order as to urgency would terminate? Does not the fact that the House has already interposed a debate upon a different subject between these two Bills, without objection being raised, abrogate the Rule?
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: I must remind the right hon. Gentleman that what was done in regard to the discussion upon Judicial Appointments was done by the leave of the House, by a special arrangement between the Prime Minister and myself, to allow Progress to be reported upon the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, for the express purpose of considering the question of Judicial Appointments. Progress was reported in Committee upon the Protection of Person and Property Bill for the express purpose of taking the other debate.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPE: There is one Question, Sir, upon which I wish to have your ruling, in order to remove some of the misapprehension which appears to prevail in the House. The point upon which I ask for your ruling is, whether the Resolution of the 25th of January does not comprehend two things—one, the Resolution of the House giving priority to two-certain specific questions, and the other the going on with such
  1752
  certain Business de die in diem; and whether the two do not correspond with each other, or are intended to correspond with each other, so that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant cannot put off the Arms Bill, as one of those specific questions, until Tuesday, and thereby break the action of the House from clay to day, without the antecedent permission of the House to do so? I wish to know whether by putting it off until Tuesday the Government are not thereby breaking the Resolution to proceed with those questions de die in diem, and setting aside the antecedent necessity of having a Resolution of the House for such relaxation?
  MR. GIBSON: I wish, by one short Question, to test the validity of the contention. If the Minister can by his ipse dixit postpone the Arms Bill until Tuesday, could he postpone it until the 1st of May, and would the Order for its priority be suspended during the interval, and then revive in all its vigour?
  MR. SPEAKER: In answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have to say that I apprehend it is open to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to postpone his Motion until Tuesday, or any other day he may think fit. I have also to say that I apprehend this discussion would not have arisen if the right hon. Gentleman had postponed his Motion till Monday next. What would have happened in that case would have been this—that Motion, by my direction, would be placed at the head of the Orders of the Lay, and would be the first called on. But the House cannot compel any hon. Member to proceed with a Motion, and it would have been open to the right hon. Gentleman to postpone it until a future day. This discussion has arisen in consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary proposing to postpone his Motion till Tuesday next. If he had postponed it until Monday next, there would have been no difficulty in the matter.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: May I ask the noble Lord, Whether the Government propose to take any Votes in Supply on Monday night, or whether the House is only to go into Committee, to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War to make his Statement?
  MR. CHILDERS: I think I ought to answer that Question. What I propose to do on Monday, if I am able to make my Statement in Committee, is not to take any money Vote whatever, but to give the House ample time to consider the very important Statement which it will be my duty to make. I shall, however, ask the House to allow me to take the Vote for men, because I have reason to believe there will be no material discussion upon it; and it is most important that the Mutiny Bill should be introduced in a few days. But as far as regards the Votes for money, and the question of organization, I should not think of taking any Vote on Monday next.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY: When the Chief Secretary moves the postponement of his Motion, will it be in the power of any hon. Member to discuss the question?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the Motion is not made it cannot be discussed.
  MR. WARTON: May I point out that the question whether the Government can or cannot in any way alter or evade the Rule of the 25th of January depends on one single word in the Resolution, and upon a syllable in that word? The word is not "unless" the House shall otherwise Order, but "until" the House shall otherwise Order.
  MR. RITCHIE: I understand you, Sir, to have said that the right hon. Gentleman may place his Motion on the Paper for Monday. I want to ask, Whether, if the Motion appeared on the Paper for Monday, and had been placed there, in accordance with the Order of the House, as the first Business to be taken, the right hon. Gentleman could have postponed it without the sanction of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The House cannot compel an hon. Member to proceed with a Motion.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I beg to give Notice that when the Vote for men is proposed I will move a reduction of 5,000 in the number of men.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I wish to give Notice that on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply I will call attention to the refusal, by Irish magistrates, to grant bail for bailable offences, and will move a Resolution.
  MR. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, if, in the event of Her Ma-
  1754
  jesty's Government adopting your suggestion, and placing the Notice upon the Paper for Monday, thus giving it precedence of all the Orders of the Day, it would not become a dropped Motion, which could not be restored to the Paper, except with the consent of the House, in the event of the Government not proceeding with it on Monday?
  MR. J. R. YORKE: I wish to ask, Sir, Whether, if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary fixes his Motion for Monday, it will have precedence of all other Business?
  MR. SPEAKER: If the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant thought proper to place his Motion for Monday next it would take precedence of all other Business; but, as I have already stated, the House cannot compel an hon. Member to proceed with a Motion. A Motion is not in the same category as an Order of the Day. In regard to an Order of the Day any hon. Member can move it; but in the case of a Motion the House cannot compel the hon. Member who gives Notice of it to proceed with it, but he can postpone it if he chooses.

  LOCAL TAXATION (SCOTLAND).
  GENERAL SIR GEORGE BALFOURasked the Lord Advocate, Whether arrangements can now be made for obtaining the Annual Report of the Local Taxation of Scotland in a form corresponding to the Returns of Ireland, England, and Wales?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN): The Returns referred to by my hon. Friend are made under the authority of statutes, and a Bill has been presented in the other House of Parliament to authorize the collection of corresponding Returns from Scotch local authorities.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 90.]
  (Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt.)
  THIRD READING. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  [SECOND NIGHT.]
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Ques-

  1755
  tion [24th February],"That the Bill be now read the third time.".—{Mr. William Edward Forster.)
  And which Amendment was, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Justin M' Carthy.)
  Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  Debate resumed.
  MR. MOLLOYsaid, he must, in accordance with what he felt to be the bounden duty of every hon. Member representing an Irish constituency, protest to the last, in their name and his own, against the passing of the measure. It seemed to him useless to do more than give expression to that protest in a few words; but he thought it incumbent on him to point out to the House the grounds upon which he opposed it. If he had believed for one moment that the measure was necessary, or that any good could result from it, he should have considered it his duty, not exactly to have supported it, but to have remained silent with regard to it; but, in view of what had taken place in that House, he had come to the conclusion that the whole of the Bill was based upon panic and exaggeration; and that panic seemed to have been begun by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland himself, because, on the 27th December, what was being done in Dublin was according to his orders. He (Mr. Molloy) took a walk from his hotel to the Castle, and he then found the gates closed, and the guards doubled, and to all intents and purposes Dublin was in a state of siege. There were no less than 6,000 troops within the walls, and all the guns were loaded. The Press of England, too, had represented every trivial occurrence as one of alarming character; but if the House knew the sources whence that information came it would be of a different opinion with regard to the state of Ireland. As an instance of the system of exaggeration practised, he would mention that some time since he called to see a friend of his in London (a gallant colonel in the Army), and not finding him at home he left a Maw-threatening note for him, admonishing him not to be out again when he returned. By some means the
  1756
  note got out of the possession of his friend, and the next he (Mr. Molloy) saw of it was its appearance in the Paris papers. The Figaro of that city actually hold up that as a genuine example of the threatening letters by which landlords were intimidated in Ireland. This incident should convince hon. Members that every threatening letter was not necessarily the forerunner of outrages. Many of these letters, of which so much had been made, had been written in Trinity College, Dublin, by students who wore more prone to joke than to study. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred on several occasions to the statements of Judges and Grand Juries in Ireland; but he (Mr. Molloy) never yet heard him repeat that which would have been evidence, not on his side, but against him, therefore he would call attention to the fact that on the 21st January, at Tullamore, the Grand Jury agreed to a resolution calling the attention of Government to the light character of the crimes which were before them, and protested against the baseless imputations which had been made against the Irish people as the ground for suspending their Constitutional liberties. Notwithstanding the fact that there were only two dissentients from that resolution, the County Court Judge declined to allow the resolution to be put, or to allow any publication of the resolution at the end of December, thus burking the expression of a most important opinion. What would be the result of such a panic-stricken policy? It would make people think that things were much worse than they were; and when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War (Mr. Childers) was asked if he had given directions to guard all the armouries against possible attacks, he replied, almost in a whisper, that he had, and then begged the hon. Member who put the Question not to press him further on the point, just as if he was in possession of the most dangerous schemes for the destruction of the British power. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant declared, when introducing the Bill, that he would justify its introduction by the list of the outrages that had been committed, and which he was then in possession of; but, when it came to the point, he had nothing to depend on but his Returns,

  1757
  which had since been practically demolished, and turned into the most absolute ridicule. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), who would not, in his (Mr. Molloy's) opinion, have spoken at all if he had not been greatly pressed by his Colleagues, it contained one of the most extraordinary theories ever propounded. Putting the outrages entirely aside, the right hon. Gentleman said that he had received letters from Ireland which justified the introduction of coercive measures. It was surprising that the right hon. Gentleman had no stronger ground for advocating the measure than private correspondence. What would have been thought if he (Mr. Molloy) and his Friends had opposed the measure on similar grounds, or if any humble and private Member of Parliament had got up and pleaded in support of his case that he had received a number of private letters, the contents of which and the names of the writers of which he refused to give. Why, he would have been greeted with loud laughter and ridicule. But when a responsible Minister stood up and said the same thing, they must blindly accept it, and follow his lead. It was a fact perfectly well known—it was discussed in the Lobbies and smoke room, and elsewhere—that the Government, by the course which they had adopted, had put the greatest strain upon their Radical supporters which had ever yet been put upon them by asking them to vote for a measure which was contrary to their conscience. It was well that the Government and those outside the House should know that the Radical Members had supported the Government in that measure, not because they believed in its necessity—not because it was a wise act on the part of the Government — but simply because they would not incur the responsibility of defeating them, and because they thought the present Government was the only one likely to consider the claims of Ireland. They argued to themselves whether it would be good to throw out the present Government, when there was no other Government with which they could ally themselves. They therefore supported the Government solely and simply because they wished to keep the Liberal Ministry on the Treasury Benches. That alone was one of the
  1758
  strongest condemnations of the introduction of this Government Bill, and the very poor case the Government had made. But there was a still stronger circumstance, by which a worse result had been brought about, in the history of the Bill. The Government, in their anxiety to carry this measure, in the panic into which they had seemed to have fallen, were not content until they had succeeded in placing restrictions upon the freedom of debate. The new Rules or arrangements, accordingly, had been introduced. Then followed the curious spectacle, which must have been painful to every Liberal, of the Leader of a Tory Opposition advocating rights which a Liberal Government was seeking to curtail. The Tories were the supporters, as against the Liberals, of liberty of speech and the rights of minorities. But the fact was that the Government had only been induced to bring in the Bill because they were afraid to meet the Opposition without some such measure. At the end of last Session the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in discussing the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, said that if the Government were compelled to introduce a measure of coercion, they would not do so without, at the same time, bringing in a Land Bill. All had hoped that the promise so made would have been carried into effect; but how had the right hon. Gentleman kept his promise? He had laid upon the Table a Coercion Bill, the worst and most stringent ever brought before the House. Where was the Land Bill? Where was the distinct and solemn promise which the right hon. Gentleman made to that House at the end of last Session? All they knew was that the promise had not yet been kept, though every opportunity had been given the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Molloy) would repeat, that the right hon. Gentleman had simply gone headlong into the Coercion Bill, the worst and the hardest ever introduced to that House. It might, however, be said, "What suggestion have you to make?" He could give no better answer than by referring to the words, which had since become famous, of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, uttered during the Recess, that "force is no remedy." He (Mr. Molloy) was in Ireland at the time those memorable words wore uttered, and soon afterwards

  1759
  he addressed his constituents at a public meeting. He wished the Chief Secretary for Ireland could have been present at that meeting. The effect produced was magical. The people wore full of joy and hope. He felt sure that if the right hon. Gentleman could have realized the feelings of that meeting; if Her Majesty's Government could have been able to see and appreciate fully the magic effect which those words had on the people; if they had seen how much hope and peace it brought them they would not have taken the course they had, but would have commenced the Session with a measure of remedy, and not of coercion. He could not describe the pain which the proceedings of Her Majesty's Ministers had caused himself and others. There was only the painful duty left them to protest against the measure. They must continue that protest, though, from what he saw around him, he felt it had about as much effect on the minds of hon. Gentlemen as though they were speaking to the four brick walls within which he (Mr. Molloy) was then speaking, with not a single person to reply. It would be quite as useful to speak to those walls as to the Government in their panic-stricken frame of mind. He should vote against the third reading.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he was one of those who had hitherto given silent but consistent support to Her Majesty's Government in all the stages of that Bill; and, indeed, he would not speak that night did he think his doing so would impede its progress. But, as he understood the whole of that evening was to be given up to the final stage of that drastic Bill, perhaps the House would allow him a few minutes of their attention. During the past autumn, with the exception of a very few weeks, he was continually in Ireland —during the whole period between the close of the late Session and the summoning of Parliament in January. He could confirm, so far as his own personal knowledge and correspondence went, that, sad and extraordinary as had been the statements made by Her Majesty's Ministers as to the condition of Ireland, those statements rather underrated, than exaggerated, the position of affairs in certain portions of that island. Now, in reply to the statements of Her Majesty's Ministers, there had been one steady
  1760
  reiterated charge on the part of the Irish Members, and that had been to the effect that Her Majesty's Ministers had been guilty of gross exaggeration; that the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had been studying melodrama under some tragedian; that the Homo Secretary had made statements in that House for the purpose of terrifying in which he himself did not believe; and that, in fact, the main object of Her Majesty's Government had been to create panic and prejudice against the Irish people, in order to enable them to pass that drastic Coercion Bill. Well, he (Lord George Hamilton) believed that, so far as he was concerned, and so far as concerned most of them on the Conservative side of the House when there was a conflict as regarded matter of fact between a responsible Minister and an irresponsible Member of the House, they were inclined to support the responsible Minister. But, if any one single thing could give colour, form, and consistency to the charges which the Irish Members had made that Her Majesty's Government had been guilty of gross exaggeration—if anything could do that, it would be the abandonment of the Arms Bill. [Laughter.] Right hon. Gentlemen laughed—-perhaps forgetting what they bad been told. The Prime Minister had said that the first conditions of a civilized and Christian country were wanting in Ireland. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken of the village tyrant who domineered in certain parts of Ireland, and whom it was necessary to suppress. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had used language as strong, saying that miscreants were able to terrorize over their neighbours; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the previous evening, in his impressive oration, had brought home to them the dangerous character of the conspiracy with which he had to deal. The whole point of all these arguments was that a certain portion of the people of Ireland were in possession of arms, and were able to terrorize and domineer over their neighbours. Not only that, but the right hon. Gentleman, in his speech last night, had used this expressive phrase—"You must stamp upon those men, the enemies of society, as you would upon vipers." He (Lord George Hamilton) thought

  1761
  the right hon. Gentleman had used the word viper for a special reason. The viper was innocuous, if they drew its fangs. It would hurt no one any more than the most harmless snail; and the object of the Arms Bill was to prevent the people from getting—
  MAJOR NOLANrose to Order, and asked Mr. Speaker whether the noble Lord was in Order when he advocated the introduction of an Arms Bill on the Motion for the third reading of the Protection of Person and Property Bill?
  MR. SPEAKER: The observations of the noble Lord are not irrelevant to the Bill before the House.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTON,in continuation, said he had not the slightest desire to offend against the Rules of the House by entering into a discussion of the Arms Bill; and he believed he should be able, in the few remarks he had to make, to confine himself to the ordinary Rules of debate. The whole argument of the Government had been that they had met with difficulties caused by the possession of arms enabling these people to commit outrages, which might be removed if they were able to pass an Arms Bill, and if they postponed that measure, he considered they would render themselves open to the charge which had been brought against them by the Irish Members—namely, that they had greatly exaggerated the existing state of affairs for the purpose of influencing the English people against the people of Ireland. He had been much struck by hearing hon. Members opposite rise and declare that they supported this measure of coercion with the utmost pain and reluctance; but, if that fooling was genuine, would they follow him for a short time whilst he showed them how that pain and reluctance could have been spared, and how they could have prevented the necessity of suspending the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland for the next 18 months? They had heard a good many nursery rhymes quoted in the course of the debate; but there was an old saying and a very short one, and which was peculiarly applicable in this case—"A stitch in time saves nine." Could anyone doubt that, if the Government had pursued another course in the present Irish difficulty, the House would not now have been discussing this Bill? The Opposition, in supporting that Bill, was placed in a very diffi-
  1762
  cult position. The Liberal Party had declared that their opponents were always in favour of coercion—that they were always bringing coercive measures forward, and, to use an expression of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella), they did not care how they got it so long as it was "hot and strong." Well, now the right hon. Gentleman's experience in the House was the same as his (Lord George Hamilton's); they had both been, in Parliament 13 years, and during that time Lord Beaconsfield had been in Office six years and a half, and the present Prime Minister had occupied Office for the same period. The present Prime Minister had had the advantage of periods of extraordinary prosperity, but Lord Beaconsfield had had to lead during periods of extraordinary depression; but let them mark their relative contributions to coercive legislation for Ireland. Including the present Session, five coercive measures had been proposed, of which four emanated from the present Prime Minister and one only from Lord Beaconsfield. But that was not all. Those introduced by the present Prime Minister were enormously vigorous and stringent, and added greatly to the existing law; whereas the Bill of Lord Beaconsfield immensely relaxed the existing law. He wanted to know how hon. Gentlemen opposite who talked of making it "hot and strong" accounted for the important fact that, whenever the two right hon. Gentlemen, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, came into Office, these severe measures immediately became necessary? They were told that what was wanted was remedial legislation. There were no two men who made larger promises in that direction than those right hon. Gentlemen. This is not all; for in one of his speeches on this subject, the Prime Minister pressed home this serious charge on the Land League; he said—"The steps of crime dog the steps of the Land League." The right hon. Gentleman enforced the argument by figures, and he arrived at the conclusion that some restriction was necessary and must be imposed on the Land League. It struck him (Lord George Hamilton) at the time that this was a rather dangerous argument for a Member of the present Government to use; because it was an

  1763
  argument capable of application to others than Land Leaguers. It was a melancholy, but undeniable fact that the return of the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster to Office was coincident with the outbreak of agrarian outrage in Ireland. The figures were very remarkable. In 1866 the Conservative Party came into Office. The Habeas Corpus Act was suspended in that year; but it did not refer to agrarian outrages; and therefore the fluctuation of figures in his Return was not affected. In 1866 the agrarian outrages were 87; in 1867 they were 123; in 1858—the Conservatives left Office in December of that year—they wore 160. Then the present Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster came into Office, and the change was marvellous. In 1869 the agrarian outrages were 767; in 1870 they were 1,329; but those figures should not, in any way, convey to the House any idea of what was the condition of the country in 1870. In the first throe months of that year there were upwards of 1,050 outrages; and it was then said, as now, that remedial legislation ought to precede coercion. That, in fact, was in 1870, and what was the result? Why, that the second reading of the Land Bill of that year had to be postponed until a drastic Coercion Bill was pushed through the House. It proved insufficient; and the next year the most stringent Coercion Act ever applied to Ireland—namely, the Westmeath Act, was passed, and the outrages to a certain extent diminished. The Liberal Party left Office in 1874; and the Conservatives came back. The outrages in 1874, under the late Government, were 213; and in 1875, 136. In 1875 the then Conservative Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Baronet (Sir Michael Hicks Beach), removed the more oppressive portions of the Coercion Act—such as the Press-gagging Clause and the Curfew Clause. In 1876 the outrages were 212; in 1877, 236; in 1878, 301. Then came a very bad year—a year of most extraordinary depression in agriculture and much agitation. The outrages in 1879 were 863. Then came back the present Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the outrages in 1880 were 2,509. How was that to be accounted for? It could not be the result of accident. This phe-
  1764
  nomena did not occur with ever-recurring regularity by accident. History did not repeat itself like that, and the true reason, not a pleasant one, was this— that when Lord Beaconsfield was in Office his political opponents in Opposition allowed themselves a licence of language and action which was incompatible with the subsequent discharge of their duties as Ministers of the Crown. Twice, in his (Lord George Hamilton's) short experience, had the leading Members of the Liberal Party, with marvellous skill, inflamed every passion and appealed to every prejudice, and by the inflaming of the passions and the arousing of discontent they had been floated back to Office; and then what happened? Twice the same tiling had happened. A few months afterwards a cry came forth from the other side of the Table asking those who had been turned out of Office to aid the Government in coercing those who had put the Government into Office. He had no sympathy whatever with the Land League. He thought it much to be deplored that men of the unquestionable ability and energy of those who formed the Land League should devote themselves to an agitation which had borne disastrous fruits in Ireland; but still the other night he did feel a little sympathy with two hon. Members of that Party. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) quoted extracts from the speeches made by the present Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster; and he put this question to the Treasury Bench —"Under this Bill any of us is liable to be sent to prison if we incite to a breach of the law. If I adopt language similar to this, should I be sent to prison for 18 months?" There was no answer from the Treasury Bench, for it was not in the power of anyone to deny that language of the nature of that used by those two right hon. Gentlemen was calculated to lead to a breach of the peace. Was it right, then, for right hon. Gentlemen to use language like that, and then, when they got back to Office, propose a Bill to the House to stringently punish those whom they had incited to commit a breach of the peace? He did not wish to dogmatize as to the rules on which Party warfare should be conducted. No once could doubt that there was a bad side to Government by Party; still, hitherto, there was one re-

  1765
  deeming safeguard, and that was the sense of responsibility with which the Leaders in Opposition were supposed to speak. That responsibility arose from the knowledge that, on the resumption of Office, they might be called upon to test the sincerity of their language in Opposition. If that safeguard were once destroyed; if a man possessed of extraordinary rhetorical power used, in Opposition, polemical language which could not afterwards be defended, then it seemed that the healthy instincts and safeguards of English Party life were swept on one side. The Leaders could say what they liked; and the rank and file, under the influence of the Caucus, could vote as they were told; and then they would have realized —? fully realized — the principles laid down by a distinguished Whig in Opposition— that the main function of the Opposition was to oppose everything, to propose nothing, and to turn out the Government. He might be told that the Tory Party always objected to anything approaching to agitation, but that, without agitation, it would not be possible to achieve in the future reforms similar to those achieved in the past. That might be quite true; but it seemed to him that whoever embarked in agitation, whether to become a Minister of the Crown or simply to obtain popularity, did so at his own peril. Agitation was very much like fire—it was a very good servant, but a very bad master. The Liberal Party, during the last three years, found agitation a very useful drudge. They had taxed its capacity to the utmost; but now that the were in Office they proposed to imprison it. Indeed, when he looked back to the inflammatory speeches delivered by many Members of the Government, he confessed that he did not wonder that they were reluctant to apply to Parliament for coercive legislation. Having been in Ireland during the whole of the autumn, he could truly say that there were certain incautious phrases dropped by Members of the Government, which did almost as much to promote the Land League as the speeches of any members of that organization. The almost universal opinion of the farmers in Ireland was that the Government were conniving at that agitation. The argument they used was, that the Government wanted to pass a strong
  1766
  Land Bill, and therefore they let the movement gain a certain head in order to frighten the landlords. It was said, over and over again—"If the Government are in earnest, and wish to stop the agitation, and if, in their opinion, it is a conspiracy, then why do they not prohibit the meetings?" He had heard a good many attacks made on the Irish tenants. Those tenants were, last autumn, subject to influences which it would be difficult to describe. As an hon. Friend of his had said, in an eloquent speech at Chesterfield, the two incentives which most animate human action — cupidity and fear — were remorselessly applied to the Irish tenant. And, remembering the inaction of the Government, both by speech and deed, the wonder was, not that so many of the tenants refused to pay rent, but that so many of them did pay rent. Now, what would be the result of that Coercion Bill? Since those discussions began, he was bound to say there had been a very remarkable change in the demeanour and language of the Cabinet, as compared with the speeches they made last year. But what they had a right to complain of was this—if, last year, the Government had shown one-half the energy they now displayed— if they had then spoken in the same voice as they now did, the House certainly would not have been considering this Coercion Bill. He did not know whether the House recollected the solemn words which, on the first occasion that this Parliament met, the Government put into the mouth of the Sovereign. In a paragraph of the Queen's Speech, referring to Ireland, it was said—
  "My desire to avoid the evils of exceptional legislation in abridgment of liberty would not induce me to forego, in any degree, the performance of the first duty of every Government in providing security for life and property;"
  and the speech went on to express a determination "to fulfil this sacred obligation." There was, therefore, a most distinct and solemn pledge given by the Government that nothing would, under any circumstances whatever, induce them to forego the sacred obligation of providing for the security of life and property. Well, during the months of October, November, and December, many requests were made to the Government

  1767
  from different quarters to summon Parliament in order to strengthen the law and enable it to cope with the dangers which were then daily increasing in Ireland; and one defence, which was repeated in hundreds of newspapers, and on many platforms, by the supporters of the Government, was, that the ordinary law was amply sufficient to deal with those evils. It was further pointed out that the Government had solemnly pledged itself, the moment the ordinary law proved insufficient, to apply to Parliament for additional powers. What had become of the solemn obligation so undertaken last year? By their own admission, by their own action at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, they had admitted that, for the last three months, law had been broken; because, in reply to a strong request made from below the Gangway, by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), the Bill had been made retrospective, or retro-active, to the 1st of October last. What did that mean, but that from the 1st of October, in the opinion of the Government, the ordinary law had been insufficient? If the ordinary law had, after that time, been sufficient, the Bill ought not to have been thus made retrospective. If it was insufficient, the Government had broken one of the most solemn pledges ever given to Parliament by a Ministry. He did not blame the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. That right hon. Gentleman had, he believed, been a great deal too much attacked and abused. He believed that, during the past four months, no man had been more anxious to do his duty than the right hon. Gentleman; but they knew there had been obstruction in the Cabinet. And what had been the results of the Government not redeeming the solemn pledge which, last year, they gave to Parliament? What had we gained? What had we lost? Well, the unity of the Liberal Party had been maintained for three months longer, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, having had time given him for reflection on his celebrated saying that "Force is no remedy," had evidently come to the conclusion that it was unwise, and had made two eloquent speeches in exactly the opposite sense. That was all that had been
  1768
  gained; but what had they lost? They had allowed a social convulsion to take place in Ireland; they had allowed social ties to be broken, and an amount of mischief to be done, which would not be repaired for many long years to come. They had been compelled, in consequence of the increase of outrages which their inaction permitted, to make appeals to the people of England and Scotland, which had undoubtedly promoted a bad feeling towards Ireland, and the progress of that country had been thrown back for many years. They desired to encourage the flow of capital into Ireland, and to discourage absenteeism; but, by allowing a dangerous agitation to run its course unchecked, they had dealt a fatal blow at the confidence indispensable to the introduction of capital into that country; while, on the other hand, they had enormously encouraged absenteeism. That was not all. The House had been deprived of that freedom of speech which for centuries had been its boast; and, having lost all these, the Government, having failed so long to fulfil their solemn obligation, they had been at last obliged to come down and propose what was almost the most stringent and drastic measure of coercion ever applied to Ireland. What was the cause of that? Why, that a certain number of Members of the Government were so tied hand and foot by the unwise speeches they had made against the late Government that they had not the courage to perform their first duty. He protested against that conduct and that policy. They had gone back 11 years. The House was, in regard to Ireland, exactly in the same position as it was in 1870. The most profuse and reckless promises had then been made by the present Prime Minister. A settlement of the Land Question was to be effected once and for ever. The agitation which they had aroused when in Opposition created such a state of affairs that their Land Bill was succeeded, as it had been preceded, by a drastic Coercion Act. In course of time the Liberal Party went out of Office, and the Conservatives came in. Then exactly the same course of agitation began. They were now to have another Land Bill preceded by a drastic Coercion Bill. The very success of the policy of agitation brought the more speedy retribution. In these de-

  1769
  bates they had seen a natural exasperation on the part of the Irish Members, whom it was proposed to coerce; and that was not to be wondered at, considering that it was the Irish vote which was, perhaps, almost the most effective agent in bringing the Government into power. ["No, no!"] Why, it was regarded as of so much value to hon. Gentlemen that, in order to obtain it, they had promised to support the appointment of a Committee which they knew would not be granted. They had scenes, in consequence, of the Obstructive practices of certain hon. Gentlemen from Ireland. Now, did anyone in his senses suppose that that Obstruction would have obtained its present dimensions if the talking powers of the Irish Members had not been utilized when the Conservatives were in Office? He asked, were they always to go on in the same weary track? Were they perpetually, whenever the Liberal Party was in Opposition, to have the Irish people so excited by agitation as to render all remedial legislation absolutely useless? If they believed it was by remedial and just legislation alone that Ireland could be quieted, nothing could be more foolish than to excite expectation on the part of those for whom they were about to legislate which they could not satisfy. During the last autumn they had allowed the tenants all over Ireland to believe that a Land Bill would be introduced on their behalf, which would give them, at a very little cost, the land that they now occupied. The more moderate, the more sensible, the more in accordance with sound principles the Land Bill was, the greater would be the revulsion of feeling in Ireland. He did not say that the land system in Ireland was perfect. He durst say that there were bad landlords, just as there were bad persons among other classes. But who wore the bad landlords? They were men who belonged to the same economical school as the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. The principles which had actuated that distinguished Gentleman with reference to the Irish Land Question had been this—to break up large properties and introduce landlords who would deal on commercial terms with their tenants. Well, they had broken up large properties in the Encumbered Estates Court. They had introduced a considerable
  1770
  number of landlords to deal on commercial terms with the tenants; and those were the people who had done all the mischief. Having done that, the Government now turned round and attacked the older landlords, who were admitted by the Royal Commission to be generally on good terms with their tenants. He did not wish, in any way, to anticipate the discussion which must, no doubt, take place upon the Irish Land Bill; but, at the same time, he would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who sat below the Gangway, and whose tendencies were naturally in favour of tenants and against landlords, not to believe all they were told about landlords. [Mr. LABOUCHERE: Hear, hear!] He was reminded by the cheer of the hon. Member for Northampton, who was one of those individuals who believed anything bad about landlords, of a singularly able speech which he made on the second reading. It consisted of contradiction and assertion. The contradiction applied to all the facts laid before the House by the Government; and the assertion to what he (Mr. Labouchere) had been told of the landlords. He referred to conversations which he had with landlords, since proved to be hypothetical, and announced that it was their intention to clear their estates. He (Lord George Hamilton) admitted that it would be inhuman to clear an estate; and he doubted if it was possible at the present time to do so. Most certainly, the man who did so would not find himself pecuniarily benefited by the transaction. He challenged the statement of the hon. Member at the time, and the hon. Member promised to furnish him with names. These he had received; but he would not mention the names; it was sufficient to say that both of them denied having had such a conversation. He had no doubt the hon. Gentleman fully imagined that he was justified in making that statement. He only mentioned it in order to show the extraordinary difference between the manner in which lie dealt with evidence in his favour and evidence which was against him. The hon. Gentleman ought not to entertain the idea that all Irish landlords were bad. During a controversy which took place in Kerry a short time ago, one of the Land League leaders attacked Lord Kenmare, and indulged in some abusive

  1771
  language concerning his agent, Mr. Hussey. The last-named gentleman wrote to the Land Leaguer, expressing his surprise at this language, and observing that as Lord Kenmare was letting him a farm at £37, which he sub-let at £150, the sum which his Lordship asked for rent was not excessive. The gentleman who had made the attack on Lord Kenmare denied that he received as much as £ 150 for any farm which he had let; but it subsequently transpired that he had been receiving no less than £208, that he had turned out the tenant because he could not pay in full, had refused to give him one farthing of compensation, and had sued his securities for the last shilling. He (Lord George Hamilton) quoted it to show that, although there might be amongst the Land League men anxious to benefit the tenants, there were a good many who, either as middlemen or landlords, with tenants, had been very harsh in their dealings. In conclusion, he would say that he was afraid that by allowing the Land League agitation to run its course unchecked during the past six months, untold mischief had been done. Of course, the Government might, by that measure, restore law and order; but it could not do more. It was frequently said in that House that although the Irish had faults they had many virtues; and he thought he might say of them that there was not a more social people on the face of the earth. There was no country in many parts of which the relations between the different classes of the community were happier. But in many parts of Ireland there had been a complete social rupture. Although this Bill, and possibly the Land Bill which the Government might hereafter introduce, might do something to restore law and order, yet he felt perfectly certain that the ruin of the hopes of the tenants, which by the indiscretion of the Government had been unduly excited, and the recollection of the cruel tyranny which had been exercised by the Land League over all who opposed its sway, would in too many parts of Ireland, and, he feared, for many years to come, prevent that full revival of social concord and mutual trust without which he believed no community could permanently thrive or prosper.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he had listened to the speech of the noble Lord
  1772
  the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) with great pleasure. He knew nothing in that House so disastrous as any alliance between those two Front Benches, and he was very glad to see signs that the alliance between them had come to an end. Speeches that had been made from the Treasury Bench by right hon. Gentlemen in whom he hoard with horror welcomed with cheers (Mr. Labouchere) had, speaking generally, the greatest confidence, he had by hon. Gentlemen opposite in whom he had no confidence. He had, on the other hand, heard more than once speeches made from the Bench opposite praised on the Treasury Bench. Therefore, it was most refreshing when the noble Lord got up and gave what he called his support to Her Majesty's Ministers; and, he (Mr. Labouchere) hoped Her Majesty's Ministers liked the support they received. The noble Lord stated that Her Majesty's Ministers had been the allies of the Land League, because they did not summon Parliament in October and bring in a Coercion Bill. He (Mr. Labouchere) ventured to differ from Her Majesty's Ministers in their political line of action; but he certainly did not blame them for not meeting in October to bring forward a Coercion measure, neither did he blame them for not immediately pushing forward an Arms' Bill. He would say the landlords in Ireland had been the allies of misgovernment in Ireland. Many of them, being magistrates as well as landlords, were charged with the administration of the law, and they did not put the ordinary law in force, because they hoped to induce the Chief Secretary for Ireland to bring in a Coercion Bill, without which they were never satisfied. The noble Lord said that though outrages increased during the last two years, it was only when the Liberal Ministry came in that they increased enormously. Liberal Members had their theory as to these enormous increases. They believed that these outrages increased last year because hon. Gentlemen opposite, in alliance with a few hon. Members on the Ministerial side of the House, gave courage to the Landlord League that existed in "another place" to throw out that excellent Compensation Bill, which the Chief Secretary for Ireland brought in, and which, if it had passed, they be-

  1773
  lieved would have prevented the introduction of this Coercion Bill. The noble Lord complained that this one Coercion Bill was not to be followed by another. He (Mr. Labouchere) would only say that he hoped that the noble Lord was right in his anticipation that they would not have a Disarmament Bill brought before them at any time; but he, like the noble Lord, was not quite satisfied with Her Majesty's Government. The only difference between himself and the noble Lord was that, whereas the noble Lord objected to there being only one Coercion Bill brought in, he (Mr. Labouchere) objected to any Coercion Bill at all being brought in. Many hon. Members had voted for the second reading of the Bill in doubt and with hesitation, with the hope that it would be altered in Committee, and that its most objectionable features would disappear. It had, however, come out of Committee as it went in—one of the severest Coercion Bills that had ever passed through that House. Not only did it place the liberties of every Irishman at the foot of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and enable him on mere suspicion to put them into prison and to keep them there, without even telling them of what particular crime they were accused; but it had a retrospective effect, although ex post facto legislation had been condemned by every writer on criminal jurisprudence since the legal murder of Strafford. The objectionable character of the Bill was still further heightened by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with even its extraordinary powers being given him for this Session; but he asked for them for the next Session also. Why had the right hon. Gentleman asked for the power to be continued for so long a time? The right hon. Gentleman had said that probably it might not be necessary to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for so long a time; but that possibly it might be necessary to do so, and therefore it was as well to give the power to suspend it for the full period at once, in order to save trouble. He (Mr. Labouchere) must confess that he had been surprised to hear such a doctrine as that proceed from the mouth of a Liberal Minister. Another peculiar feature in that Coercion Bill was that, whereas all other Coercion Bills had been directed
  1774
  against a class, this was directed against the whole people of Ireland, and had been persistently opposed by the majority of the Irish Representatives. The measure was, as it appeared to him, directed not only against the individual Members of the Irish constituencies, but against a considerable number of the Representatives of those constituencies. It was worth while asking how a Bill so bad and so illiberal ever came to be introduced into that House by a Liberal Ministry? The reply was, that the measure was not the Bill of the Liberal Ministry at all, neither was it the Bill of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. It was the Bill of territorialists in Ireland, of the magistrates who formed part of those territorialists, and of the permanent officials in Ireland, such as the Constabulary, who were the subservient tools of those who proudly termed themselves the "English garrison" of Ireland. There had been great congratulation among the Liberals when it first became known that so sound a Liberal as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been appointed to that high Office, because it was believed that so sturdy a Liberal would try to govern Ireland upon very different lines from those adopted by former Ministers. They wore not at first disappointed with the right hon. Gentleman. When he went over to Ireland first, he declined to have anything to do with the Peace Preservation Bill which his Predecessor had left him, and which the Conservative Party would have brought in, had they remained in Office. The right hon. Gentleman, in putting the measure aside, had said that he would not commence his career in Ireland by bringing in a Coercion Bill. When the right hon. Gentleman returned to this country, he brought in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill instead, a measure which met with the greatest approval on the Benches near him. That Bill had passed that House; but it was defeated in "another place" by the combined influence of the "Landlord League" of England and Ireland. When that occurred the Land League had to take up the matter. And, in connection with this point, it appeared to him (Mr. Labouchere) that several hon. Members of that House had mixed up two things which were totally distinct and separate —namely, the Land League in Ireland

  1775
  and Fenianism in America. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whom he was glad to see in his place, was listening to his observations. No doubt, at one time, Fenianism was a powerful organization in Ireland; but this was not at all the case now. No doubt, there were certain views held by what were known as the Fenian head-centres in that country; but, to the mass of the people, the association had represented the only organization which could give any practical effect to their aspirations for Land Reform. There were, therefore, a good number of people who joined the Fenians simply because they were in favour of a reform of the Irish Land Laws, and of such a modified form of Home Rule as was consistent with the unity of the Empire. When the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) went to America, he came into communication with Mr. Devoy, who was undoubtedly a Fenian, and with Mr. Davitt, who was undoubtedly a Land Leaguer, and had entirely given up his connection with the Fenians. Mr. Davitt had protested against outrages, and whenever it was understood that it was possible that something disagreeable might be done to a landlord he had used his influence to prevent it taking place. The House did not know what Fenianism really was at the present moment. The new York Fenianism was really an organization of some 20 persons, who found it an exceedingly good speculation to live upon the Irish waiting-maids and nurserymaids of that city. These men collected subscriptions —they might call it a "Skirmishing Fund," or whatever they liked; but the subscriptions went, in the main, into their own pockets to enable them to live in luxury. Occasionally, of course, in order to keep up the flow of contributions, they found it necessary to do something, and sometimes to even send emissaries to England. He did not, however, believe that those emissaries had committed any crime during the last two years, not because they would not do so, if they believed that they could perpetrate it in safety, but because they liked a whole skin, and had no idea of risking it. Very likely the tin of dynamite that had been discovered in a London square had been placed
  1776
  there by a Fenian, so that they might say in New York—"See what terrible follows we are, and how narrowly London escaped being blown up." He appealed to hon. Members opposite to say whether the condition of Fenianism in New York was not exactly as he had described it. Mr. ARTHUR, O'CONNOR: We do not know anything about it.] Although quite as innocent of any communication with the Fenians as the hon. Member was, he (Mr. Labouchere) knew a little more about the organization of the association than the hon. Member did; and the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department would probably bear out his statement that the move was quite a childish one, and there was no necessity for the country to be so afraid of it, for these people were perfect children—malicious children, no doubt —whom it was perfectly absurd to dignify by calling terrible conspirators. The Irish Land League, however, was a totally different body, who sought to obtain specific legal reforms by passive resistance to the payment of what they considered to be unjust rent. The entire scheme of the Land League was opposed to all outrage, which, its members believed, did their organization positive harm. He believed, with the Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the outrages were committed by the village ruffians. It was probable even that some of the outrages in Ireland might have been perpetrated by Fenian emissaries from New York for the purpose of bringing discredit upon the Land League, of whom they were jealous for taking money of which they got no share. There could be no doubt that outrages occurred; but they were exaggerated, and put down by the landlord class to the Land League, because they hated the League more than they did Fenianism. They knew they had nothing to fear from Fenianism; but that was not the case with the League, which attacked them in that which was their dearest interest—namely, their pockets. The landlords, therefore, urged on the right hon. Gentleman to bring in this Bill, knowing well that he was no longer the sturdy Liberal he had been before going to Ireland. He had been demoralized, and had lost his nerve in the baneful atmosphere of the Castle at Dublin. The right hon. Gentleman came back from Ireland in November last with a

  1777
  list of outrages which had been furnished to him by the permanent officials at the Castle, and appealed to his Colleagues in the Cabinet to call Parliament together in order that he might bring in a Coercion Bill. That was refused; and the right hon. Gentleman went back to Dublin, whence he returned in December, and again preferred a request to his Colleagues, similar to that which he had previously made, and which had been refused by them. At that juncture the presence in the Cabinet of two right hon. Gentlemen, whom he (Mr. Labouchere) might safely describe as the political patron saints of his calendar, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, led many hon. Members, and the greater majority of Liberals, to believe that a proposal for coercive legislation would be accompanied by remedial measures; for, as was well known, both of those right hon. Gentlemen had on many occasions opposed the enacting of Coercion Acts pure and simple. But they had, on that occasion, to face their right hon. Colleague, who had come back from Ireland as the mouthpiece of the permanent officials and the landlord class in that country. The consequence was that when they were told by the right hon. Gentleman that he was convinced that it was impossible to govern Ireland except by coercion, the two right hon. Gentlemen to whom he (Mr. Labouchere) had referred as his political patron saints instantly succumbed, forgetting that their Colleague himself had become demoralized by the baneful influence of the atmosphere by which he had been surrounded. He (Mr. Labouchere) was very sorry for it, because many hon. Members must have noticed from their subsequent utterances that the hearts of the two right hon. Gentlemen were not in the work to which they had put their hands. Well, the Bill, in the end, was introduced, and in his speech on bringing it in, the right hon. Gentleman said it was based, in the main, on outrages which he stated had come to his knowledge; but it was afterwards admitted that those outrages were manufactured.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Certainly not.
  MR. LABOUCHERE: But I remember the right hon. Gentleman, in great
  1778
  frankness, admitted that he really had not seen them till they appeared on the Return.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I told the House, over and over again, that the information I had obtained was separate from these Returns, and was much fuller. Generally speaking, the Returns furnished to hon. Members were shorter, and, consequently, very much understated the facts.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, that it was a pity that, as the right hon. Gentleman rested his case almost entirely on outrages, he should have withheld the fuller details. It was hard on the House, and particularly on him (Mr. Labouchere), because he was so anxious to support the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, instead of being compelled to oppose it on the present occasion. There was one point in reference to this matter of outrages which had not been dealt with by the Government, and it was this:—-Notwithstanding the number of real and vamped-up outrages on which the Bill was based, it was clear, from the statistics, that the number of all crimes against the person or property had been smaller in the last than for many preceding years. After the outrages had been exploded, the right hon. Gentleman fell back on the arguments, some of which were very astounding. For instance, although he admitted that the number of outrages committed in the month of November was not sufficiently large to justify the bringing in of a Coercion Bill, and yet he insisted that although the number had considerably decreased since that time the Bill should still be persisted with. It was said that one reason for bringing in the Bill was the difficulty of obtaining witnesses to prove the offences charged; but it must be well known that while, in many cases, it was not possible to bring forward witnesses to prove the offences charged, there had been no difficulty in getting evidence where it was competent to do so. Taking the case of threatening letters and threats as instances, what could be more difficult, in the one case, to prove authorship, or more easy in the other for a man to get out of paying his rent, by stating, unsupported, that he had been threatened by some persons unknown to him with death in the event of his paying. As far as the difficulty of obtaining evidence was concerned, he

  1779
  would remind the House that evidence showed the fact that in Ireland the number of convictions obtained for offences against public order was as great in proportion as in many civilized countries, and quite as great as was the case in France. This being so, he had certainly been astounded to hear the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), that, though, in ordinary circumstances, guarantees for liberty were necessary, there was no necessity for them on the present occasion if hon. Members had confidence in the men now at the helm of affairs. He (Mr. Labouchere) had always imagined that, according to Liberal doctrines, it was necessary that liberty should be guaranteed by law, and that the laws ought not to be modified merely because a particular Government was good and necessary, even although it might be a Liberal Government, and that they might safely be left to carry out the laws at their good pleasure. Carry the right hon. Gentleman's argument to its ultimate consequences, and they might do away with jurors because they had confidence in the Judges. He was not sure that they would not have better laws than they were likely to secure this Session if the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the President of the Board of Trade were to form themselves into a triumvirate in order to legislate for the country; but yet he should consider it a monstrous proposal to say that Parliament was to be dissolved in order that those right hon. Gentlemen might make laws for the people. Again, they were told that they ought to vote for the Coercion Bill because it would be accompanied by a remedial measure. A great many hon. Gentlemen at that side of the House, he believed, laid that flattering unction to their souls, and, on that ground, excused themselves for supporting the Bill before the House. He had no doubt that some hon. Gentlemen opposite would support the Land Bill, if it were a good Bill; and the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote) had stated that he would give the remedial measure his candid consideration. But they could gauge what that meant by a previous explanation, for the right hon. Gentleman made a speech during the
  1780
  Recess, in which he said that the "three F's" meant fraud, force, and folly. Well, if the Laud Bill of the Government did not contain the "three F's" in some modified form, all he (Mr. Labouchere) could say was that it would not be received with any degree of satisfaction by his hon. Friends about him. If it did, they might reckon on the persistent opposition of the Conservative Party. But they were told that the Liberal Party were in a majority, and that was, no doubt, the fact. But did hon. Members recollect what occurred on the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year? If the Irish Members had not voted for that Bill, the Government would have had a majority of 7 votes only. If, then, the Irish Members opposed the forthcoming Land Bill, because it did not go far enough, and if hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite opposed the measure because it went too far, it was likely that the Bill would be defeated in that House. But the Bill, even if it passed the House of Commons, would have to go to "another place," where there was a Conservative majority, and where the noble Lord the Leader of that majority was master of the situation. The noble Lord to whom he referred told his followers with respect to the Hares and Rabbits Bill that they ought to allow it to pass, because it was best that they should reserve their strength for great occasions; and he had no doubt that the Land Bill would be considered a great occasion. But he (Mr. Labouchere) might be told that if the Bill was lost in "another place" there would be an appeal to the country. Well, he should be glad if an appeal were made to the country. But such an appeal must take time; and if it were made, a new Land Bill could not, in that case, be submitted to a new Parliament for a considerable time. In this case, would they get remedial measures before next year? Hon. Members who relied on their immediate passage were not only counting their chickens before they were hatched, but they regarded an egg not yet laid as the same thing as a chicken grown up, cooked, and on the table. He had other objections to urge against the Bill. He had given Notice of an Amendment to protect small tenants from eviction; but that Amendment was ruled out of Order. What, then, was the position of these tenants? There were 200,000 tenants in

  1781
  Ireland with holdings under 10 acres each, and the Bill of last year was intended to prevent the landlords turning them out without compensation. What was the difference in their position now? There had, no doubt, been a good harvest, and many of them might have been enabled in consequence to pay this year's rent. But was it possible, after the hardships and distress they had endured, that they would be able to pay their arrears of rent and their debts to the shopkeepers? The noble Lord who spoke last [Lord George Hamilton) said that the Irish landlords were not better and were not worse than other people in Ireland, and he (Mr. Labouchere) would not say that they were; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant stated last year that there were exceptions—that there were landlords who were hard by nature, and landlords who were hard by circumstances; and it was unquestionable that if those landlords were left to themselves, they would avail themselves of the power to be given them by the Bill and evict their tenants. He found, from a Return which was issued yesterday that the number of writs issued by the Sheriff's Court during the Michaelmas quarter was 1,273; but, out of those, in only 198 cases had there been evictions. Thus it would be seen that 1,075 notices had been served and not followed up; but it was probable that those who served them were only waiting until this Bill passed to carry them into effect. The House knew what that meant from the words of the Prime Minister himself delivered last year. He considered it to be a very serious blot on the Bill that it did not contain some clause to protect those unfortunate people from unjust eviction; and it should be remembered that the 1,075 represented at least 5,000 individuals. It was all very well to talk about outrages; but, for his part, he knew of no outrage more scandalous than for a landlord to turn out a poor, miserable man, with his wife and family, to starve on the road side. It had been already stated in the newspapers that Lord Annaly had served notices of ejectment upon his tenants, and that a Mr. Barne had done the same, the occupiers of that gentleman's land being some of the poorest in the whole of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home
  1782
  Department, in his speech, took a new departure; instead of regretting that Irish Members had been heard so often, he regretted that the hon. Member for the City of Cork had been heard so seldom. Then he abused the opponents against whom he had nothing to say, and he tried to mix up the Fenians with the Land League, because he knew that he would incite a prejudice against the Land League by citing what the Fenians had done in America. The right hon. Gentleman read a speech from a Mr. Devoy, and another, he thought, from a Mr. Redpath. The speech of Mr. Devoy was to the effect that he contemplated blowing up the entire Government of this country, most of the towns in their country, and the capital; "and is this monster," the right hon. Gentleman said, "to be allowed to say these things without protest?" He then pointed out the terrible consequences of this speech; how a certain Patrick Stewart immediately subscribed the sum of one dollar in order that those intentions might be carried out. It seemed to him (Mr. Labouchere) that the only gentlemen who took the slightest notice of these terrible statements were the right hon. Gentleman himself and this Patrick Stewart, in the County Clare, Ireland, who contributed his one dollar. The right hon. Gentleman gave them a new reason for passing this Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. They had had the village ruffian and the difficulty of getting evidence and convictions; but the right hon. Gentleman gave them something fresh. "The men," he told them, "who make these speeches in America, Redpath and Devoy, must come over to Ireland, and the Bill is intended for those gentlemen." Surely the right hon. Gentleman was so eminent an authority on International Law that he must be aware that if these Americans were to come over to Ireland, and if they were to be taken upon mere suspicion and put in prison for 18 months without being told, or without their Minister in England being told, for what they were put in prison, and if they were not tried for 18 months, we should get, and rightly too, into considerable difficulty with the American Government. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: No !] The right hon. Gentleman said "No!" perhaps he meant that he would get us out of the difficulty. But would it not have

  1783
  been better to have brought in an Alien Bill than to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland? It was a strange thing to suspend the Habeas Corpus in Ireland because an American had made a speech in America. Had it really come to this—that we were to be asked to suspend our greatest guarantees for liberty because an American had made a speech in America? We should remember the fate of Lord Palmorston when he considered it necessary to propose some changes in the law of England because of the wild vapourings of certain journals in France. The House of Commons voted that Lord Palmerston's Government did not enjoy their confidence in making those changes, and if they passed-this Bill because they were irritated by speeches made in America, they must have greatly degenerated. He should bo sorry to see the present Government displaced by their opponents, and in pointing out what occurred in similar circumstances he could only say absit omen. The alleged advantages of the measure were that it would drive a certain number of crazy Fenians out of Ireland, that it would load to the imprisonment of a certain number of village ruffians, who, perhaps, thoroughly deserved to be imprisoned, and that it would enable landlords to collect their rents. Against these advantages were to be set off the disadvantages—that the measure would do away with the useful action of the Land League, and there was a great deal in what it did that was most useful; that it would enable landlords, not only to collect their rents from men who could pay them, but it would enable landlords to evict from their small holdings men who could not pay them—the very thing that the landlords had been prevented from doing by the action of the Land League. It would, moreover, alienate all classes in Ireland from the English connection. It would substitute secret societies for an open society called the Land League. By this Bill Parliament was playing into the hands of the Fenians, who would acquire an influence they did not now possess. Irishmen would say—"The agitation of the Land League has failed; let us go back to Fenianism." The disadvantages, then, of passing the Bill outweighed the advantages enormously. Right hon. Gentlemen might get fruit by cutting down
  1784
  the tree, but in cutting it down for its fruit they would do far more harm than if they had let the matter alone. The Bill was so unnecessary and unjust that he was convinced it never would have been passed through that House had it not been owing to the prejudice which was excited at the present moment against hon. Members opposite by what was called Obstruction. But Obstruction was no new tiling in the House. They had heard of hon. Gentlemen who had had recourse to it under special circumstances in the case of Private Bills. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had carried it pretty far. The Opposition last Session persistently obstructed every Bill, be-cause they hoped to prevent the passing of a Bill to deprive them of the exclusive right of shooting rabbits roared upon the crops of their tenants. It was not surprising, therefore, that Irish Members should have obstructed. He (Mr. Labouchere) did not blame them for that; if they had been kept, day after day, last autumn sitting there, owing to the Obstruction to the Hares and Rabbits' Bill, surely it was only reasonable and legitimate that they should be kept weeks discussing the details of a Bill which was to take away the liberties of 5,000,000 of their fellow-countrymen. If he might venture to give hon. Gentlemen opposite a piece of advice, and he meant it in good part, it would be that they should be careful in future to abstain from oven the suspicion of Obstruction. Their cause was a good one. Let that cause be stated fairly and honestly to the English public—let it be allowed to stand on its own merits. He was perfectly convinced that there were many persons in England already very much inclined to take the same views as many Irishmen on Irish matters, and that number would be greatly increased were those matters separated from prejudice which was now created owing to Obstruction. He was not speaking of disintegration. He believed the majority of hon. Gentlemen from Ireland were opposed to disintegration. It should be remembered that in England there was a Land Question, and in the counties there was a demand for Home Rule; and, indeed,

  1785
  there were many points upon which the Democracy of England and Ireland ought to unite. He therefore hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would not be carried away by the irritation of the moment. He hated the Coercion Bill as much as they did; but he could not shut his eyes to the fact that not only in England, but in Ireland, the men that had made the country better than it was were the Liberals and not the Conservatives. The Conservatives might make gentle speeches and use soft words to catch Irish votes; but the attitude of Conservatism towards Ireland was indicated by the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Lowther) in his present candidature, in which he said the atrocities of Montenegro and Greece were exceeded in Mayo and Galway. Irish Members could judge from such speeches what they were likely to get beyond soft words from the Conservatives when acts were wanted to do justice to Ireland. Now, the Liberal record was good. All the reforms which had been introduced in recent years had been proposed by the Liberals and opposed by the Conservatives. [Cries of "No, no!"] In Ireland, the names of the Prime Minister and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster were, but a little while ago, household words. Those right hon. Gentlemen were respected and venerated by the Irish people, and Irish Members should not forget the services which those two great statesmen had rendered to their country, nor unite themselves with those who were the persistent and everlasting enemies of popular freedom.
  MR. R. POWER MR. R. POWER rose to address the House, when
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  Mr. R. POWERresumed, by saying that the Irish Members had much cause to be grateful to the hon. Members for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), and Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), for the noble manner in which they had supported them in resisting that Bill; and he only regretted that there were not more Radicals in the House of so good and sincere a type. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had attributed the present condition of
  1786
  Ireland to the wild and reckless language employed by the Liberal Ministers when in Opposition; but it was a great mistake to attribute to such a cause the great movement in which the Irish people were now engaged. It would be easy to quote remarkable sentences, quite as wild and reckless as those alluded to by the noble Lord, which had been uttered by leading Members of the Conservative Party when out of power. It was the inconsistency of the language used by both Parties when in Office and in Opposition that had driven the Irish people almost to despair of Constitutional action, because they believed that the language used by right hon. Gentlemen on both sides was not really meant to be acted upon for their interests, but was intended for Party and political purposes. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) told them of the great pain which he felt in voting for this Bill; and he (Mr. E. Power) was astonished that hon. Members on the Liberal side should have thought it necessary to say the same thing so often. It put him in mind of a schoolmaster who used to flog him periodically, and who always tried to persuade him that he suffered as much from the punishment himself. All the schoolmaster's eloquence, however, failed to convince him on that point. He objected to the inconsistency of the Liberal Members on the subject. When the Conservatives were in power the hon. and learned Member for Stockport voted on every occasion against the Coercion Bill which they introduced. So did the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). That right hon. Gentleman complained that the Conservative Government met the statements of the Irish Members by a conspiracy of silence; and he described the arrest of persons on suspicion and their confinement without trial as a proceeding which was "a disgrace to civilization and a Constitutional system." But the right hon. Gentleman now supported the very thing which he condemned when in Opposition. The speech of the Secretary of State for the Home Department had been sufficiently dealt with by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere); and therefore he (Mr. E. Power) should only say with reference to it, that the reason he had adduced in support of the Bill was a novel and ex-

  1787
  traordinary one. The Bill was necessary, he said, because a few wild and irresponsible Yankees talked something about dynamite in America. That was one of the most amusing reasons ever brought before the House of Commons. Surely the right hon. Gentleman must know very well that the Bill could never reach people in America, and that Irishmen had no more sympathy with persons who proposed to commit outrages by means of dynamite than they had at the present moment with Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman had talked, too, about a "headless Party" as describing the condition of the Irish Opposition, forgetting the condition of the Liberals when sitting in Opposition, as to which no one could tell which was the head and which was the tail. The right hon. Gentleman had expressed some apprehension that he and his Colleagues might be blown up. He should be very sorry to see the right hon. Gentleman elevated to "another place" by unfair means, and hoped he would only find his way there in consequence of the Constitutional action of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister stated that the majority of the Irish Members were not opposed to the Bill; but on referring to the Division Lists, it would be found that, whilst 59, 40, and 42 Irish Members had, on various occasions, voted against the measure, the largest number that ever supported it was 17. On the occasion of the second reading 58 Irish Members voted against, and only 13 in favour of the Bill. Was it fair, then, to say that the majority of the Irish Representatives and the majority of the Irish people were not opposed to coercion? There was hardly an Irish Member who had voted for this measure whose conduct had not been denounced in the strongest terms by his constituents. Their constituents had called upon hon. Members who voted for the Bill to resign their seats, and had paid them the compliment of burning them in effigy. In fact, an Irish Member who had voted for coercion had no more chance of being again returned to the House than he himself had of going to the House of Lords. They had now come to the last stage of the Bill, and the Irish Members who opposed it had the satisfaction of knowing that they had discharged a troublesome and painful task; but they could not spare them-
  1788
  selves, nor could they in any way curtail their liberty of speech, when they found how severe and fatal was the Bill which aimed at the liberties of their countrymen. They had had to fight against right hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House. Eight hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side had certainly made great sacrifices, for it must have been a sacrifice for them to forget the Mid Lothian speeches of a few months ago, to forgive the Birmingham Caucus, and to shake hands and appear to be on amicable terms with the friends of Russian domination. In these circumstances the Irish Members had endeavoured, to the best of their ability, to discharge the functions of an Opposition. When they saw that the Members of the Conservative Party were prepared to make further sacrifices in order to support the Bill, which, would strangle the liberty of Ireland, the Irish Members felt that they, too, should make sacrifices, and face the prejudices of this country in order to secure, if possible, the liberties of the Irish people. The parties on both sides had united to aim a blow at Parliamentary institutions, and had made laws and regulations which could not, and had not, defeated the Irish Party, but which had lowered their Assembly to the level of the greatest autocratic Assembly in the world. He believed that when the country had had time to think of what it had gained and what it had lost, the English electors would see that they had supplanted Imperialism and established a despotism. He was satisfied that the Irish Members had discharged a difficult, but necessary duty. They had shown the untrustworthy nature of the statistics which had been brought forward as; a justification of this repressive measure, and the Government and the House were now in this position —that they were passing the severest Coercion Bill which had ever stained the Statute Book, for a country in which there was less crime than in any other country in Europe. In conclusion, he could only say he was glad so little bitterness and so little bad feeling had characterized those debates. He hoped that when these discussions wore over, a remedial measure worthy of the name would be presented, and that they would show themselves ready to legislate properly for Ireland by giving to the tenant farmers that fixity of tenure, fair rent,

  1789
  and free sale, without which that country could neither be satisfied, nor prosperous and happy.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, that Parliament had inflicted a great injustice on Ireland by that Bill. Past legislation had wronged her, and persistent refusals of reform on the vital question of the land had driven her to despair. She had been forced into a method which savoured of a revolution, because it set the Civil Law at defiance for the time being. Though the measure was directed against the Land League and its procedure, and not merely against the outrages which had grown upon the Land League, yet a time would come when the operation of that Bill having passed away men would admit that the Land League had saved landlords from secret societies and the tenants from wholesale evictions, and had, moreover, brought the tenants nearer to Land Reform than any previous legislation had done. No doubt the weapon used by the Land League, insistance on abatement of rent, was liable to abuse. He could not deny that it had been preached without much discrimination, and by some—not, however, by the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)—in such a way as to suggest a repudiation of contracts. But before it was used the House was warned that it would be used. He (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) himself had said, in his place in the House last Session, that, as to advising the tenants generally not to pay rent, any such advice deliberately given would be unjust and contrary to good conscience; but that there were cases in which, unless some advice of that kind were given, the landlords could not be brought to reason. Nothing could be more demoralizing than an agitation which might be construed into an advice to men not to meet their lawful obligations; but on those who refused any other remedy for the present state of things the sin must lie. Let those tenants who had been compelled, as many were, by coercion, and not in the fair and open market, to pay rent, offer what according to their conscience was a fair rent, and no more. If there was danger of that advice being abused they could not help it. If there were Roman Catholic clergymen in Ireland who took up that agitation, it would be their duty to tell the tenants not to make an unjust use
  1790
  of it, but to pay their rents honestly, unless they were excessive. He admitted that the weapon was in its nature revolutionary; but the occasion justified some departure from the Civil Law. The House was now about to hand over the tenantry, with all their imperfections on their heads—that is to say, with the arrears of bad seasons-to the landlords, and he knew well that if any effort was made by strong expressions of the opinions of the populace to dissuade the landlords from insisting on their rights, they would find it very easy to make out that they were intimidated by fear of violence, and thus the tenantry would be brought within the Act. He hoped that some light would be found behind the cloud that now hung over them, and he believed that if a good Land Act were passed, no Minister would ever again be called on to come to the House and propose a Coercion Bill for Ireland. If they developed the means of creating a peasant propriety, if they established such relations between landlord and tenant as would prevent rents from being raised, and if they provided security and freedom of disposal to the occupying tenant, they would remove the only cause which set class against class in Ireland, and made the influence of England hated, and agitation would be no more possible. Other reforms would be necessary; but they would be easily conceded to a contented and united people. He was confident that the people of Ireland would show dignity and wisdom in face of the Coercion Act, and that the only result would be that while the abuse inevitable in agitation would be pruned down, they would maintain a just and Constitutional agitation until the problem was solved. They were never further from despair. They had a just cause; they had the sympathy of the civilized world. They needed not to have recourse to the alliance of men who brought ruin on their own country and dishonour on the best cause. He believed, too, that they had allies, not in the landlords and rich men, but in the millions of Englishmen in the classes which had so few Representatives in that House, but whose few Representatives had stood up manfully for Ireland. They also had the encouragement of the Pontiff who ruled over the Roman Catholic Church, to whose voice the great majority of Irishmen

  1791
  listened reverentially. With all these advantages, they would be wise and resolute. They would so act as to sot coercion at defiance, and they would at last wring from Parliament a settlement of the Land Question which would make coercion a memory of the past.
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, it seemed to him a strange thing that they should be discussing a measure to take away the liberties of the people of Ireland. Ever since the observation that we were with in "a measurable distance of civil war" a feeling had been growing up that some strong measure of coercion was necessary. Arguments had been presented for the measure not based upon principles, but upon facts which had been put before the House in a dramatic shape to excite their terror, and to induce them by fear to eon-sent to this measure, which he believed to be unprincipled and unconstitutional. They could remember, at the opening of this long debate, the dramatic manner in which the Returns of agrarian crime were placed before them; and they reached the culminating point on the previous night, when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department put before them a picture which was almost enough to frighten timid people out of their senses. The right hon. Gentleman talked of the wolf-dog of America coming over here to influence their proceedings. Instead of its being the wolf-dog of America that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman he quoted referred to, it was the wolf-dog of Irish vengeance. But those statistics failed to impress anyone who looked nearly into them, and they should discuss this measure as one of principle. The reason why he opposed this measure was simply this—that by all measures of this kind they weakened, enervated, or destroyed the Constitution of the country. Every Coercion Bill brought into a free State was something-undoing the great Constitutional edifice which our ancestors had been building up through past centuries. There might be circumstances under which the Constitution of a free country might be suspended. It might be done if a foreign army was in possession of some of the strongholds of the land. It might be done if a foreign navy was sailing up the Thames. It might be done if intestine commotion was eating into the vitals of the coun-
  1792
  try, or if it was impossible to collect the Revenues of the Crown. There was no other occasion on which the Constitution of the country should be suspended. But not one of these things was taking place now. We had no foreign fee in the land to contend with, Her Majesty's Revenues were easily collected, and there was no intestine commotion. In Ireland the power of the Crown had full effect. Was it not true that there was an enormous number of evictions at present in Ireland? And how could those evictions be carried out if the Queen's writs were not running? And yet almost the only reason given for the Bill was that the Queen's writs were not running in Ireland. With respect to the crime which was said to be committed in Ireland, they must remember that Ireland was an agricultural country, and they must expect the offences committed in it to be of an agricultural character. Of the outrages, they would see, the greater part were not by the people against the State, but by the people one against the other. There was no country where the people were so fond of possessing the land. In England land was looked upon as an expensive luxury; but in Ireland the happiness of the people seemed to depend upon its possession. Quarrels arose because one member of a family got possession of the land which another thought should be his. A great deal had been said about the maiming of cattle which they were not justified in saying, and which could be easily explained. It was, no doubt, a horrible tiling to cut off the tails of cattle; but he (Mr. Thompson) came from a county in which the people never, by any accident, left the tail of a sheep uncut. The maiming of cattle was done in Ireland, not from wanton cruelty, but from the idea that the landlords, from a feeling of greed, from a desire to get rid of labour, wanted to turn the arable land into pasture, and thus lessen the demand for labour. The cattle were to them the symbol that the laud on which and by which they lived was to be taken from them. Mr. Froude, in his eloquent and magnificent history, showed that in the time of Henry VIII. the landlords of England for a long series of years had been endeavouring, in their own interest, to turn arable land into pasture, and the result was the greatest distress

  1793
  throughout the country, and the necessary interference of Parliament to defend the poor, of whom he hoped they would always be the guardians. Then the cases of arson had been relied on, and, no doubt, the word "arson" conveyed horrible ideas. It conveyed the idea of a man going into a stackyard and burning down all the stacks—a very horrible offence. But, if they looked through the list of cases, they would find that in Ireland half the cases turned out to be fires in unoccupied houses. Ten thousand persons were turned out by eviction during the most inclement season. Those poor people went into these unoccupied houses and made fires to keep themselves warm. Early in the morning they left, that they might not fall into the hands of the police, and then these officers came in and reported cases of arson. This all showed that Ireland was not in the dreadful condition alleged. Then, as to firing into dwellings, which constituted a large proportion of the offences, that was scarcely ever done except by bands of men, and an active police could easily prevent it. It scarcely ever hap-pended on these occasions that any personal injury was done—no life was taken, and when a case of injury occurred it was by accident. If harm had been meant, surely hundreds of persons must have been killed. The object was not to shoot people, but to terrify— to induce them to join an agrarian league to protect themselves against injustice and wrong. What was the reason that all the poor people were being turned from their homes? It was simply to get rent. What was rent? Rent could be clearly marked out. It was the surplus which remained after the cultivation of the soil and the maintenance of the cultivator and his family had been paid for. Why had not the rent been paid in Ireland? Were the Irish bad payers of rent? Not at all. The reason was simply that the Great God of Heaven had given no opportunity of late to the cultivator to gather the harvest, but had sent His storms and His winds to blight the produce of the fields. The winds and the storms had blighted the crops, and there was no surplus remaining. There was nothing to pay the cultivator of the soil, much less the idle landlord; and yet they were asked to pass that Bill, which would put
  1794
  the poor people into the hands of the landlords that they might get the miserable rent which the people were unable to pay. It was a cruel thing, and possibly there was growing up a feeling in the country which would make them sorry for what they had done, and, perhaps, under the influence of that sorrow, recall the wrong act which they were perpetrating now. With regard to the provisions of the Bill, the Chief Secretary for Ireland said that the persons arrested would be treated in the same way as unconvicted prisoners. But the Bill did not appear to carry that out, for when they looked carefully into facts, they found that inquiry was to be made every three months by the Irish officials as to the position in which the prisoners stood. But it was obvious that the inquiry would not take place until the end of the three months, so that they might take it for granted that persons would be kept in prison from three months to three months. There was an Assize in Ireland three times a-year, and the average time an unconvicted prisoner spent in gaol was two months; so that, as a fact, the suspected persons would not stand in the same position as unconvicted prisoners. They would be in prison for three months, whilst the unconvicted prisoner remained two months only without trial. Besides that, the unconvicted person had the advantage of his counsel and his trial, while the suspected person had not. Persons would be arrested, no doubt, on the suspicion of very good men; but experience had taught them never to give up their liberties to any one man. It was for the advantage of civilization that they should not sacrifice their great political principles, and therefore he held they must be careful they did not yield up one jot of their liberties; and they should insist that the persons arrested on suspicion should be treated at least as unconvicted prisoners. He contended, also, that they were not dealing fairly with these men, for it was not right to prevent the prisoners speaking to each other. Was not the power of England great enough to prevent them from doing harm within the prison walls without adding to their sufferings that of solitary confinement? They were men against whom no charge was made and no evidence adduced; and were no mistakes likely to be made? Of the

  1795
  persons committed by magistrates in England one-fourth were acquitted as innocent, while of those committed in Ireland from one-third to one-half were acquitted. But persons committed by magistrates were heard in their defence. They were allowed to call witnesses. Under this Act no defence was permitted, and no witnesses could be called. Therefore, a fortiori, the percentage of innocent persons committed under this Act must be larger than under the ordinary process of the law. Upon that ground, for one, he contended that those persons should have newspapers, society, and everything necessary, remembering that among them might be many persons quite as innocent of the crimes of which they were supposed to be guilty as any Member of that House. He had thought it right to say what he had, because he was acting apart from his Party, almost alone, and on some occasions quite alone. He felt it was a very sad and serious thing to break political ties, because, in doing so, they very often broke tenderer ties; and it was quite possible—though he hoped not—that the action he had, taken on the present occasion would destroy some of those friendships and some of those happinesses in which consisted the great charm of life.
  MR. LEAMYwished to thank the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. T. 0. Thompson) for his generous and able speech. The assistance given by the hon. Member and a few others could not easily be forgotten by the people of Ireland. He was glad that the hon. Member had not, as the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Ashton Dilke) said that so many of the Radicals in that House had, put aside principle for Party. Radical Members had abandoned the principles which they used to profess when they sat on the opposite side of the House. They had never been told what the precise object of the Government was in bringing in that Bill, or in which way it was intended to operate. It had been said that they did not wish to put down every kind of public meeting; but they did not specify what kinds of meeting would be suppressed. Doubtless the Government would try to put down the Land League. But what would they gain? Irish Members had had great difficulty in persuading the people that there was any
  1796
  hope of good from the English Government. What could they say to the people now? The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) had justly said that evening that he was perfectly convinced that the Government had connived at the agitation, for there had been nothing authoritative said against it during the Recess. The Government might succeed in putting down the meetings; but it would not put down the agitation of the Land League. Until lately the supporters of the Land League believed that by the agitation they were strengthening the hands of the Government, enabling them to deal more effectively with the question of Land Reform. After the rejection of the Disturbance Bill, he (Mr. Leamy) had come to the conclusion that there was nothing to be done in this country, and that their only hope was from agitation in Ireland. If it were intended to put down the Land League, why was not an authoritative pronouncement made three months ago? Until a week before the House met, the Land Leaguers were thoroughly convinced that they had in this agitation the sympathy of many Members of the Cabinet. It had been said, how-over, that the men who took part in the agitation did not denounce crimes and outrages as they ought to have done. He had, however, himself attended 13 or 14 public meetings, at many of which clergymen were present, and he never attended one at which outrages were not deprecated and denounced. But the fact was that those denunciations were so much a matter of course that the newspapers took no notice of them. They could not occupy their space time after time with the same matters. There had been in Ireland, and especially among the clergy, great confidence in the Head of the Government, an almost unlimited trust in the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and there was nothing sadder throughout the agitation, and nothing had more discouraged Irish tenants, than to find the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who had stood out against coercion so long, siding with the Chief Secretary for Ireland now. He was very much afraid that the Government had struck a blow at Constitutional agitation in Ireland. He had no fear that the Coercion Act would

  1797
  strike terror into the people of Ireland. That House was not able to gauge or estimate or analyze the real feelings of people in Ireland. There was a great struggle, no doubt, in England for Land Reform. But in Ireland the land was the sole industry, and it was almost crushed under the present system. It had been said that the Irish Party did not represent Ireland, because they were not connected with the land. But the fact was evidence of their fitness for that purpose. It was because Members had been sent to that House for so many years who were interested in the land, that the Land Question was still unsolved. He had risen for the purpose of entering, on behalf of himself and his brother Irish Members, a last protest against an unjust and tyrannic measure which a Liberal Government, proving false to all their protestations, had introduced with the plain and palpable object of retaining their seats on the Treasury Bench. He would remind the House that a great change within the last 14 or 15 years had come over the people of Ireland. Radical Members generally did not seem to understand the present movement. It was a democratic upheaval of a people long oppressed. On former occasions of coercion, the Irish had been prostrate, crouching, and submissive; but, at last, they had gained their feet, and were becoming conscious of their strength, and no Coercion Acts would ever strike them down again.
  MR. MACDONALDrose to say a word or two to express his final protest against the Bill in the strongest manner the Forms of the House would allow. He had been closely studying the history of Ireland, and he had come to the conclusion that no country had ever suffered so much from another as Ireland had suffered from England. Throe times had we attempted to destroy the people altogether and to drive them into the sea. But those who attempted to do so became united in habits and religion with those whom they had essayed to sub-due. Various and singular reasons had been given as an excuse for the introduction of the Bill; but one after another they had been struck down. At last they heard the real reason from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department. It was sprung upon them the previous night.
  1798
  The Bill was all duo to a man named Devoy, who lived somewhere in America. The words of Mr. Devoy struck terror into the British Lion, and a Liberal Government, with a majority of 100, was so alarmed that it introduced the Bill in order to legislate for Mr. Devoy and a few others in some unknown slum in New York. This was a discreditable confession to make. The Government were about to do another injustice to Ireland; and he could assure them that it was not from Devoy or from O'Donovan Rossa that danger was to be expected. The Irish danger in America lay much deeper. There was a little hitch just now with America, and there was greater reason for fear in the increasing hostility of the Irish nation in America than from the ravings of the fanatic whose speech had been quoted by the Secretary of State. Let them read the Resolutions of earnest sympathy passed within the last few days by the Legislatures of Illinois, New Jersey, Nevada, and Ohio, and by great public meetings all over America, and learn whence came the cause for fear. Already in the Congress of the States the Fisheries Question had-been declared urgent, one Member saying he would try to make it a cause of quarrel with England, that the wrongs of Ireland might be redressed. He was afraid from the attitude adopted by many hon. Gentlemen on the Radical Benches that if there was much legislation for Ireland the word "Radical" would become a misnomer. An hon. Member had called his attention recently to the remarkable unanimity which prevailed among the Liberal lawyers with regard to this Bill. They all supported it, and the hon. Member asked him—"Do you know why?" He replied that he did not, and the hon. Member replied—"The reason is there are two Judgeships vacant." That was base and mean; and although not endorsing the suggestion as true, he thought if there were half-a-dozen vacancies on the Judicial Bench the lawyers would never have ceased denouncing the Irish and supporting the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) professed his great love for Ireland; but he never lost an opportunity of voting for this Bill. It was as if a man professed great affection for a woman and then kicked her with his boot. Such love was very like unkind or false

  1799
  love. He (Mr. Macdonald) felt bound to protest against this Bill. He had voted against it because it suppressed the liberties of a whole people on account of the action of a few; because it left the people of Ireland in the hands of the informer, the spy, and the paid partizan; because it left the women and children of Ireland at the mercy of hirelings, who cared nothing for the morality of the people, so long as they promoted their own objects; and because it came from the hands of the so-called Liberal Party, with which he had been associated all his life. In the last Parliament one Member of the present Government cried out from below the Gangway, "India, India, India!" He clung to the cause of India with desperate grasp. Another sitting in the same part of the House in the last Parliament, and now on the Treasury Bench, raised his voice for the Basutos and the Boers, and he obstructed the House again and again on the question of the Transvaal. Another hon. Member, who used to sit on the Benches below the opposite Gangway, had been wont to plead the cause of Greece. It was "Living Greece no more" with that hon. Member now that he was in Office. Greece would be dead and Ireland, too, until those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen returned to the Benches they occupied when in Opposition. They also found a right hon. Gentleman, who had for 40 years stood up for the liberties of the people, and whose eloquent voice had shaken the hearts of the Protectionist landlords of this country, now calling on the House to pass a Bill for trampling on the liberties of Ireland. That night the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant would be in the proud position of being able to say that he had slaughtered Ireland's freedom by that Coercion Bill, and he would be supported by hon. Gentlemen who had been loud in their sympathy for Bulgarians, Zulus, Boers, and suffering humanity in general. Those hon. Gentlemen would pass out into the Division Lobby like mutes to assist at the burial of the liberties of Ireland. He had to say, in conclusion, that he, for one, was heartily ashamed of Liberals and Radicals who could thus consent to join hands with oppression, and who could be found voting with a Government to destroy the liberty of a nation.
  MR. BIDDELLsaid, he desired that Ireland should be treated not merely with justice but with generosity. There could be no doubt that in the past great tyranny and injustice had been inflicted upon Ireland; but that occurred 50 or 100 years ago, and it was now time to forget it. Because their fathers had oaten sour grapes it was not necessary that the children's teeth should be set on edge for ever. He should not have risen in this debate but for the speech of the hon. Member for Durham (Mr. T. C. Thompson). He regretted to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the action of the landlords in turning their lauds into pasture had been dictated by a feeling of spite—
  MR. T. C. THOMPSONsaid, he did not say that the landlords were actuated by spite, but that the tenants thought they were, and that they believed what the landlords were doing was greatly to the injury of their tenants.
  MR. BIDDELLwas glad to hear the hon. Member's explanation; but he contended that the landlords had acted simply on commercial principles, and that if they had turned their lands into pasture, it was only because they could not make them profitable in any other way. It was a melancholy fact that thousands of acres of arable land in Ireland had been turned into pasturage, causing a diminution of employment; but he was sorry to say that unless the prospects of agriculture greatly improved that operation would not be confined to Ireland, but would extend to England also. They might talk about philanthropy as much as they pleased, especially when it came out of other people's purses; but, after all their preaching, men must revert to commercial principles and use the land in the way which was found the most profitable. The greatest evil Ireland had to contend with was competition. It was a singular thing that, in all this distress, there was scarcely a farm to let in Ireland; while in his own county (Suffolk), there were numerous farms vacant which could not be let at all. With regard to the Bill before the House, he was inclined to support it, both upon its own merits and also from respect to the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced it. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was the best-abused man in England. Nevertheless, there was no

  1801
  man in the country who, in his opinion, better deserved that they should stand by him than did that right hon. Gentleman. No salary, and hardly any honour, could reward that right hon. Gentleman for the anxiety which he had had in this Irish Business. The best thanks of the nation were due to the right hon. Gentleman for what he had done; and he, as a Member of the House, thanked him for his exertions with regard to this measure. He believed that the right hon. Gentleman was actuated in what he had done by the most humane motives.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he desired to say a few words before this measure finally went to "another place." The people of Ireland had been made victims of this agitation, when, in reality, they had entered on it with the idea that the Government wanted it, in order that they might the more readily push on their schemes of Land Reform. The origin of the agitation which set in last autumn in Ireland was the rejection of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which, although the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) thought little of it, would have done a great deal of good to the country. It had been brought in with the most benevolent intentions, and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) believed the Chief Secretary for Ireland must have regarded its rejection with philanthropic chagrin. The speeches of the Prime Minister, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, after the rejection of that Bill by the House of Lords, had created an impression among the Irish people that they had more Radical friends on the Treasury Bench, as far as the Land Question was concerned, than they had in their own Representatives. Those speeches had produced most exaggerated notions as to the intentions of the Government, and the people believed they were carrying out the wishes of the Government by putting on steam in forwarding the Land agitation. As to this measure, if such were to become the law, as seemed now to be inevitable, he believed that it could not be in better hands than those of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, he had no doubt, would administer it with humanity; but if he used it at all, he would have to imprison twice as
  1802
  many innocent as guilty persons. The nature of people in Ireland was to suspect all around them. If they could not discover who had committed a crime, they suspected everyone near them. Having voted against every one of the provisions of the measure at every stage, he must, in order to maintain his consistency, oppose the Motion for its third reading.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, it was difficult for anyone to give expression to a new idea, or even to lend emphasis to an old one, on the question before the House. But before the obnoxious measure passed its final stage, he wanted to record once more his protest against it. Its passage into law would mark a painful chapter in the history of that House. They had had during its progress a Parliamentary coup d'état. They had witnessed a curtailment of some, and the suppression of other, liberties that were the cherished heritage of centuries, and they had experienced the establishment of a Dictatorship. The Government— for the purpose of supplying themselves with sufficient reasons for their policy— had had recourse to the practices of Paul Pry and of Fouche. They had opened private letters, and subjected the freely-chosen Representatives of the people to a surveillance that had been unheard of, certainly unpractised, since the days of the Stuarts. In company with a handful of hon. Friends sitting near him, he had persistently, consistently, and uncompromisingly opposed the Bill. They had fought it upon every inch of ground furnished them by the Forms of the House. They had resisted it as a whole, and they had resisted it in detail. In doing that, they had done nothing more than sustain the honoured traditions of English Radicalism. The course that he and his hon. Friends had pursued would have been pursued by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen sitting on the Treasury Bench—and not by six, but more than 60, sitting behind him there—if the position of Parties had been reversed, and a measure of a like character had been proposed. According to the ethics of latter-day Liberalism, coercion, when submitted by Tories, was a hateful and horrible enactment; but when proposed by a Liberal Administration, it was a beneficent provision for the protection of life and property. No doubt, that inconsis-

  1803
  teney could be reconciled to the crooked morality of partizanship; but he was sufficiently obtuse neither to see its justice nor its wisdom. A proposition was right, or it was wrong, upon its merits; and it was matterless what man proposed it, or what Party acted as its sponsors. The Bill before the House, in his judgment, was bad in principle, cruel in practice, and disastrous in its consequences. The British Parliament, the incorruptible sentinels of the Constitution, had made the liberties of the Irish people dependent upon the whim and temper of a nervous and inexperienced Lord Lieutenant, and a brusque and—so far as the Irish Members were concerned, he feared he must add —a somewhat supercilious Chief Secretary. He made no appeal to the Government, for he knew that either appeal or remonstrance addressed to them from men who, like himself, had so unceasingly resisted their coercion policy, would be unheeded; but he would like to put before the House some reasons why the despotic provisions of this measure should be mildly and mercifully applied—not in the interests of Ireland, not for the convenience or the comfort of the unfortunate men who were to be imprisoned, but for the benefit and the credit of the nation. He differed toto cœlo from the Government as to the necessity for such an Act. Wherever there was political disaffection amongst a people, broadening to the verge of insurrection, the laws under which that people lived, the Government by whom those laws were administered, wore by the very existence of the disaffection tried and condemned. It was a fallacy, a pitiful fallacy, which all history proclaimed, that the unruly passions of a people could be stirred into activity by the impetuosity of agitators, however earnest or however able, if there was not just ground of grievance. Whenever the affairs of a country were honestly administered, and the laws equitably applied, you could not convince the people of such a State that they were tyrannized over, trampled on, or insulted. A prosperous and contented population turned a deaf ear to the syren voice of sedition. You might pipe as lustily as you liked, but they would not dance to revolutionary music. If a man's boot pinched him, he did not punish his foot, but he altered his boot. In like manner, if the laws of a country
  1804
  pinched a people, and they gave expression to their pain, it was the duty of Rulers to inquire into their suffering and provide a remedy for it. That was not what the Government had done towards Ireland. For the better part of the third of a Session they had strained all their powers to manufacture whips by which to scourge the Irish people. That was not acting, in his opinion, wisely. Their course should have been to amend the laws complained of, and, if that had been done, there could have been no pretext, much less necessity, for the suspension of the Constitution. He had a cardinal difference, therefore, with the Ministry. He denied the necessity for their coercive measures, and he questioned their efficacy. But dismissing that view of the matter for the nonce, let them, for argument's sake, place themselves in the position of the Government. Let them approach the subject from the standpoint of the Ministers, and, having done that, he maintained that the lawlessness they lamented, and the disorder they deplored, might have been lessened, if not entirely avoided, if there had not been administrative vacillation and apathy. If, during last autumn or the commencement of the winter, the Common Law had been put in force firmly but temperately, the agitation would have been shorn of many of its excrescences. No one denied that there had been excesses, and none regretted them more than the Irish Members themselves. If there had been a vigorous application of the ordinary law of the country to these deviations from order, the Land movement would have been kept within legal channels, while its intensity would not have been reduced, or its success impaired. He did not believe it would have been possible for the Government to stay the agitation. That was beyond their power. The wellhead of political and agrarian discord was buried deep in the wrongs of ages, and no Coercion Bill that either this or any other Ministry could introduce could stop its perennial overflow. But the Government really did not wish to allay the agitation. They regarded it, up to a point, with approval; and he did not blame them for it. They conceived that the movement would make to their advantage; and, while they did not absolutely encourage it, they certainly regarded it without disapprobation when

  1805
  kept within given limits. It had gone beyond those limits, and had become troublesome. That, however, did not get over the fact that the Ministers were at first not unfriendly to a circumscribed agitation. To appreciate the point of that remark, they required to carry their minds back for 18 months or two years. It was necessary for them to recall circumstances that took place in the closing days of the last Parliament. They knew in that House that an alliance, offensive and defensive, was entered into between the English Liberals and the popular Irish Representatives. The belief was that the hereditary Par-tics in this country were nearly balanced, and that, at the General Election, the Irish voters in England and the Representatives of Irish constituencies might be able to cast the scale. It was the interest, then, of the Liberal Party— and he made no complaint of what was done—to open up friendly relations with Irish Members and Irish voters. He knew this treaty was not engrossed on parchment. It was not "sealed, signed, and delivered," like a legal document. Such bargains were never put on paper with such precision. If they were, they might turn out to be troublesome to one or both of the Parties concerned. But that a combination of the character he described did take place was unquestioned and unquestionable. They all remembered how influential Liberals were accustomed to come down to the House, in the last two Sessions of last Parliament, and throw their protecting aegis over the Home Rulers when they were struggling to exact some small concession from the occupants of the Treasury Bench. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was accustomed to shed the light of his countenance and his counsel upon benighted Irishmen when they were seeking, possibly, for an adjournment or delay. Articles appeared in magazines, under distinguished signatures, contending for the preservation of that most powerful instrument of Parliamentary independence-—Obstruction, especially when wielded by a small Party striving after great principles. Hon. Members on the other side contributed to the compact. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) and others went to Sheffield, to Liverpool, to York, and
  1806
  urged their countrymen to cast a solid vote for the Liberal Party. They urged it, too, with effect, as in the common cry against the Conservatives at the Election no notes were stronger or steadier than those raised by the Irish electors. The belief at the time was that the mild and comparatively harmless Coercion Bill which expired last year would be renewed. It was feared that the late Government would ask for its re-enactment. The point was pressed with great earnestness upon Liberal candidates whether they would or would not support the re-imposition of the Act of 1875. Not dozens, but scores, of these said candidates pledged themselves, as solemnly as men could pledge themselves, that they would resist any attempt at further coercion for the Irish people. It was declared by many that a repetition of the Coercion Bill for Ireland would not only be unjustifiable, but would be criminal. And yet the men who made these declarations, and upon the strength of them got Irish votes, had been the most resolute supporters of the Bill before the House, although that measure was beyond all doubt the severest Coercion Bill that had ever passed the British Legislature. He left these hon. Gentlemen to justify to their consciences and their constituents these wholesale breaches of their solemnly recorded pledges. In Ireland a like process had gone forward. Not hundreds, but thousands, of honest, law-abiding Irish farmers had joined the Land agitation with the distinct belief that when doing so they were aiding the Government. They entertained the opinion, and they were justified in entertaining it, that the first measure proposed by the Government would be a Land Bill, and they were anxious to raise a wave of popular opinion sufficiently strong to carry the Bill steadily and safely over the Bar of the House of Lords. Under this belief, these men joined the Land League, and went to their meetings. Many hon. Gentlemen in that House could confirm the correctness of this statement. He had been to some of those Land meetings himself, and he could testify to the fact that the names of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues were received with greater favour, and evoked a larger measure of enthusiasm, than the names of his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his associates. The

  1807
  settled belief of the Irish farmers was that from the Government they were to have immediate and drastic agrarian legislation. But what was the fact? The same men, who had been engaged in this agitation under the belief that they were aiding the Government, wore now being threatened with arrest. Every town and village in the South and West of Ireland was inundated with police agents and informers. The sympathizers and supporters of the Land League wore being closely watched. Everything they said was being chronicled, everything they did was being recorded, and the names of all with whom they came in contact were registered. This information was sent systematically to Dublin Castle; and he was speaking the simple truth—which could be vouched for by many hon. Members present—when he said that the Irish police had already established a reign of terror. These men, for having taken part in what they regarded not only as a legal agitation, but an agitation favourable to the Ministry, were being intimidated, and warned that, on the slightest provocation, they would be thrown into prison—a punishment by which not only their own comfort would be greatly interfered with, but by which their business would be disorganized. The result of this was a complete reversal of feeling. The men he had been describing regarded themselves as having been deceived. They looked upon the Ministry, rightly or wrongly, as having acted towards them treacherously. They had been enticed, as they thought, on to the ice, and left there to slide to destruction. The bitterness of feeling that had thus been engendered was such as he was sure the House did not rightly appreciate. If these men were cast into prison, as they were threatened to be, and if, when in prison, they were treated with the inhumanity, he might almost say brutality, with which the Fenians arrested under the last suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act were treated, there would be an explosion of popular indignation such as the country did not anticipate, and was little prepared to meet. Despair drove men to reprisals. He did not give the slightest countenance to the fear of insurrection that seemed to possess some persons. There was not a remote reason for supposing that any such movement was meditated.
  1808
  It only existed in the "heat-oppressed brain" of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or his Colleagues. Even the men who wore in favour of the separation of the two countries, and believed that war for that purpose was not only justifiable but necessary, admitted that, at the present time, such a task would be hopeless. It would only end in needless bloodshed, mischief, and misery. To attempt to wrest Ireland from. England by force would not only be a mad, but a criminal enter-prize. And the Separationists were as satisfied of the correctness of that opinion as anyone in the House. The Government, after opening the letters of some American Irishmen, had built up a terrible bogey, and got frightened at their own creation. But any man who could be so foolish as to suppose that poor old worn-out James Stephens was an agent who could be dangerous to the stability of the Union between the two countries, showed, by merely entertaining such an idea, his imperfect acquaintance with the present drift of Irish and American politics. It was not fear of an insurrection, therefore, that he pointed at. It was something quite as serious—an embittered and almost vindictive feeling between a large section of the Irish people and the English nation. Should that feeling get vent—and there was a fear that it would do so if numbers of Irishmen were arrested on mere suspicion and imprisoned—the consequences to England would be lamentable. The relations between the two countries would be further strained, and that hope of better relationship that they all cherished would be sadly dashed. He urged, then, the desirability—in the interests of the State, apart altogether from Party relations—of using the tyrannical authority that the Irish Executive had now got, mercifully and temperately. They were told to trust the Government, and especially to trust the Chief Secretary for Ireland. That right hon. Gentleman had made that request repeatedly during these discussions. If it was a question of personal confidence, he (Mr. Cowen) would have no hesitation whatever in trusting him—trusting him to any extent. He could say, with all can dour and sincerity, that he had the very highest faith in the right hon. Gentleman's good intentions and kindly disposition. He would not, he believed, needlessly set

  1809
  his foot upon a worm. But while he had that regard for him as a man, he must say, with equal frankness, that he had not the same confidence in him as a politician. Men did, in their collective capacity as Members of a Ministry or of a company, what they would shrink with horror from doing in their private capacity as simple citizens. They had had abundant evidence of the fact that many most tyrannical Rulers were, as men, not only unobjectionable, but commendable personages. That petty despot, a former King of Naples—whose name had turned up several times during these discussions— while treating with so much cruelty his political prisoners, was, according to Mr. Dale Owen, constantly engaged in interesting discussions as to the truthfulness of spiritualism or the philosophy of a future state. Maximilian Robespierre— who, during the Reign of Terror, was the practical Ruler of France—was not only an incorruptible, but a generous and gentle man. One of the ablest arguments ever penned in favour of the abolition of capital punishment was written by the intrepid Deputy for Arras, yet, during his short tenure of office, hundreds of Frenchmen were sent to the guillotine. Endless examples of the same kind might be adduced to show how men's character in public offices and places of trust often conflicted with their private character. It was a dangerous doctrine to entrust the public welfare to the exceptional virtues of any man. Highly though he esteemed the right hon. Gentleman as a man, he shrank from committing either to him or anyone the vast powers that were given by that Bill. The right hon. Gentleman could only put it in operation through the instrumentality of others, and those others wore police agents and informers. Of all created things, the most loathsome was a political spy. The creatures who could worm themselves into the confidence, could participate in the councils, of generous, ardent, patriotic, but possibly mistaken men, and, when they had got a knowledge of their proceedings, or had tempted them into a course of political guilt, could turn and betray them for the wages of iniquity, were— why there were no words that human language supplied sufficiently strong to anathematize such malefactors. And these were the men whom the right hon. Gen-
  1810
  tleman must, of necessity, employ and act with. Men like Corydon and. Talbot, the spies upon the Fenians—whose cup of life was drugged with treacheries to the brim—"their country's curse and their children's shame." He had no doubt the right hon. Gentleman was solemnly resolving in his own mind that he would have no contact with such scoundrels. But Lord Mayo and Lord Carlingford, equally generous, equally far-seeing and liberal men, doubtless made like resolves. They were not aware, at the time, that such ruffians as Talbot were being employed; yet, nevertheless, they were employed, and the knowledge of their employment was made apparent afterwards. As it had been before, he feared it would be again. They had to forecast the future-by the past. What had been done was the best index of what would be done. The right hon. Gentleman had been a Minister of the Crown before, and, in that capacity, had undertaken with jaunty confidence the settlement of another difficulty. He told the House, and he told the country, that he would canter over it. Instead of cantering over it, however, he cantered into it. He dragged his Colleagues and his Party after him, and they wandered for six dreary years in the desert of Parliamentary Opposition. He (Mr. Cowen) did not say that a like result would follow from the right hon. Gentleman's treatment of the Irish difficulty. The latter question did not evoke the same feeling in this country that the former did. The mass of the middle-class Liberals, too, in England, had made a fetish of the present Government. They believed they were politically infallible. They accepted anything, or all things, at their hands without question. The nauseous draught that had lately been administered was beings wallowed, with a wry face it was true, but still swallowed without complaint. But the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues might be assured of this—that excess of confidence would be succeeded by excessive distrust; that unmeasured laudations would be followed by unmeasured and, in all probability, undeserved censure. As long as human nature existed as it was at present, such consequences would follow from such causes. Extremes on one side begot extremes on the other. It was not a point that he laid great stress on at that moment; but, nevertheless, he

  1811
  felt satisfied that the disintegrating process that commenced in the Liberal Party when the right hon. Gentleman attempted to deal with the former difficulty to which he had referred, had again begun. It was impossible for any Ministry persistently to drive either Party in a course of action that was distasteful to them without disaffection, and that disaffection would deepen into disunion. He said this with sincere regret, and all the more strongly because he believed that the result, which many saw was being foreshadowed, might by an opposite policy have been avoided. He knew the course he and his Colleagues had taken towards this Bill had been a source of annoyance to hon. Members who wore sitting behind him. Hateful though the measure was to these hon. Gentlemen, they would have been glad if its objectionable features could have been huddled up and kept from the public view. But he (Mr. Cowen) did not understand his duty as a Representative in that light. With every impulse of his soul he hated the Bill; and now, at the close of the struggle, it was to him a melancholy satisfaction that he had done his best to defeat it, and, when he could not defeat it, to modify its character as well as to lessen its severity. Looking back over the last six weeks, he could only experience a sensation of shame. When they read the comments of foreign critics and the Resolutions passed by foreign Legislatures—such as his hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald; had referred to—he had, as an Englishman, a feeling of humiliaton. The relationship between England and Ireland was not only a discredit, but a disgrace to them. It affected not only their interest and their honour, but their influence and their reputation, amongst the nations of the world. It was impossible for them to expect that their counsel and authority on great International questions could be treated with the deference they deserved, so long as this chronic discontent existed in Ireland. It was a question that ought to be dealt with free from all Party feeling, from all angry passions, or unworthy prejudices. England was the richest nation in the world. Her actual savings amounted to upwards of £240,000,000 sterling. Yet, within a few miles of our own shores, within a few hours' ride of our own
  1812
  capital—the seat of refinement and of wealth—there wore thousands and tens of thousands of our fellow-subjects living on the verge of starvation, only a few degrees removed from pauperism. Nearly every 10 years they had a famine followed by an incipient insurrection, or an agitation almost equal in intensity to an insurrection. England, too, was the freest country in the world. There was no nation, either in ancient or modern times, who had the same measure of political and personal freedom that we possessed. Englishmen had been the pioneers of industry and social progress. They had set the world a magnificent example of their attachment to freedom when they liberated the slaves at a cost of many millions. They had lifted their countrymen from the position of subjects to the rank of citizens. Their laws were open to all, and were free to all. Yet, in an integral portion of the United Kingdom, they had, during the last 80 years, suspended the first and most precious principles of the Constitution—over a lesser or larger area, for a shorter or a longer time—on nearly 50 occasions. They had made this country a storehouse into which was carried the produce of every clime. They had covered the surface of the globe with Colonies, and constituted those Colonies, in their turn, the seats and centres of a general and ever-widening civilization. Yet they had been unable to attach to them one of the most generous of races, or do more than extract from thorn a sullen acquiescence in their national partnership. They might reason as they liked, they might apologize or extenuate it as they pleased, the simple recital of these facts was the most eloquent condemnation that could be uttered of the government of Ireland by England. "By their fruits ye shall know them." And the fruits of English rule in Ireland heretofore had been like Dead Sea apples —fair without, but full of nauseous bitterness within. He sincerely trusted that this Coercion Bill, with all its hateful provisions and its humiliating accompaniments, would be the last measure of that kind that the British Parliament would ever be called upon to enact. He had said hard things, he knew, of the Bill and of the Party who had submitted it; but now that the discussion was closed, he hoped they would see their way at once to introduce other

  1813
  measures of a remedial character, and that these would he urged forward with as much determination as they had applied to the Bill now about to pass its final stage. The gathering gloom of the days to come would, he hoped, be relieved by proposals which might do something towards healing the many and angry wounds that the atrabilious discussions of the last six weeks had made amongst their struggling and suffering countrymen on the other side of the Irish Channel.
  MR. R. B. MARTINsaid, he wished to correct an impression which might have been derived from the speech of the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) — namely, that the American people largely sympathized with the very advanced views of a certain class of the Irish people. Having made a visit to America during the last autumn, he felt he could, from the experience he had gained while there, most emphatically deny that such was the case. He had been careful to make inquiries on this point, and he had been constantly informed that, though in certain quarters such expressions were used by politicians to conciliate the Irish vote, the majority of right-thinking American citizens wore in accord with Her Majesty's Government as to their views of the proper course of legislation to be taken concerning Ireland. After what had been said by several hon. Members as to the attitude of Americans towards England on the matter, he felt bound to give his testimony on the subject. He was reminded by the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) of the gentleman who, a few years ago, disputed that the world was round, and having chosen the best umpire he could find, was very angry when the umpire decided against him. For, with regard to this Bill, the hon. Member for Newcastle was not a little angry to find that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), who might be taken as a fair and impartial umpire, was clear in regard to its necessity. When responsible Members of Her Majesty's Government decided that some measure of coercion was necessary, it did seem to him strange, and hardly fair or right, that hon. Members who were not behind the scenes and were not able to form a sound judgment, should assume for themselves better
  1814
  means of forming an opinion than the Members of the Cabinet.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, it seemed that while it was promised by Her Majesty's Government that a further Coercion Bill should follow immediately upon the Bill before the House, a great amount of sympathy with Her Majesty's Government was expressed by the Conservative Party. The moment, however, that the Arms Bill was suspected to be in danger, the unholy alliance between the two Benches was dissolved. A pretty little quarrel now existed between the two sides of the House, and far be it from him to spoil it. They were now debating the Motion for the third reading of the so-called Protection Bill. The measure wore a very different aspect from that which it presented when it was introduced. In fact, it had unfolded itself by degrees as a rose opened itself in the morning. At first it was directed— so they were told—against village ruffians. Now its scope was enlarged so as to take in clergymen, women, and children, and, indeed, everyone who took part in public life in Ireland. The Bill, in truth, was largely aimed at the Land League, which was merely a Land Reform Association. It was perfectly true that at some of its meetings injudicious and indefensible things had been said; but it was to be judged, not by these casual and irresponsible utterances, but by its whole scope and real object. The cry that was now being raised against the Land League was like the cry that was got up against the Catholic Association. Speaking on the point in that House, Mr. Shiel said that the Catholic Association found the means of excitement in the state of society, and that Mr. O'Connell would have been powerless if he had not found an ally in that great conspirator against the public peace, the Law of the land. This was precisely the position occupied by the Land League. Its power rested not upon the agitators, but upon the Land Laws. The Secretary of State for the Home Department had tried to help out his case on the previous evening by referring to what he called the link battalion of the Land League in America. No doubt, that country contained Irishmen of wild and subversive notions; but they were refugees from British rule in Ireland, for the only manufacture that England carried on in Ireland was the

  1815
  manufacture of insurrectionists and informers. The House had heard a good deal about O'Donovan Rossa, about Michael Davitt, and Mr. Devoy. Did that House appreciate the facts that had made agitators of O'Donovan Rossa and Davitt? Rossa was a relieving officer, who had witnessed the horrors of famine, and had passed the coffinless bodies of the starved victims; while Davitt was the son of an evicted tenant farmer. Such were the men whose conduct was said to be striking terror into the hearts of the landlords, and their ranks would be largely recruited after the passing of the measure before the House. They were told that assassinations were being plotted in America; but it should be remembered that there had been a time when something of the kind went on in London. Were not Orsini bombs at one time manufactured in the Metropolis for purposes of assassination in the French capital, and did it not happen that an English Cabinet Minister was regarded as by no means clear from implication in that very objectionable business? They were told that under the Land League movement lay the National movement. Well, his Colleagues in the representation of Ireland made no secret of the fact that they had not abandoned the Home Rule cause, and they would not abandon it for any Land measure that might be passed by Parliament. In the concession of the national rights of the Irish people would be found the settlement of all the existing troubles and difficulties, including those that had been affecting the House during the last few weeks. New Rules had recently-been framed by the Speaker for facilitating Business; but there was one Rule that would be worth them all—namely, Home Rule for Ireland.
  MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, he rose more for the purpose of trying to recall the Government to one or two pledges which they had made to that House than for the purpose of attacking them, as he had no fear that the uncomplimentary epithets showered on the occupants of the Treasury Bench during the last two nights would cause them to change their good intentions. He wanted, however, to remind them that they had promised, so far as he could understand, to exercise the power which would be conferred upon them by this Bill with no harshness except such as
  1816
  might be absolutely necessary for the safe custody of the persons arrested; that they had promised to extend the Prison Regulations of 1877, so that the sad results of 15 years ago would not be repeated; that they had promised to re-consider and re-examine each case; and that they had promised to bring forward as rapidly as possible the remedial measures which were urgently needed. He was not sure that his judgment was a right one—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—he was quite sure that the judgment of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport was a minus quantity; but he was obliged to protest to the last against the measure, and perhaps was, therefore, hardly entitled to ask the Government to consider what he now submitted. While he voted against the measure as a Radical, he did not do so in any spirit of hostility towards the Government, but because he believed that measures of coercion irritated the evils they were intended to cure, and that the Government had been misled by the panic fear exhibited by hon. Members occupying seats on the Opposition side of the House.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am glad, before I say the few words which I am delighted to know must be the last words I shall have to speak on this Bill —I am glad, before I say those few words, that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) has made the candid, straightforward, and generous appeal we have just heard from him. He began by saying he hoped that the epithets which have been used towards the Government and myself would not drive us from our good intentions. We should, indeed, be unworthy of the duties which we have to perform if we allowed those epithets, or any of the language which has been used, to have the slightest effect upon us, either with regard to our conduct towards the people of Ireland or in performing our duties in this House. It is quite true, as the hon. Member says, that we have made certain pledges; but they wore not forced from us. We felt that we were quite willing to make them. They were pledges that were in our own minds, and we were glad, in the course of these debates, to state them publicly, both as regards the letter of the Bill and the spirit in which it will be carried out. It is perfectly true that we have stated that we will do our best to prevent any suffering or

  1817
  hardship to the men whom we may think it desirable to detain that will not be necessary for their safe-keeping. We have stated that we will try to carry out the prison regulations in such a manner as to prevent the recurrence of what happened 13 or 14 years ago, not, I fully believe, through any fault of either of the Governments which had to carry out the Bill, but because there was not so much knowledge about these matters then, and so much care was not taken in regard to the treatment of prisoners generally as there is now. It is said that we should gain experience from what happened then, and also from what happened in 1871. I can only say that in the treatment of these men under this measure we shall remember, and ought to remember, that though, I believe, it is a mistake to suppose that more innocent men will be arrested than guilty, it is still possible that innocent men may be taken up, although we shall do our best to guard against the arrest of innocent men, and to re-consider their case as soon as possible afterwards. We shall remember that fact; and there is another fact that we shall remember also— namely, that although we shall very likely have to arrest men who have committed outrages, we shall not forget how they have been tempted into outrages by those who have been, and may consider themselves, and may be, quite safe. And now, Sir, I must say a word or two with regard to what fell from the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen). The hon. Member referred to a charge which was made early in the Session, but which has not been very much insisted upon in the course of the debate on this Bill. I think the fact that it has been so little mentioned furnishes its own disproof. The charge is, that we might have prevented the necessity of the extraordinary Law we were asking the House to enact by making better use of the ordinary Law—that we might, to use the hon. Member's own words, have shorn the agitation of its excess. All I can say on that matter is this. From the very first day of this Session I have challenged hon. Members to show how we could make the ordinary law meet the evils with which we had to contend, and to show where we fell short in putting the ordinary law in force. As yet I have heard no detailed accusation made against us. Then the
  1818
  hon. Member for Newcastle is in curious agreement with the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton), and fully endorses the remarks of the noble Lord. A few months ago I should have thought that such remarks would have been hardly natural from the hon. Member for Newcastle; but they do not surprise me now. The hon. Member seemed to suppose that we have encouraged the agitation in Ireland for our own purposes. He made an allusion to speeches which have been made, and he made an allusion also to magazine articles. I do not know whether he had in his mind any speech of the humble individual who is at present addressing the House. If he had, all I can say is that I defy him to find any speech made by me, either in this House or out of it, to my constituents, or at any Party or popular meeting, that is in the slightest degree inconsistent with the lines which I have taken up here in regard to this Bill. The hon. Member made a remark about magazine articles and the contributions of Cabinet Ministers. We know very well what he was alluding to. But, if the distinguished man who wrote the article to which the hon. Member refers had been here this evening, and if my right hon. Friend had not already spoken in the debate, that passage would have been left out of the hon. Member's speech. I am not going to reply on behalf of my right hon. Friend; the insinuation which the hon. Member seeks to convey is its own answer. We have been told that there was a distinct alliance between us and hon. Members below the Gangway, before the close of the last Parliament. An alliance for what? [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: To turn out the then Government.] ["Order!"] An alliance for encouraging outrage? An alliance for replacing the law of the land by the unwritten law of the Land League? Does the hon. Member for Newcastle charge us with that? No; if there was an alliance at all, it was an alliance which showed that we were in favour, and that he is in favour, and that we thought at that time hon. Members below the Gangway were in favour, of a searching reform of the Land Laws of Ireland. The hon. Member says that we have sowed the wind and have reaped the whirlwind. That is an expression which was also used by the noble Lord the

  1819
  Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill); but was there anything that was said by any of the occupants of these Benches, or by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, that the hon. Member for Newcastle can really think ought not to have been said with regard to Irish grievances, or the relations of Irish tenants, or, indeed, with respect to any other subject? And why? If the hon. Member does not think we did wrong at that time, why does he taunt us with it now? The hon. Member says—"I do not accuse the Government of having made a mean or a selfish alliance." Now, of all the speakers I have ever listened to in this House, the hon. Member is the most fertile in making insinuations and then appearing to disown them. He says that he does not accuse us of unworthy motives; but he made a speech every word of which, if it meant anything, contained an accusation which, with his knowledge of speech and his knowledge of writing, he must have known would be likely to have force in the country. The hon. Member was complimentary to myself personally, for immediately afterwards came a very pleasant comparison. I have been the subject of so many pleasant comparisons lately, that I am quite content that the hon. Member should make me the object of another. He did not hesitate in so many words to compare me to Maximilian Robespierre; and yet the hon. Member says—"I do not wish to accuse anybody. Oh! dear no." He also seemed to think it worth his while to go back for several years to a different measure and to a different policy altogether. He made an illusion to the old Education Act, and he said, referring to myself—"The right hon. Gentleman led his Party wrong at that time, and he will lead them wrong again." I should not take notice of this accusation if it were not that I desired to make this remark—Docs the hon. Member at this moment really think that I was wrong in that policy? I believe he does not; and I merely mention the matter because, although I find it necessary to make these remarks in reply to the hon. Member's speech, I still entertain the hope that six years hence, if both of us be living at the time, he may find that he has been as much in error in his exaggerations about this Bill, as I believe he now finds he was exaggerat-
  1820
  ing in his expressions about the Education Act. There are one or two explanations which it is necessary I should make—on this 22ndnight of these long debates—before we come to a division upon this last stage of the Bill. It has been a very wearisome task, and I am sure I am glad that it has come to an end. I believe that hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given the Government such a hearty and earnest support in carrying through this measure— [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: Yes, a very hearty support.]—I am glad that the hon. Member approves of that expression. Do the Irish Members believe that the support given to the Government has not been hearty and earnest? They must also have felt that it was a very wearisome business. It has been a wearisome business to all of us. It has taken six weeks of the Session—for really we have been doing nothing else —to discuss what, after all, although a necessary measure, is an administrative measure, and a temporary administrative measure—when we had fondly hoped that, long before now, we might have been engaged on a permanent measure for remedying the great grievances of Ireland in connection with the land system, and grafting upon that system a better condition of things. But, after all, although it has been a wearisome task, it has been a necessary task; for when we talk about grievances, and especially about Irish grievances, what is it that we have been doing? We have been delivering Ireland, or trying our best to deliver Ireland, from a great grievance, and we have been saving her, or believing we are saving her, from a still greater peril. Now, what was the grievance? Let us look back for a moment to what was the condition of things when Parliament was called together. At that time, in a great part of Ireland—and it was increasing every day—as regarded the chief occupation of the inhabitants there was no liberty, and there was no security for either person or property. Men were not free to pay their debts, or to earn their living—["Oh!"from the Home Rule Members.] — and if they strove to be honest and tried to be industrious, there was no security that cither their persons or their property would be safe. Well, there has been no serious and real attempt to disprove

  1821
  that statement. Fault has been found with one or two Returns, and it has been said that the mode in which they were drawn up savoured somewhat of exaggeration. But when they were drawn up as hon. Members thought they ought to have been drawn up, they showed just about the same number of offences. A complaint has been made—-I think by the senior Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), but certainly by some hon. Members—that I did not look after the Blue Books sufficiently, and see that they were sensational enough. ["Oh!"] I have had that charge made against me; but I say that there has been no real attempt to disprove the fact that the state of things I have described did exist, and that it was getting worse day by day. So much for the actual grievance. What was the peril and the danger? I need not dwell on the increase of outrages during the last three months of the year — from the end of September until the end of December. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: Threatening letters.] ["Order!"] They would have gone on increasing if Parliament had not shown that it would interfere with a firm hand. Since Parliament has been called together those outrages have diminished, and they are diminishing. They are still very great; they are still far beyond the usual number. The month of January was worse than any month since 1841 with the exception of the months of November and December last year. This month, although better, is still bad. And why are things getting better? Because this House has determined to interfere, and has shown that it will make it difficult for these outrages to continue. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) complained very strongly that the Government had not called Parliament together in September or October, and had not asked it for this Bill then. I do not know whether quite as early as that time, but certainly before the end of the year, it is perfectly true that if I had had the power to have passed such a Bill without consulting Parliament, and could have made it law, I should have done so. I should have done so, because I foresaw that an increase in the number of outrages would occur. But wo must remember that while we live under the conditions of a free country there must be temporary
  1822
  evils and occasional departures from freedom. I am quite convinced now, whatever I may have felt before, that if wo had called Parliament together in October or November, we should not have got its assent to this Bill. And I cannot say that I feel perfectly sure that we ought to have got it then. My position of responsibility for order in Ireland gave me much knowledge of the state of things in that country. Hon. Members seem to suppose that I got my knowledge of the state of things in Ireland in an extraordinary manner.
  MR. HEALY: You were never out of Dublin. [Cries of "Order!"and "Name him!"]
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can tell the hon. Member that while I was in Dublin I watched his action in the county of Cork. Does he, or do hon. Members, suppose that I got my information from such of the landlords as might happen to drop in upon me day by day, or might come in in a knot. I may say that at that time I was not a particularly popular individual with the Irish landlords. However, I got a great deal of information that enabled me to see there would be a great increase of crime in November and. December, and that the month of December would be as bad a month as it was. But if I had persuaded my Colleagues to call Parliament together in November, the House would not have taken my forecast for granted. It required an enormous increase in the number of outrages—I regret to say that the increase did occur —to induce Parliament to pass this Bill; and I say, upon general principles, that it is of advantage that the House should be very chary and very jealous in passing such an Act as this. It, therefore, did require very strong facts to be brought forward before it consented to take this course. Well, if we had not done what we have been doing, no doubt, crimes would have gone on increasing, unless, or until, they had served their purpose, until they were no longer necessary, and until the unwritten law had really replaced the law of the land. They would have gone on until irresponsible committees would have usurped the authority of the Judges and the magistracy of the land. That is the peril from which this House, in its long and wearisome work, has saved Ireland. And not from that danger alone. Hon. Members com-

  1823
  plain that we do not give them exact proofs of what we really fear in regard to treasonable practices. They must know very well that in the nature of things these proofs could not be given. I do not wish to overrate the difficulty and danger. I do not compare it with the danger to the social system; but I repeat what I said at first, at the time when I brought in the Bill, that fact after fact happened which strengthened the conviction I then felt, that there are men taking advantage of this agitation, taking advantage of what appeared to be at the time—and was for a time, but we are stopping it now—the victory of the unwritten law of irresponsible individuals over the written statute law of the country. Taking advantage of that and of the consequent lawlessness and disorganization of society, there wore men of desperate, dark, and atrocious designs, who were inclined to turn matters to their own account. An hon. Member alluded to the speech of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He mentioned two or three names. I will not go over them now, except to say this—I ask the hon. Member who spoke last but one (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), if he is not aware that of the people who have been instrumental in getting these large subscriptions from the United States, which have been the great support and sustenance of the Land League movement, John Devoy was one of the most influential and the most successful? There was another name mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—that of Redpath, from whose atrocious speech my right hon. Friend quoted. Will the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) deny that Redpath went from Land League meeting to Land League meeting in Ireland? Thanks to this House, Ireland is being delivered from this peril, and men are beginning to see that they cannot break the law with impunity, and that they cannot defy it without danger. People are beginning to suspect that crime will no longer be successful on account of its intensity, and that they will not save themselves— putting it in practical language, which they will understand—from imprisonment, by successfully threatening witnesses and juries. Well, Sir, there is another source of comfort to the House, and it is that, after the performance of
  1824
  this wearisome task, the House has done a still more necessary work—it has asserted its own strength, it has proved that it is strong enough to cause the laws which it thinks right to make to be respected. It was quite time that it asserted its strength. Many persons told me, when I said this Protection Bill was a necessity, "You may say so, but you cannot pass it. There are SO or 40 Members who will support the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), who will make use of all the Rules of the House, and you will not be able to pass that Bill." I make no apology for alluding to the hon. Member for the City of Cork in his absence, because he is generally absent. I am sorry to speak of the hon. Member for Tipperary in his absence, because I know well enough that he would be ready in this House, and out of it, to maintain anything that he has said. I remember, in a speech which the hon. Member made last Session, to which I had occasion to allude, that he encouraged his Irish audience by telling them that no such Bill as this—[Cries of "Question!"and "Order!"]—it is very much to the Question—that no such Bill as this could be passed, because he and his Friends would prevent it. Well, they have tried to prevent it, and they have failed. But the impression that they would succeed was, of all the influences against law and order in Ireland, the strongest. The poor cottier tenants in their misery, and with the bad teaching to which they had been exposed, and by which they had been influenced, willingly believed hon. Members when they said—"We are powerful enough in the House to prevent any fresh law being made. Not only have we the moans of frightening people from disobeying our unwritten law, but we will take care that the laws of the land shall never be reinforced by a law strong enough to put us down." It was time that, for the good order and government of Ireland, such an impression should cease. All that has now come to an end. Not only those who hear those speeches, but hon. Members who make them, know that it has come to an end. The practical effect of the passing of this Bill will be that shrewd, business-like men, such as the farmers of Ireland—for they are shrewd, business-like men—even the

  1825
  poorest of them will treat such statements and promises as the emptiest of boasts. It was time that the House should show its strength—not only in the interests of good government, but for the position of this Assembly among the nations of the world, and we should have been called to bitter account by our constituencies if we had not done it. The House has now shown its strength. It has shown its strength by using its power to deliver Ireland from this, its greatest grievance, the want of security for liberty, for life, for property, or for industry. It has shown its power to do this; but do not let us forget our strength. Let us remember that we are strong for other purposes; that we are strong to remove all the evils of the land system, which relates more to the life of Ireland than anything else. We are strong enough to remove them, and this is one point on which I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen). I believe with him that we are strong enough to make it impossible—for it shall be unnecessary, and therefore impossible—to have another Coercion Bill. I believe that this Session, before it ends, will be a Session in which we shall all be glad to have had some part and share, and that we shall really settle this great Irish question, so that Irishmen may have a good hope of being a prosperous and a contented people in future.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did great injustice to his own talents. He never rose to speak in that House that he did not begin by assuring the House that he was utterly devoid of anything like rhetorical power, and before he sat down he always showed that he was possessed of that highest of rhetorical arts—the art of misrepresentation. The right hon. Gentleman, assuming an air of simplicity and philanthropy—and the simplicity was quite as sincere as the philanthropy—always managed to convey the impression that he was only endeavouring to lay before the House the plainest and the simplest facts. But the right hon. Gentleman had not uttered many sentences before they found him with admirable dexterity, taking hold of some chance expression in the speech of some preceding speaker, and representing it as the real gist of that speaker's argument. For instance, the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen), in illus-
  1826
  trating the argument that it was unsafe to intrust a people's liberty to a private individual, happened to mention the case of Robespierre, and the right hon. Gentleman, with his sham simplicity— [Cries of "Order!" and "Withdraw!"] —immediately thought it necessary to say that the hon. Member had compared him to the French Dictator. As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Newcastle was simply using the case of Robespierre as an illustration in support of his argument. What the hon. Member said was this—that it was unsafe to trust the liberties of Ireland, or the liberties of any people, even to the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, however much they might rely upon his individual humanity. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor) was prepared to say in the face of the House that he had no confidence in the right hon. Gentleman, and that he believed this Act would be used and abused exactly as it suited the political purposes of the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had freed Ireland from a grievance. What was the grievance he had freed Ireland from? Only recently one magistrate had put 100 Irishmen in gaol for bailable offences without bail. Was that the grievance the right hon. Gentleman had saved Ireland from? Several of the landlords were already using their powers of eviction against their tenants. And why? Because the Irish landlords now thought that the Liberal Party had deprived the tenants of the strong protecting arm of the National Land League. Was that the grievance the right hon. Gentleman had saved Ireland from? How many of the Irish Members thought that the right hon. Gentleman had saved them from a grievance? How many of the Irish Members had supported his coercive policy? Had not this policy of coercion been as strongly denounced by the Irish Liberal Members as by the Home Rule Members? Had it not been denounced by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Colonel Colthurst), as by his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell)? ["No !"] "No!" The language employed might have been somewhat different; but did anyone in his senses believe that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the County of Cork was not as strongly opposed to coercion as anyone upon the Home Rule

  1827
  Benches? Had not coercion been denounced by those Members from Ireland who signified their constant fidelity to the Treasury Bench by always taking their seats behind it? There was not a single section of the Irish Members that had not joined in this denunciation of coercion, except a few Tory Irish Members who represented the landlord class in Ireland. And so, when the right hon. Gentleman came there, and, with his skilful simplicity, spoke of freeing the Irish people from a grievance, did he not know that his thanks from the Irish people were execrations for saving them from it? The grievance he was saving them from was protection from tyranny. Last Session, when the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleague the First Lord of the Treasury, whose absence they all regretted, were thundering against landlord tyranny, and telling the House that as distress increased in Ireland evictions by the Irish landlords also increased; when the Prime Minister was denouncing eviction as equivalent to a sentence of starvation, in the same speech telling the House that 15,000 persons were going to be evicted, and that 15,000 persons were going to be starved—when the right hon. Gentleman was telling them all this, and yet failed to save them from suffering it; when the Bill of the right hon. Gentleman was stopped, and the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues took upon themselves the responsibility of leaving these 15,000 people to starve, the right hon. Gentleman accepted, in all the spirit of Christian humility, this affront from "another place," and left these 15,000 people to starve. And these 15,000 people would have starved, and would have been evicted, if the Irish people had not found a protecting arm in the organization of the Land League. The right hon. Gentleman-said in a tone of triumph — [Cries of "Oh!"]—he (Mr. O'Connor) called upon his hon. Friends on those Benches to mark the spirit of toleration which animated hon. Members on the Liberal Benches, when an Irish Member stood up to say a word on behalf of the liberties of his country. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary spoke in a tone of triumph of having carried this Bill through. He (Mr. O'Connor) and the Irish Members were prouder of their defeat than the right hon. Gentleman had a right to
  1828
  be of his triumph. At what an expense and at what a cost had the right hon. Gentleman achieved his triumph! If there was one thing more precious than another, it was freedom of speech and liberty of discussion in that free Parliament. Where were freedom of speech and liberty of discussion now, with their gagging clause and the cloture at a certain hour of the evening? The Government had debauched English political opinion. And, with regard to their own position, let any impartial man compare the mind and temper of Parliament that day with its mind and temper eight months ago. Why, this Parliament was decrepit in its youth, and so was the Government. There was not a Minister who did not know that in the last seven weeks they had inflicted an injury on their prestige which they would never be able to remove. Did any of them believe that if there were a General Election to-morrow the Liberal Party would return to power? [Laughter.] He saw the Vice President of the Council indulging in hilarious laughter; but he should have a word to say with regard to him presently.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he preferred the open and honest enmity of the Conservatives to the false and treacherous friendship of the Whigs. It had been remarked by the hon. Member for Newcastle that during the recent Election there had been an alliance between the Irish Home Rulers and the English Liberals. Did the memory of the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council carry him back to the scene on a Sheffield platform, when two or three Members of the Irish Party went down, and, in all the ingenuousness of their hopes, invited their poor countrymen to go to the poll and vote for him because his friendship for Ireland was so great? How many hon. Members were there on the opposite Benches who would have been there but for the votes of Irishmen? How many of those now jeering at him whilst speaking under such difficulties would be in their places if it had not been for that fact? And this was the return which the Liberal Party made for Irish sympathy and support! He had been taught the lesson, in the course of these debates, that

  1829
  the greatest danger to the Irish cause was a Liberal majority so strong that they could afford to be independent. When the Liberal Party were in Opposition, no such friends of Ireland as they, for the Members of the Irish Party were then indulging in Obstruction, and Liberal Members came and privately told them how the game was to be played. Their greatest skill lay in disposing of the good manners of the Irish Members, and their higher prestige as Englishmen in Parliament came to the assistance of the beleagured Irish forces, and accordingly they were open to the guilt of Obstruction, which could be turned to Irish Liberal purposes. Some hon. Gentlemen, who afterwards became Eight Honourables, came in at the tail of the hunt.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call upon the hon. Member to address himself to the Question before the House.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the Chief Secretary for Ireland had spoken at length of the relations between the Liberal Party and the Irish Members, and the same subject had been repeatedly referred to by previous speakers in the course of this debate. He therefore humbly submitted that he was only replying to observations of the right hon. Gentleman and several other Members. He said, if anything had been clearly proved in the course of the debates upon the Coercion Bill, it was that the bitterest enemy to the Irish cause was the Liberal Minister who raised himself to power upon Irish hopes. If there were a treacherous enemy to Ireland in the political world, it was the Radical full of promises and professions of friendship for the Irish people as long as they could keep him in the cold shade of Opposition, and who, the moment he got into Office, was ready to kick aside with contumely the ladder by which he ascended. He thought Irish Members could look back with gratification to the contest in which they had been engaged. They had fought the fight against overwhelming odds; they had compelled the House, in order to defeat them, to abrogate its dearest privilege of freedom of debate, and they had effectually cured the superstition still lingering in Ireland that any hope was to be formed from Liberal pledges or Liberal Ministers of the Crown, who had professed to be champions of the Irish cause during
  1830
  20 or 30 years of public life, and who had not been ashamed to come down to the House to win Tory cheers by Tory arguments in favour of coercion. But there was one right hon. Gentleman on the Treasury Bench who, if he had not the courage of his convictions, had, at any rate, the silence of his shame, thereby setting a good example to his right hon. Colleague in the representation of Birmingham. That right hon. Gentleman sat on the Treasury Bench, a Member of a Coercion Ministry, with the same air of perennial self-complacency which distinguished him, whether he was pleading for the emancipation or assisting in the coercion of the Irish people. Finally, he had discovered in the course of these debates, to use the words employed by a former Conservative Leader of the House, that "organized hypocrisy" was another name for a Liberal Ministry that dealt with Irish affairs and raised itself to Office by Irish votes.
  Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 321; Noes 51: Majority 270.—(Div. List, No. 94.)
  Main Question put.
  The House divided: —Ayes 303; Noes 46: Majority 257.—(Div. List, No. 95.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this Bill do pass."
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was aware that in rising to address the House on this question he was departing from the ordinary course; but the House, he thought, would admit that the occasion was not. an ordinary one. If there were 20 other questions on which he could arrest, if only for a few moments, the passage of the Bill which was to destroy the liberties of his countrymen, he would speak on every one of them. He was bound, as an Irish Member, to do what he could for the liberties of his countrymen in this arena, which was the only one open to him. The right hon. Gentleman had taunted the Irish Members with having opposed this Bill to the last, and that it had been passed in spite of them. The Chief Secretary was right; they had done their best to prevent the Bill from passing, and they only regretted that it was impossible for them to do more. At this last moment

  1831
  they availed themselves of the opportunity of entering one more protest against a measure which would deprive the people of Ireland of every shred of liberty they possessed. The Bill was called the Protection of Person and Property Bill; but it was nothing of the kind; it was a measure for the suspension of all law, and the substitution for it of the arbitrary will of two men— two men who saw with the eyes and heard with the ears of a class who were, and always had been, hostile to the Irish people. On behalf of the county he represented, he protested against the measure, and was prepared to show that there was no call for it, and that it would unnecessarily increase the power for evil in the hands of the dominant class, which power they had always, to a certain extent, possessed. The right hon. Gentleman had told them that crimes in Ireland called for coercive legislation; but what was the fact? There had been no cases in which protection had been afforded by the constabulary in Queen's County from January 1, 1880, to June 30, 1880, and there had not been one single case of offences against the person. All the offences against property had been three incendiary fires, and one case of injury to animals; and all the other agrarian offences that could be quoted against the county were 13 threatening letters. And what was the character of the magistracy there? There was a great distinction between the magistracy and the people, for, while the latter were Catholic, the late Lieutenant was, and the present Lieutenant also was, a Protestant, the Vice Lieutenant was a Protestant; of the Deputy Lieutenants, 13 in number, every single one was a Protestant; the resident magistrate was a Protestant, and of the other magistrates of this Catholic county, 66 in number, only 6 were Catholics, whilst 60 were Protestants. Moreover, the Crown Prosecutor was a Protestant, resident in Dublin; and of the Petty Sessions clerks, 16 in number, every single one was a Protestant. These were the men in whose hands was to be placed the power—through the Lord Lieutenant—of imprisoning every man they might choose to pretend to suspect. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill was directed against dissolute scoundrels and village tyrants; but the effect of it would be
  1832
  to establish a village tyrant in every district in Queen's County. Every shred of liberty would be taken away from the people. The liberty of the person was gone, for anyone could be taken up on mere suspicion; the liberty of speech was gone, for no person could tell what construction might not be put upon the words he might utter at a meeting; and the liberty of the Press was gone. All this, in the minds of hon. Members, was nothing. Therefore, he availed himself of this last opportunity of offering what opposition he could to the measure, and of recording a final protest against it. He begged to move as an Amendment to the Question Mr. Speaker had put from the Chair—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has availed himself of his right to speak to the Question before the House, and I understand him now to say that he proposes to move an Amendment. I am bound to tell him that, at this stage of the Bill, it is not open to him to move an Amendment. The Motion is one quite of a formal kind, and he has taken rather an unusual course in speaking to it.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: The unusual character of the course I am about to take I thought justified by the unusual character of the Bill. Before taking this course, you will allow me, Sir, to say that I carefully consulted the Journals of the House, and the Amendment which I have placed in the hands of the Clerk I copied, textually, from those Journals.
  MR. SPEAKER: The practice the hon. Member has referred to has become obsolete, and I have again to tell him that he is not at liberty to move an Amendment to the Motion.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Then I will content myself with expressing my determination to oppose the Bill.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I wish to say— and I will delay the House only a very few minutes—
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me to be the general sense of the House that this Question should be now put.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I beg to move, Sir, that the Question be now put.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Question be now put."—(The Marquess of Hartington.)
  The House divided:—Ayes 282; Noes 32: Majority 250.—(Div. List, No. 96.)
  Question put, "That this Bill do pass."
  The House divided:—Ayes 281; Noes 36: Majority 245.—(Div. List, No. 97.)

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS).—QUESTION.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am anxious to ask the Secretary of State for India a Question with respect to a telegram which I am informed has been received from South Africa. I understand that that telegram is to the effect that communications are now passing between Sir George Colley and the Boers at Laing's Neck. The telegram is dated from Dunbar, and I wish to ask the noble Lord, If he can give us any information as to the contents or nature of the communications?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the telegrams received from South Africa were read, at an early period of the evening, by my right hon. Friend, and I understand from him that no information has been received from the Transvaal to-night.

  BLIND AND DEAF-MUTE CHILDREN BILL.— [BILL 85.]
  (Mr. Woodall, Mr. B. T. Willliams, Mr. Montagu Scott.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Beading read.
  MR. WOODALL,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its object was to provide for the better education of blind and deaf-mute children. Hon. Members who were Members of the last Parliament would be familiar with the provisions of the Bill; and it was therefore unnecessary that he should take up the time of the House by referring to them at length. He believed the Bill had been so drawn as to meet the objections which, at different times, had been urged against previous measures. He was not aware that there was any opposition to the present Bill, except such as might be fairly and readily met in Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Woodall.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read a second time, and committed for Friday 25th March.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Railways, appointed; Public Accounts, nominated.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) [79]—Fourth Night— R.P.

QUESTIONS.

  POLICE SUPERANNUATION — LEGISLATION.
  SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been directed to the Police Superannuation question, and to the Report of the Committee on that subject in 1877; and, whether it is his intention to take any steps during the present Session to carry out the recommendations of that Committee?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that the subject had been under his consideration, and he should be very glad if the Government had the means of introducing a measure for the purpose of carrying out the recommendations of the Committee during the present Session.

  CRIMINAL LAW—CASE OF THOMAS BECKETT.
  MR. JACOB BRIGHT (for Mr. C. M'LAREN)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, with reference to the case of Thomas Beckett, tried on Saturday at the Leeds Assizes for the wilful murder of his wife by cutting her throat in his own house, his attention has been called to the prisoner's own statement, read in evidence, giving a minute account of the murder, and containing the words "I meant to do it—I had made up my mind

  883
  to do it;" to the charge of the learned judge, who referred to the crime as one committed in cold blood; to the verdict of manslaughter; and to the sentence of four days' imprisonment, dating from the opening of the assizes, by virtue of which the prisoner was instantly discharged; whether he is aware of the strong sentiment of educated Englishwomen against the leniency with which crimes of violence against the person of women are habitually viewed by judges and magistrates; and, whether, if such a verdict and such a sentence as the above are, giving full weight to all the circumstances of the case, in accordance with the Law of England, he will consider the necessity of introducing a measure to amend that Law?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Secretary of State for the Home Department has no authority to interfere with or to review the acts of a Judge or of a jury in the discharge of their duties, or to censure thorn for undue leniency or severity in the punishment of crime, his functions being necessarily confined to giving advice to the Crown upon the exercise of its Prerogative of mercy. It would not, therefore, be proper for me to express a personal opinion as to the character of the sentence alluded to in this Question, it being a matter that does not come within the sphere of my duty. As to the second part of the Question, my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. C. M'Laren) expects too much from me when he asks me to vouch for—
  "The strong sentiment of educated Englishwomen against the leniency with which crimes of violence against the person of women arc habitually viewed by judges and magistrates."
  I have a letter from the learned Judge who tried the case, in which he describes the conduct of this unfortunate woman. He says, that having committed adultery, which was condoned by her husband, she insisted upon returning to her paramour. On her way to him her husband remonstrated with her, and she thereupon stabbed him. Well, I do not think such conduct as that calls for much sympathy from the educated women of England. As far as I am aware, there is no defect in the law which requires amendment. In the case in question the law would have sanctioned any amount of severity of punishment which
  884
  the verdict of the jury and the sentence of the Judge had pronounced; and I know no means by which juries can be compelled to deliver verdicts, or Judges to pass sentences, other than those that the dictates of their own judgments prescribe.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND— ALLEGED DETENTION OF WITNESSES.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on the 16th of August 1380 Margaret Cashin, aged fourteen years, and Mary Cashin, aged nineteen years, both of Shanbough, co. Kilkenny, were taken by the police, without summons or warrant, and convoyed to New Ross, where they wore privately examined by Mr. George Bolton, Crown Solicitor, in reference to the murder of Mr. Charles Daniel Boyd; whether they were kept in a hotel in New Boss for four days, and then conveyed in charge of the police to Kilkenny, where on the 21st of August they swore informations before the magistrates, and were duly bound over to appear and give evidence at the assizes on the trial of the persons charged with the said murder; whether they asked at Kilkenny to be allowed to return to their homos, but were refused; whether they were kept in Kilkenny for a fortnight and then removed, still in charge of the police, to Dublin; whether they were detained in Dublin, although their father, through his solicitor, had formally demanded their release, until on the 16th of September the constable who had charge of them was served with a conditional order for a writ of habeas corpus; whether they were then released and sent home on the 17th of September, having been for thirty-two days detained in the custody of the police; and, whether, if these statements are true, he will inform the House upon what grounds those proceedings were permitted or sanctioned? MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the hon. Member really asks me, not one, but seven Questions; and, consequently, I must be pardoned if my answer is somewhat long. I have received a Report from the authorities of the district on the subject. It states that they had reason to suppose that a number of residents in the neighbourhood of where the murder was committed could give

  885
  material evidence with reference to the occurrence; and amongst others were two young women, Margaret and Mary Cashin. Their evidence was taken down by the Crown Solicitor; and he, finding it to be important, and believing that considerable excitement was prevalent in the neighbourhood, and that much hostility was felt against witnesses in the case, he thought it necessary, in the interests of justice, that they should be protected from intimidation or the risk of being tampered with; and he accordingly expressed a wish that they should be conveyed to a respectable hotel in New Boss, until they, with the others, were conveyed to Kilkenny, where the magisterial investigation was held, when they swore depositions and were bound over to prosecute. It is not a fact that these young women asked, when at Kilkenny, that they should be permitted to return home and were refused. I do not know how long they remained at Kilkenny; but the committal of the prisoners for trial having considerably increased the excitement with respect to the witnesses rendered it still more necessary that they should be protected, and an order was issued that they should be sent in charge of the Constabulary to Dublin, to remain there until the trial; and this was done as soon as arrangements could be made. They remained in Dublin, voluntarily, with a married sub-constable and his wife till September 13, when their father called and asked that they should be allowed to return homo. The matter was referred to the sub-inspector in charge of the district, who, on the following day, wrote an order to the effect that the girls should at once leave with their father if be should call for them again. The sub-inspector added—"It is to be clearly understood that these people are not to be detained against their will." However, the father did not call again; and as they afterwards expressed a wish themselves to go home, arrangements were made, and they were sent to their father on the 17th September. The necessity for protecting witnesses in this case is shown by the fact that both at Kilkenny and Now Ross witnesses were assaulted in a violent manner for giving evidence, and, but for the protection afforded them by the Constabulary, would have been seriously injured.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he can state if these girls were taken into custody before it was known they could give any evidence at all; whether it is a fact that they were detained in custody after it had been found that their evidence was quite immaterial; and, whether they are ready to state on affidavit that they were detained against their will?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I think after the hon. Gentleman has put seven Questions to me, he ought not to put further ones.

  SCOTLAND—THE GENERAL REGISTER HOUSE, EDINBURGH—RE-ORGANIZATION.
  MR. JAMES CAMPBELLasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the scheme for the re-organisation of the General Register House, Edinburgh, will come into operation before the close of the present financial year; and, if not, at what date?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. M'LAREN), in reply, said, that it was recommended by the Departmental Committee that the new scheme should take effect from the commencement of the next financial year; and he had no doubt that that recommendation would be given effect to.

  CRIMINAL LAW—A DEAF AND DUMB CRIMINAL.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the case of a lad aged 15, deaf and dumb from birth, and reported as utterly incapable of receiving and imparting ideas, who, having been neglected and apparently encouraged in crime by his parents, was sentenced in 1877 to five years in a reformatory in order that he might be taken proper care of; whether the managers of the reformatory having refused to receive him, he is now the inmate of a convict prison, under instruction by a specially retained instructor from a deaf and dumb asylum; and, whether he is prepared to take into consideration the representations of the Directors of Convict Prisons as to the undesirability of his being retained in his present position?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have inquired into this unfortunate

  887
  case. Every attempt was made to find a suitable institution for this boy; but no institution would receive him. An instructor has been obtained for him from the Royal Association for the Aid of the Deaf and Dumb, and I have the following Report from the chaplain of the prison in which the boy is:—
  "Since he has had the advantage of this instruction, the improvement in his habits, conduct, and character has been most marked. I think his educational progress has been fairly satisfactory; hut as yet he is only able to read very easy words. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that his transfer to another prison would be most undesirable, unless means could be found to continue his instruction."
  I think that the best that could be done for the boy is now being done for him.

  EDUCATION (METROPOLIS) — CHARITIES OF THE CITY OF LONDON.
  SIR HENRY PEEKasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, having regard to the urgent need of increased provision for middle class education of the children of the clerks, warehousemen, and small traders of the Metropolis, the Government will issue a special Commission to re-organise the charities of the city, in accordance with the recommendations of the Duke of Northumberland's Commission?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, there can be no doubt that the City Charities are, in many instances, grossly misapplied, and that their usefulness might be largely and advantageously extended in the direction indicated by the hon. Baronet. Nothing, however, can be done without further legislation. The Education Department has already communicated with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Charity Commissioners on the subject; and I hope that some measure will be devised to improve and extend the usefulness of those Charities. That, however, must depend on the state of Public Business.

  CRIMINAL LAW (IRELAND) — WHISTLING:.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that a man named Lee was brought before the magistrates at the Petty Sessions Court at Newcastle, county Limerick, on the 11th inst. for whistling in the streets of that
  888
  town, and what decision the magistrates came to on the case; and, if any complaint has been made of the conduct of Head Constable Copeland by the people of that district?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, the hon. Member asked whether a lad had been brought up in Newcastle, in county Limerick, for "whistling," and what was the decision in the case. The magistrates dismissed the case. He (Mr. W. E. Forster) did not object; but really if he was asked Questions about every case in which punishment was or was not awarded, he would have a good many Questions to answer. No complaint was made of Head Constable Copeland. It seemed there wore a number of young men in Newcastle, who were banded together, and called themselves "Black Diamonds," who were given to annoying people in the streets. Their principal misconduct consisted in tarring shutters, breaking glass, and assaulting the police. Patrick Lee, the lad in question, was one of a gang, and followed some of the police, and annoyed them by whistling some objectionable air. The magistrates entered no rule in the case, and he thought they did quite right. Of course, if these "Black Diamonds" did make themselves a nuisance, they would have to be put down; but he thought the police might have found some better case to proceed upon than that of whistling.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked, amid much interruption, whether any outrages were proved to have been committed by these boys?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he did not know; but he thought there wore offences committed by them; but he supposed they were not caught.
  MR. M'COAN: Were these offences classed as agrarian outrages in the Bo-turns?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Certainly not.

THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—MR. PARKER G. SYNOTT.
MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If, at a public meeting reported in the Belfast "Morning News" of the 4th instant, as having been held at the "Diamond," county Armagh, on the 4th instant, Mr. Parker G. Synott, a

889
justice of the peace for that county, expressed himself as follows:—
"Papacy is the same to-day as it was three hundred years ago. It has the same devilry in it to-day, and it would deceive God Almighty himself if it was any benefit to its adherents;"
whether this gentleman sits as a magistrate at petty sessions, in a district inhabited by a mixed population of Orangemen and Catholics, where there is not a single Catholic magistrate; and, whether this report is substantially accurate; and, if so, whether he will cause to be instituted against Mr. Synott any prosecution for the use of such language?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he had seen no report of the proceedings at the meeting in question, and had no information on the matter. If the gentleman alluded to had used the expressions attributed to him, he (Mr. Forster) was very sorry for him, for he thought it very unadvisable that objectionable expressions should be used, whether by a magistrate or anyone else. The hon. and learned Member asked whether a prosecution would be instituted against him for them; but he (Mr. Forster) was advised that no prosecution would be likely to succeed, if it was undertaken. He was sorry to say that, in past times, Catholics used very much stronger words towards Protestants,. and Protestants used very much stronger words towards Catholics; and he believed the general interpretation of "freedom of speech" was that a prosecution did not follow upon such words.

COMPANIES ACTS—TRINITY COLLEGE, LONDON.
MR. E. CLARKEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether any and what decision has been arrived at with regard to the recent application by a Limited Liability Company, having for one of its objects the granting of diplomas, and calling itself Trinity College, London, for a licence from the Board of Trade permitting the Company to omit the word "Limited" from its title?
MR. CHAMBEELAIN, in reply, said, that he had, after careful consideration, come to the conclusion that this Company did not come within the scope of the enactment that enabled the Board of Trade to dispense with the use of the word "Limited" in cases of institutions not for the purposes of gain, but for the promotion of art, science, charity,
890
commerce, or religion. Under these circumstances, he had declined the application. He ought to say that he had that afternoon received a further application from the College, in which it was proposed to restrict its object to the advancement of the art and science of music, and that application was now receiving his consideration.

CENTRAL ASIA—RUSSIA AND TURKEY.
MR. M'COANasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether there are, in the archives of the India Office (or of the Foreign Office), as stated in a morning newspaper of Saturday, any Minutes of conversation held with the Russian Ambassador in 1876, in which a partition of Turkey was proposed, as also an arrangement for the settlement of a new Russo-Indian frontier, involving the absorption of Afghanistan; and, if such Minutes do exist, whether he will lay Copies of them upon the Table of the House?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, this Question has been substantially answered by my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in "another place." I ought, perhaps, to repeat the protest made by my noble Friend against Questions of the kind being put, inasmuch as the answers to them may involve statements which would not be for the public advantage. My noble Friend, however, in this instance, thought it desirable to state, in order to avoid misconception—and I therefore have no objection to repeat the statement—that there are no Minutes of this description, so far as we are aware, either at the India or the Foreign Offices.

ARMY—THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY FORCE).
CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House any Copies of Correspondence that may have passed between Sir Garnet Wolseley and the War Office, at the close of the Zulu war, with reference to the number and description of troops that it was thought advisable to leave in the Transvaal, in order to ensure the maintenance of law and order there, taking into consideration the dissatisfaction of the Dutch Boers with the policy of annexation car-

891
ried out by the Government then in office?
MR. CHILDERS: No, Sir; it is not usual for the Secretary of State for "War to lay on the Table Correspondence with Commanders-in-Chief abroad, as to the prospective strength of their commands. I may, however, in order to avoid misapprehension on the subject, say that the force in the Transvaal and Natal, when the recent insurrection broke out, was precisely of the strength recommended by Sir Garnet Wolseley at the close of the Zulu War.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE BASUTOS.
MR. RICHARDasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he is able to confirm the announcement made by telegraph from Cape Town that Letsea, the paramount Chief of the Basutos, has asked for an armistice, and that a suspension of hostilities for seven days has been accorded; and, whether he is able to inform the House on what terms the Government of the Cape Colony are prepared to make peace with the Basutos?
MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir. "We have received news that a week's armistice has been officially confirmed. In reply to the second part of my hon. Friend's Question, I think the best answer I can give is to read part of the telegram which the Cape Minister agreed to Sir Hercules Robinson sending to the Chief Magistrate at Maseru, with reference to the Basuto application. The terms offered to the Basutos in that telegram were—
"Let their sincerity be proved, if they are sincere, by an immediate surrender of their arms in submission to the authority of the Government; and in that case I would try to secure that they shall be treated with the utmost leniency, consistent with the vindication of the law's authority."
The Cape Minister further agreed to Sir Hercules Robinson sending these words—
"In the event of their placing themselves unreservedly in my hands, they may rely upon me using my utmost endeavours to secure for them terms not only just but generous."

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACT, 1870—MOVEMENT OF CATTLE.
Mr. A. J. BALFOURasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it is not the fact that cattle sent from a dis-
892
trict where there is no disease to one where disease is prevalent have to get permission from the local authorities of both places; whether the necessity of obtaining the permission of the local authority in the place to which the cattle are sent is not, under such circumstances, a needless formality; and, whether the Government propose to take any stops towards removing or mitigating this grievance?
MR. MUNDELLA: It is not a fact, Sir, that cattle sent from a district where there is no disease to one where disease is prevalent cannot be moved without permission from the local authorities of both places. Animals may be moved from any district which is not comprised in an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease into an infected area with the licence of the local authority of the latter district only. The "needless formality" to which the hon. Member refers of obtaining the permission of a local authority in the place to which the cattle are sent is not imposed by an Order in Council, but by Act of Parliament. By the 4th schedule of the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, 1870—
"Animals may be moved into, in, or out of an area infected with foot-and-mouth disease by licence of the local authority."
And it seems only reasonable that the local authorities should have the power of regulating the movement of animals throughout their district.

INDIA—RAILROADS—THE SOUTH MAHRATTA COUNTRY.
MR. A. J. BALFOURasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether any scheme has been sanctioned by the Home Government for constructing a railroad between the South Marhetta country and the sea; if so, whether the line selected is the one approved by the Government of India; and, whether the Government is prepared to lay papers on the subject upon the Table of the House?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, the Home Government have made an arrangement, in fulfilment of the Treaty of 1878, with the Portuguese Government by which, if that Government establish a port at Marmagao, and construct a railway from thence within Portuguese territory towards the South Mahratta country, the Indian Government will continue the line from the

893
frontier to New Hubli, and ultimately connect it with other lines to be constructed in that part of India. The Government of India were disposed to be more in favour of connecting the Mahratta country and the coast by means of a railway which would start from Karwar, a port in British territory, a little south of Marmagao; but that would probably have involved a larger expenditure on the part of the Government of India, whereas the line now selected in Portuguese territory is to be made under a guarantee from the Portuguese Government, and the same object will be gained. I am not sure whether the Correspondence is complete; but when it is there will be no objection to lay it on the Table.

CRIMINAL LAW—JAMES STEPHENS.
MR. OTWAYsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department a Question of which he he had given him private Notice. It was, Whether the Government have any information as to the movements of James Stephens, the head centre of the Fenian conspiracy, who had some years ago escaped from gaol in Dublin when committed for trial?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Yes, Sir; I have information that James Stephens recently arrived in Paris.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any preparation has been made by the Government for the reception in the gaols of Ireland a large number of ladies who are likely to be arrested under the operation of the Coercion Bill?
[No reply was given.]

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 79.]
  (Mr. William Edwarel Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress 14th February.]
  [FOURTH NIGHT.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Power of Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain).
  MR. M'COANmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after the word "Ireland, "to insert "proclaimed under the provisions of this Act." It would be necessary to examine the Bill in order to render the Amendment intelligible. The clause already agreed to provided that any person reasonably suspected of treasonable offences, tending to interfere with and disturb the maintenance of law and order, might be arrested in any part of Ireland, and the effect of this Amendment would be to require that the offence for which the warrant was issued must have been committed in some part of a district or county specially proclaimed, and thus brought under the operation of the Act. It was, he felt, a very hopeless task to attempt to move an Amendment of this kind; and, as he had little or no expectation that it would be accepted by the Government, it was, he feared, a waste of effort almost to try and secure its acceptance by the Committee. Yet he thought he should be able to show reasons which justified the proposition. The object of the Government in asking for this Bill was not to arm themselves with vindictive or tyrannical powers, but to obtain such extra powers beyond those conferred by the ordinary law as would enable them to preserve peace in Ireland. Assuming, for a moment, that they had made out a case, and that it was necessary to give exceptional powers in order to secure the maintenance of law and order, they themselves declared that it would not be necessary to exercise these powers except in certain special districts where the law had been set at naught, and was not sufficient to preserve the peace. If the Amendment wore adopted, the construction and action of the Bill would, atleast be rendered more symmetrical. They would have the proclaimed district, complete in itself, as the original area within which the crime must be committed, and it would then continue to be the limited area within which it might be punished. It might be objected that they would be creating a sort of Alsatia, in which an offender might take refuge. At the first blush there might seem to be something in that objection; but it rather supplied an argument in favour of extending the proclamation over the whole of the country.

  895
  If the non-proclamation of a district admitted of an abuse by allowing an offender to take refuge within it, then the logical course would be to proclaim the whole country; and then those who resided, or addressed meetings, or who happened to be in any of the non-proclaimed districts, would know at once that if they opened their mouths they would subject themselves to all the terrors of the law. If there was any marked indisposition on the part of the Committee to accept the Amendment he would not press it to a division.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after the word "Ireland" to insert the words "proclaimed under the provisions of this Act."—[Mr. M'Coan.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I really think that the hon. Member's Amendment almost answers itself. What would happen if it were inserted in the Bill would be this—Her Majesty's Government do not wish to proclaim any district which it is not necessary to proclaim. Of necessity the fact of proclaiming a district would show that there was reasonable suspicion that somebody within the district was doing something to tyrannize over others, or to commit offences in the district. But if this Amendment were adopted such a person, by just running over the border into a non-proclaimed district, would make himself perfectly safe. Of course, the Committee will not for a moment expect that the Government can give their sanction to such an Amendment. The only effect of adopting it would be that we should be obliged to proclaim many more districts all over Ireland than would otherwise be necessary.
  MR. BIGGARthought the argument of the right hon. Gentleman was somewhat weak. The Bill should either apply to the whole of Ireland or it should not. It was alleged that certain parts of the country were disturbed, and that certain other parts were not disturbed; and there ought to be some limit as to the districts in which the arrests might take place. It would be just as fair to say that because there were some disturbances in parts of Ireland—which, however, he disputed—the whole of the United Kingdom should be brought under the provisions of the Bill. The
  896
  same argument would apply to the facilities of removal from Ireland to England as from a proclaimed district to some other district which was not proclaimed. It was unreasonable, he thought, to oppose the Amendment. It was alleged by the Government that the great object of the Bill was not to punish crime, but to prevent crime from being committed; and if a person suspected of fomenting crime in a particular district left that district and went into a more peaceable locality, he saw no reason why he should be punished just as if he had remained to pursue his criminal proceedings. He would advise his hon. Friend to divide upon the Amendment.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped that his hon. Friend would not persevere with the Amendment, because the penalty of adopting it would inevitably be the proclamation of the whole of Ireland, and, so far, Her Majesty's Government had announced no such intention. He fully appreciated the motives which had actuated the hon. Member for Wicklow (Mr. M'Coan), and also those which induced the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to support the Amendment; but, under all the circumstances, he hoped that the Amendment would be withdrawn.
  MR. M'COANsaid he would not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. O'DONNELLmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 13, after "and" to insert—
  "After an investigation in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, at which the suspected person shall have full facilities for any explanation he may have to offer."
  He ventured to think that this Amendment was one which ought to commend itself to the support of the Committee. It simply proposed to insert in the body of the Bill certain provisions which the Government had led them to believe would only summarize their intended practice under the Bill. The Irish Party had repeatedly urged on the House, since the commencement of these debates, the formidable and objectionable character of a Coercion Bill giving a premium upon arrest and imprisonment on suspicion. In the existing circumstances of Ireland, the absence of special provisions would place the liberty of every

  897
  man at the disposal of the village tyrant, the tyrannical, the spiteful, or the frightened magistrate, the spiteful policeman, and the policeman greedy of promotion or reward. These were the class of men who would be authorized to lay informations and grant warrants on such informations, and to arrest and imprison without an appeal against such warrants. There could be no doubt that some provision was required to guard the people at large against spite and malevolence on the part of those who considered that they and their interests were specially in danger from the popular agitation now proceeding in Ireland. It must be in the recollection of every Member of the Committee, from the expression of opinion on the part of the Irish magistrates, which had found a vent by a hundred channels in the English newspapers, that among the Irish magistrates there was a feeling of exasperation amounting to blind passion directed against all those whom the magistrates considered to be the leaders of a movement which they denounced as confiscatory, unjust, and dishonest. Nothing could be more different than the points of view from which a non-landlord magistrate and a landlord magistrate would be likely to regard the Land League agitation. In practice, it was impossible in Ireland to draw a distinction between the non-landlord magistrate and the landlord magistrate; but the landlord magistrate, as a matter of fact, numbered about eight out of ten. All the police looked to them for the recommendations which regulated promotion and reward. Even in ordinary times a constable looked to the number of arrests he made in the discharge of his duty as a sort of proof to his superior that he was duly performing his duty, and that he was an efficient constable. Accordingly, at a time when the whole body of the Irish Constabulary would be, so to speak, specially enjoined to be doubly vigilant in spying out and suspecting crime, the House might be certain that the ordinary ferreting qualities of the constable would be excited to the highest pitch, and a positive mania for suspicion would not be absent from the lowest ranks, when they knew very well that a mania for opening letters had seized the very highest of Her Majesty's subjects. It would not be denied, for the Chief Secretary for Ireland had himself ad-
  898
  mitted that the existence of this disposition on the part of the magisterial class, and the possibility of their exercise of unrivalled power would constitute, if unsupervised, a danger of the greatest magnitude to the liberties of the Irish people, even the most innocent, and a danger to the peace and tranquillity of Ireland. The right hon. Gentlemay had assured them that the responsibilitn for suspecting, arresting, and imprisoning would not really be in the hands of the constabulary and the magistracy, but that the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant, or the two together, would supervise every case. If that was to be the policy of the Government, it could not be considered anything novel and unjust to ask them to put their policy in the Bill. If it was the intention of the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant to examine carefully, judiciously, and conscientiously into the case of every suspected man whom some constable or magistrate might recommend to the notice of Dublin Castle as deserving of 18 months' imprisonment, let them place in unmistake able words the record of their intention in the Bill. It was for this purpose that he proposed to insert this clause, providing that the detention of suspected persons in custody should only take place after an investigation in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant, or Chief Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant, at which investigation a suspected person should have full facilities for making explanations. The Chief Secretary and the Law Officers might suggest that there would be an investigation in each case, although not in the presence of these high authorities; that the investigation would consist in the careful examination of the written depositions and the sworn informations of constable X and sub-constable Y, and, a careful examination of the grounds on which the local magistrates might have recommended the arrest. But he maintained that the mere examination of a number of documents sent up from Sligo or from Donegal, and laid before the Chief Secretary in his office in Dublin Castle, in the absence of the accused person and of every means of testing the good faith and accuracy of the information, would be a most utter and complete sham. It would be a fraud imposed upon the public and upon Parliament; and although the Chief Secretary

  899
  had the most implicit and touching confidence in the representations made to him by the subordinate officials of Ireland; and although, on the ground of that implicit and touching confidence, the House was prepared to absolve the right hon. Gentleman himself from any participation in the fraudulent character of the proceedings, their conviction as to the innocence and honesty of the Chief Secretary would not absolve them from the duty of protecting the liberties of their countrymen by such reasonable safeguards as it was not only the right but the duty of Parliament to introduce into the present Bill. The opportunity of the Chief Secretary for entering into a detailed examination of any informations sent up to Dublin Castle must depend upon the number of those informations; and, in fact, the magistrates throughout Ireland need do no more in order to defeat totally the honest intentions of the Chief Secretary and the benevolent intentions of the Government in general than to nominate as many unfortunate Irishmen for arrest and imprisonment, and to forward such a mass of suspicions to Dublin Castle, to overwhelm the Chief Secretary with such a multitude of applications for wholesale incarcerations that the Chief Secretary, if there were 48 hours in the day, would he unable to go into the whole of them. And in such circumstances, if no sufficient provision was introduced into the Bill as a warning against the over zeal of the magistrates, the Lord Lieutenant would be obliged to sign warrant after warrant without the slightest real examination into the merits of the case. Therefore, making every allowance for the good intentions which were mingled with loss praiseworthy elements in the Bill of the Government, he suspected, and he did not conceal his suspicion, that the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be incapacitated by the multiplicity of the informations from examining into the accusations, as he had promised the House to do. He wished to protect the Chief Secretary from the consequences of his own rash engagements, and to bring him, while the Bill was still under discussion, face to face with the difficulty which was before him. If the right hon. Gentleman was convinced that he could deal with all the cases that would be brought before him upon the information of the land-
  900
  lord magistrates of Ireland, then there could be no objection to introduce these protective provisions into the Bill. If, on the other hand, he had any reasonable suspicion that he would be unable to deal with the accusations, then the Amendment was of a character to enforce upon his mind the real difficulty of the task upon which he was rushing. The Amendment might even be further amended in the direction of allowing the Chief Secretary assistance in examining into the cases which would be crowded upon him by the vindictive magistracy of Ireland. But, on the other hand, the House were entitled to take the Chief Secretary at his word. He had again and again assured the House that it was not the magistrates of Ireland who would be the ultimate judges, but that he would examine into and decide every case. Then lot the right hon. Gentleman and the Government bind themselves, by explicit words introduced into the Bill, to provide that no Irishman should be sentenced to arbitrary imprisonment without appeal, except after direct investigation by the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant. The suspected persons should have full facilities for giving any explanation they might have to offer. That was all important. If the Chief Secretary had nothing but a number of informations sent up to him from the North or South of Ireland, and he proceeded to examine them without the presence of the suspected persons, it would be absolutely impossible for him to arrive at a conclusion which would have the slightest weight upon the conscience of the country. He would be adjudicating in the dark; and even although his remarkable acumen might direct him in some cases to a true verdict, the public at large would be unable to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for that acumen in the absence of the ordinary and rational plan of confronting the suspected person with the information on which he was suspected. The right hon. Gentleman refused to place the suspected man in the presence of his accuser. He insisted on guarding the accuser behind a veil of secrecy. He could have no valid reason for keeping the information from the view of the suspected man. It had been stated by an English Member that already Her Majesty's Government had made preparations for the summary arrest of

  901
  1,200 persons in Ireland. If the Bill was worth anything, there must be at least 1,200 persons arrested, because the Government declared that it was intended to put down the village tyrants and the dissolute ruffians who were to be found in the different parishes of Ireland. Considering that on the plea of Her Majesty's Government themselves there were enough of these dissolute ruffians in each parish to overawe the law-abiding people, they had only to multiply the number of parishes by the minimum number of dissolute ruffians in order to arrive at a sum total of several thousands. If, therefore, the Bill was worth anything, not only 1,200 Irishmen, but many thousands, were threatened with the loss of their freedom; and some precautions were necessary in order to provide that there should be something like a fair and honest investigation of the circumstances of every case. They had only to consider the number of cases that came before a single Judge, in order to arrive at something like an idea of the amount of labour which the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to undergo with so light a heart. The Amendment was absolutely necessary if the Chief Secretary intended to carry out the pledge he had given to the House; and it was quite as necessary if the Chief Secretary found himself ultimately unable to carry out that pledge, because, in that case, the benefit of the incapacity of the right hon. Gentleman should be given to the suspected persons, and Parliament should not take upon itself the responsibility or the guilt of sentencing a single Irishman to arbitrary imprisonment without, at least, some guarantee for a fair investigation into the facts of the case.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after the word "and," to insert the words "after an investigation in the presence of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, at which the suspected person shall have full facilities for any explanation he may have to offer."— [Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I need hardly say that I cannot accept the Amendment, or accept the statement of the hon. Gentleman as to the mode in which the Bill will be carried out if it becomes
  902
  law, or in regard to the number of persons who will be arrested under it, or any other particular. It is quite true that I stated, and made it clearly understood, that the putting into force of this Act would not depend upon the police or upon the magistrates in different parts of Ireland. I do not wish by that to convey any reproach upon the police or the magistrates. I only say that that is not the intention of the Bill, and if we were to allow it to be done we should divest the Executive Government in Dublin of their responsibility. What is conveyed by the Bill, and what I understand will really be the case, is that the responsibility will rest upon the Lord Lieutenant, assisted by his responsible Advisers, and the Chief Secretary, as one of those Advisers,? will share the responsibility. But I must say that while my noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant, and while I, myself, feel that responsibility very strongly, and feel that we have a most painful task imposed upon us, we must be allowed to use our own discretion as to the mode in which we fulfil it. We really could not undertake that responsibility if the House of Commons were to endeavour —although I do not suppose they will— to prescribe the particular mode in which we should exercise our functions.
  DR. COMMINSwas sorry to hear the expressions which had been used by the right hon. Gentleman. One of the principal reasons urged by the right hon. Gentleman as a salve to induce the House to accept the introduction of the Bill was that there would be no danger to individual liberty, and no risk of injustice being done in individual instances, because he himself would examine each particular case and see that there was sufficient ground for committal. But what did the right hon. Gentleman say now? He began to see the magnitude of the task he had undertaken, and to find that he had heaped upon his shoulders a responsibility which no Hercules or Atlas could bear. The right hon. Gentleman now shifted his ground altogether, and departed from the promise by which he obtained a good many votes on the other side of the House. Certainly, he obtained none from the Irish Members, because none of them could place any dependence on the promises of the Government. Nevertheless, there were many hon. Members

  903
  who had too much respect for the old principles of the Constitution to surrender them without a struggle, even when it was only Irishmen who were to be the victims of that surrender, and he contended that they had been deceived by the promise of the Government. Having obtained votes from hon. Members on all sides of the House on the promise that he would look after each individual case, the right hon. Gentleman said now that the putting in force of the Act must depend upon the magistrates, and that all he and the Lord Lieutenant would do would be to give their fiat that the Act was required in any particular district. There was, consequently, no guarantee whatever for the due investigation of every case that came under the Act. On the contrary, there was a complete abandonment of all guarantees to the people of Ireland that respect would be paid to individual liberty, and that safeguards would be adopted for the protection of those who might be under suspicion, owing to the malevolence, private spite, or even baser motives of getting them out of the way while evictions were effected, or some private object carried out. The question went a great deal further than seemed to be supposed. It actually put the good faith of the Government at issue. If they did not mean to furnish some sort of safeguard to prevent the Act from being abused, why did they make a promise at all? They had also promised remedial measures; but what reliance could the Irish people have in that promise, when the good faith of the Government was found wanting almost on the first occasion on which it was tested? What reliance could the people of Ireland have in the splendid Land Reforms of the Government which were to follow this despotic measure of coercion? He imputed no deliberate intention to the Government to deceive the Irish people; but he asked them to look at the position in which they had placed themselves, and see if their conduct was not fairly open to that construction. The Irish people would naturally say—"You have deceived us in this matter. You have broken faith with us at the very outset, and we cannot rely on your good faith or honesty in regard to any other mea-sure you may introduce." He urged the Government to make a concession
  904
  now by accepting this Amendment. He hoped they would take into consideration the possibility of abusing the provisions of the Act for private purposes. If the Chief Secretary was unable to investigate every case, some other authority might be substituted. It was a matter of common observation that Her Majesty's Judges in Ireland were by no means overworked, and that the English Judges of Assize, and the Chancery Judges, did more work in three months than the Irish Judges did in 12. In point of fact, it was alleged that they employed the chief part of their time in yachting or in other agreeable amusements. ["Question !"] He was coming to the Question directly. It had often been remarked that the Irish Judges had a considerable amount of time at their disposal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Gentleman that he is now travelling beyond the Amendment before the Committee.
  DR. COMMENTSsaid, he only wished to suggest that if Her Majesty's Government could not adopt the Amendment in its present form, the Irish Judges had plenty of leisure to enable them to undertake the proposed investigation.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That has nothing to do with the Amendment before the Committee. The hon. Member must confine himself to that Amendment.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he had merely thrown out a suggestion. He had no doubt, however, that it would meet the fate of every other suggestion; and he would leave the matter where it stood. He would only ask the Government to carry out the promises they had made on the introduction of the Bill; or, if they were not willing to carry out those promises, and confessed that they could not carry them out, that they would provide some guarantee for the performance of the duty of investigating charges that might be unjustly preferred. He had no sympathy with or compassion for the perpetrators of outrage in Ireland; he pleaded only for those who might be unjustly suspected or accused. They were told that the constabulary had been overawed; that the ordinary processes of law were set aside. It would take at least 12,000 people to overawe 12,000 armed men furnished with bayonets, firearms, and buckshot. The

  905
  number who would be suspected or charged 'would, at least, be equal to the number whom they overawed and rendered powerless. The hangers-on of the Irish magistrates, the process-servers, and all other officers of the law, were also rendered powerless, so that, in point of fact, it would require the arrest almost of an army.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I have already told the hon. Member that he is travelling beyond the Question before the Committee.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he did not desire to travel in the slightest degree beyond the Question. He was merely pointing out the magnitude of the task which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had undertaken. He would content himself now with asking the Government to accept the Amendment, or something equivalent to it, and thereby showing the people of Ireland that they were actuated by bond fide good intentions, and not by mere stage inspirations.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYthought the Amendment was extremely reasonable—so reasonable, indeed, that it was a matter of wonder that the Government themselves had not introduced some such provision into the Bill. The Amendment merely provided that no person should be imprisoned without having the accusation against him clearly explained, and being afforded full facilities for explanation. It provided that a man should not be arrested on the word of an irresponsible official, and consigned to prison for 18 months, without even a chance of explaining that he had intended no offence against the law. The House had been told over and over again that the utmost care would be taken by Her Majesty's Government to secure the liberties of the people. The Lord Lieutenant was himself to see that no man was consigned to prison without reasonable grounds of suspicion. But now they were told, although the Chief Secretary had promised an investigation of his own, that there would be nothing in the shape of a responsible investigation at all. It, therefore, amounted to this, that if it was intended to make a vast swoop in the shape of arrests there would be no time for investigating each particular ease; and it was only fair and reasonable, if the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary were unable to make an investigation, that the work should not
  906
  be left to some irresponsible official, without any practical security for the liberty of the people. In no civilized country in the present day could such a step be justified; and he, therefore, trusted that the House would not consent to pass the clause without the Amendment suggested by his hon. Friend. It would be monstrous to enact that any greater or smaller number of men should, without investigation, or being afforded an opportunity of explanation, be consigned to prison for 18 months on the mere suspicion of some police-constable or common informer.
  MR. O'SULLIVANhoped, if the Government were not prepared to accept this reasonable Amendment, they would propose something to carry out its object. He was sure the right hon. Gentleman must be aware of hundreds of people having been taken up, against whom no charges were made. It was quite impossible that he could himself investigate the numerous cases which would be brought before him from various parts of the country. But he had understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that the arrests would not depend upon the police or the magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman must be aware that as soon as this Bill was passed there would be few counties in Ireland in which he would not have arrests made immediately. He reminded the Committee that in 1867 many arrests were made without any authority from Dublin Castle, and urged that, in the present instance of coercion in Ireland, there should be some authority issued from the Castle in the shape of a warrant. He hoped, on consideration of the circumstances of the case, the right hon. Gentleman would see the necessity of some Amendment of the kind proposed by the hon. Member for Dun-garvan.
  MR. DALYwished to point out the consequence of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland refusing to accept the Amendment before the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that the arrests would not depend on the police or the magistrates. But, he asked, would they not depend upon the reports and informations sent to Dublin Castle from those persons? To his mind, the objection to the Amendment was that it would be unworkable,

  907
  and that it would not be possible for the Lord Lieutenant to loot into the details of every case of arrest. The hon. Member for Dungarvan had, however, provided for that, and proposed that properly authorized persons should be introduced to look into a matter of such importance as the taking away of the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects. Surely it was not asking too much, that informations which came from localities in which it was known that the people and the police or the magistrates were antagonistic, that men arrested upon the reports of the latter class should have an opportunity of explaining before an impartial tribunal the circumstances in connection with the crime with which they wore charged. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had founded the introduction of this Bill upon the Blue Book which contained an account of the outrages committed; and he had subsequently confessed that he had made no personal examination of the Returns, which were simply prepared by the police authorities on the usual formula. In omitting to make that personal examination the right hon. Gentleman had, in his opinion, committed a grave crime, because he had put before Parliament and the people of the country what was nothing else than a libel against a peaceable and law-abiding people in the form of a statement of outrages which he had not investigated. What right, then, had he (Mr. Daly) to assume that after the passing of this Bill the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be more careful than he had been before it was introduced? He did not apprehend that the number of arrests would be as great as some hon. Members sitting on that side of the House supposed, for it would, no doubt, be the case that those persons who were conscious of having committed offences against the law would, to a great extent, disappear when they saw that the Bill had come into operation; and, therefore, the number of arrests would not be so great as to entail a very large examining body. Were those persons who had been born subjects of Her Majesty the Queen to be deprived of the opportunity of proving that they were 50 miles away from the place where the crime occurred with which they were charged? And were they not to be allowed to prove, if they could, that the
  908
  crime had been committed by another man of the same name? In short, were Irishmen, because the Government would not take the trouble to appoint responsible persons to investigate the charges, to be deprived of the Constitutional liberty accorded not only to Her Majesty's subjects in England, but those in the Colonies? He was sorry to record the impression produced on his mind, that the sanction to the Bill had been, to a certain extent, obtained from the Liberal and Radical Members of the House of Commons by false pretences; and he protested against this as the worst innovation ever made on the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland.
  MR. M'COANsaid, that, unlike many of the hon. Members among whom he sat, he thoroughly believed in the good faith of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. This was a hazardous admission to make, seeing that the good faith of the right hon. Gentleman had been called in question by more than one hon. Friend on that side of the House. It was, however, because he believed in his good faith and in his honest intention to carry out the Bill as mercifully as he could, that he appealed to him to accept, in some shape or other, the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. Had he himself framed the Amendment, he should have done so in the hope of getting a substantial concession from the Government which would reduce the tyrannical powers of the Bill to a minimum. He would have suggested a personal investigation by the Lord Lieutenant, or the Chief Secretary himself, of the special circumstances of each case. And had the right hon. Gentleman pledged himself, in the text of the Bill, to such a personal investigation, and taken upon himself responsibility for every committal, he (Mr. M'Coan) would have had little fear that the powers of the Act would be abused. Whatever might be the trust of the right hon. Gentleman in his subordinates at Dublin Castle, it was idle to tell the Committee that the main portion of the Bill would not be carried out by the magistrates and the police, for those to whom he delegated his powers would be obliged to act upon the reports of those persons. Unless the light hon. Gentleman assumed something of the function which would be

  909
  imposed upon him by the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, he would be little more than the clerical endorser of the reports of the magistrates and police. If, however, he would import into the Bill his personal responsibility for its application, he believed he would remove a great deal of the objection which existed amongst hon. Members on that side of the House. At any rate, it would do away with his (Mr. M'Coan's) chief objection to the Bill. Therefore it was he ventured to ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider his refusal to make the concession asked for, which was in itself a very small one, that he would himself be responsible for the administration of the powers of the Bill.
  MR. GILLhad always understood it to be a principle of English law that it was better for 100 guilty men to escape than that one innocent man should suffer. But it appeared to him that the framers of the Bill wished to act on a principle exactly contrary to this. He could not understand how the Chief Secretary could pretend that the magistrates and police would have nothing whatever to do with the application of the powers of the Bill, and that it would be the Lord Lieutenant and himself, or their confidential Advisers, who would decide upon all cases of arrest—while, at the same time, he refused to accept the very moderate Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to this Bill, in telling hon. Members that all responsibility was to be left to him, and that he would not be tied down by any Amendments, reminded him of the practice of some sharpers, who entrapped people by the so-called "Confidence Trick." As far as he could see, he was acting in a similar manner by asking hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House to give him unlimited powers, and then throwing over all responsibility by not making the Bill clear upon that point. This Bill would, in his opinion, be the cause of many innocent persons being arrested in Ireland, and, unless the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan were accepted by Her Majesty's Government, this would be done on the mere suspicion of hostile magistrates and policemen. It was certainly not asking too much of the right hon. Gentleman
  910
  to appoint some proper persons to examine into every case of arrest, so that when questions were asked in Parliament—as they certainly would be—concerning the arrests which would take place, accurate answers might be given to them. It had happened that morning that an hon. Member asked a question relating to particulars of an arrest in one of the country districts in Ireland, and that the Chief Secretary for Ireland complained that it was rather too much to expect him to answer so many inquiries. The Bill contained a provision that the cases of arrest should be laid before Parliament during the first seven days of every month. But it must be remembered that during six months of the year Parliament would not be sitting, and that was another reason why some limitation of the powers of arresting on more suspicion should be introduced into the Bill; for it would be very hard that men perfectly innocent, perhaps, should be kept in prison, and their cases not brought before Parliament, on the reports and suspicions of persons who would have no scruple whatever as to the kind of information they sent to Dublin Castle. For these reasons, he should support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERhoped he might be allowed to make a personal statement. He was much obliged to the hon. Member for Wicklow for the kind expressions he had applied to him. Such expressions came very rarely from hon. Gentlemen opposite; but, in the present instance, they had been immediately counterbalanced by what had been said by the hon. Member who had just sat down, in charging him with attempting the "Confidence Trick." With regard to the actual matter before the Committee, he considered that the Lord Lieutenant and himself would be responsible for doing everything in their power to prevent the commission of injustice under the provisions of the Bill. He did not think the Committee would gain anything by endeavouring to dictate to them the way in which they were to discharge that responsibility. If they had desired to escape responsibility, they would probably have asked the House to define the mode in which they should act, which, when their conduct was called in question, would enable them

  911
  to say they had fulfilled the conditions imposed upon them. But he put Ms responsibility even higher than hon. Members opposite. He held it to be his duty to do everything in his power to prevent injustice being done; and, moreover, that he was responsible for the acts of others in that respect. Therefore, he did not think he could give any stronger assurance that everything in his power would be done to prevent injustice. Fault had been found with him because he said that he could not be expected to know of everything done by the police in the streets of Limerick, and it was said he would be equally ignorant of the way in which this Bill would be carried out. But it was not part of his duty to inquire into cases arising under the ordinary law throughout Ireland so far as the action of the police and the magistrates was concerned; but it would be the specific duty of the Lord Lieutenant and himself to inquire into the administration of the Bill before the Committee. He did not wish to avoid his full share of the responsibility which in this case would rest upon the Lord Lieutenant and himself. In reply to the hon. Member for Limerick, he understood the Bill clearly to state that no man could be arrested without a warrant.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORwould express neither confidence nor want of confidence in the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, because it would be altogether putting the matter on a false basis to make it one of confidence at all. As a good Liberal, he was bound to place the liberties of no man in the control of any Minister, whether he had confidence in him or not; and, in his view, the right hon. Gentleman was bound to take up the same position. Therefore, in making the observations which had just fallen from him, the right hon. Gentleman had placed the question on a false basis. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been in Opposition, and a similar Bill had been brought in by a Conservative Chief Secretary, was it likely he would listen to him when he said—"You must put confidence in me." Supposing the late Chief Secretary (Mr. James Lowther) had brought in such a Bill, and had asked for the confidence of the right hon. Gentleman who proposed to insert such and such words as a necessary guarantee for
  912
  the liberties of the Irish people, he did not think he would have listened to him for a moment. The Government had taken up two positions on introducing this measure. The first was that the Bill would apply to a limited number of persons, and the second was that every arrest should be under the personal supervision, and the result of the personal examination and inquiry, of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. With regard to the first position, he took the statement of the right hon. Gentleman that the persons aimed at by the Bill were the village tyrants, the perpetrators of outrage; and that statement showed that the Bill was only to apply to a limited number of persons. With regard to the second main position of Her Majesty's Government, he asked—What was the use of the guarantee of the right hon. Gentleman if he was not going personally to investigate every case? Did the right hon. Gentleman mean that he would simply put his initials to the warrant made out by other hands? Investigation in those cases must be personal, or it was not worth consideration. Again, it had been stated that this Amendment would be unworkable, on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman would have so many cases to investigate that he could not attend to them himself; but if that were the case, the right hon. Gentleman had introduced the Bill on false pretences, for the position of the Government was that the number of arrests would be very small, inasmuch as they would be confined to a small section of society, called by the Chief Secretary, mauvais sujets. The Amendment, therefore, was workable, and the only real objection to it was that it sought to place in black and white those delicate and soothing observations made be the Chief Secretary for Ireland before the Bill passed a second reading. The right hon. Gentleman said he would be personally responsible for every one of these arrests. But what did that mean? The right hon. Gentleman would get his warrant prepared on the information of the magistrates and the local policeman. He said he would personally investigate the cases himself; but all the steps excepting that of putting the man in gaol would be taken by the magistracy or the police. Now, it was a well-known axiom in politics that every Minister was on the side of the magistracy—whatever

  913
  they did or said was right. What satisfaction was it to Irish Members that the right hon. Gentleman was personally responsible? If he stood up in the House and said he was personally responsible for the arrest of any man, that would not mate the arrest a just one. He knew very well they could not bring his conduct before the House with anything like a fair prospect of getting redress. A patient hearing might be given in two or throe cases; but after that the patience of the House would be naturally and justifiably exhausted, and the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman would amount to nothing in fact. He had been struck, in the course of the discussion of this measure, by the remark that it bore a resemblance to Continental proceedings of the kind; but, in his view, to find a parallel to the Bill before the Committee one must go back to the period of lettres de cachet and the Bastile, for even if a Bill like the present were passed in a Continental Assembly, it could not be without such limitations as were proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan. The Amendment of his hon. Friend simply asked for a safeguard that would be granted in the Assemblies even of the worst and most oppressive Continental States. In France, the Judge was bound to examine the prisoner and give him an opportunity of making a satisfactory explanation if he could do so. As had been suggested by the hon. Member for Cork City ("Mr. Daly), the crime for which a man was arrested on suspicion might have been committed by a person of the same name, and the person charged might have been 20 miles away when it was committed. Was he not to be allowed to explain these things? Why, the greatest criminal in France could demand this right from the Judge which they were asking, but which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland refused; and, therefore, these safeguards which were allowed under the French Criminal Law—an object of derision to Englishmen on account of its harshness—were to be denied to the most respectable man in Ireland who might, under the terms of the Bill, become the object of suspicion to the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues. The right hon. Gentleman asked them to trust entirely to his discretion, and spoke of the painful duty he
  914
  had to perform; and from his attitude and words, one would think that the pain and penalty fell on the incarcerator, and not on the person incarcerated.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, he was afraid the Chief Secretary for Ireland had not fully appreciated the valuable offer made by the hon. Member for Wicklow, who had actually offered to withdraw a powerful opposition if the Government would consent to the proposed Amendment. Many personalities had been introduced into the discussion; but he should not express any opinion on the character of the Chief Secretary until a future stage of the Bill, because he believed the character of the right hon. Gentleman was not fully formed. He did not see how the Chief Secretary could possibly accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dungarvan, because that would destroy the whole character of the Bill—if the object of the Bill was to do away with all investigation, and all explanation, and all justification for arrest. He could not agree with the hon. Member for Meath, who said he did not think many arrests would be made under the Bill, and the Chief Secretary assented to that idea. He hoped that would be so, and that he was wrong in the belief that there would be numbers of arrests under the Bill, and that men would be thrown into prison, as they had been in former years, without a scintilla of proof of guilt or attempt at outrage. The reason why he said that was that the police having made reports to the Government from many districts, that mauvais sujets, as they had been called, and dissolute scoundrels swarmed in every village, would be obliged to justify those reports, and, to do that, to make a number of arrests. The right hon. Gentleman, when he went over to Ireland, would find himself in this extraordinary position—he would have a plum in one hand and a whip in the other, and he would tell the people that if they took the whipping patiently, he would afterwards give them a plum. The right hon. Gentleman said he would see that hardships would not be committed under the Bill, and he would take care that no unnecessary arrests were made; but he was certain that if the right hon. Gentleman had full control over the Bill, and could devote his whole time to it, it would be utterly impossible for him to inquire into every case. As

  915
  an instance, he mentioned the case of Casey, who, in 1867, was taken from his home and thrown into prison and forgotten, although, as in the present occasion, the Chief Secretary at that time had promised to inquire into every case. Cases of that kind would occur again, and he was very sorry that the Government had so far not acceded to one of the Amendments proposed. He feared it was the intention of the Government to resist to the utmost every attempt to move Amendments; but, nevertheless, and although it was a disheartening and an uphill task to be fighting for Amendments, when they knew they had no chance of passing them, there was a certain duty imposed on every Irishman in the House, and that was, by every means in his power, to try to modify the provisions of the Bill, and make them fall less harshly on the people at homo. They had moved several Amendments, and they intended to move many more; but he was certain that if the Chief Secretary had met them in a conciliatory spirit, and had yielded to some of the Amendments, the debate would not have lasted so long as it had.
  MR. LEAMYobserved, that a few moments ago the Chief Secretary had made two remarks in answer to the hon. Member for Meath. He said, first, that he and the Lord Lieutenant would have the administration of the Act; but just before that he had said that the powers under the Act would be exorcised by the Lord Lieutenant and his responsible Advisers, of which, he said, "I am one." Which statement were they to accept? Would the powers be exorcised by himself and the Lord Lieutenant, or by the Lord Lieutenant and his responsible Advisers, meaning some other person than the Chief Secretary? If there were some other persons, who were they? That was the point they wanted to come to. He said they would not be the magistrates, and not the police. "Who, then, were they? Surely not the Solicitor General, nor the Attorney General; because they would be engaged in Parliament, and would not be able to investigate cases. If the right hon. Gentleman could not consent to an investigation as proposed, why did he refuse to allow an arrested man the right of knowing what his offence was, or of offering any explanation he might have to make? No doubt it was stated that the grounds
  916
  of the offence would he set forth in the warrant; but the policeman executing that warrant was not obliged to show the warrant to the man, and so the arrested person might be imprisoned for 18 months without knowing at all what he was charged with. The least they might allow the man was that he should be told what the charge was, and have an opportunity of disproving it if he could. When the hon. Member for Cork City said he did not believe there would be many arrests under the Bill, because when it became law many of the persons guilty of outrage would quit the country, the Chief Secretary said "Hear, hear!" and made a similar statement. But those who would quit the country were the men who wore conscious of their guilt, while those who would remain were the men who were conscious of their innocence, and ought not to be touched by the Act; but the men who were innocent might find themselves put into prison without the slightest intimation of the charge against them, or the slightest ehance of offering an explanation. They did not ask that the information upon which a man was arrested, or the name of the informer, should be given to him; but that some simple statement of the alleged offence should be given. If the Chief Secretary would not consent to the Amendment, so far as it would require that before a man was sent to gaol he should be examined before the Lord Lieutenant, he, at least, ought to have no hesitation in accepting the latter portion of the Amendment, which would give a man an opportunity of offering an explanation.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes, 56; Noes, 274: Majority, 218.—(Div. List, No. 44.)
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had intended to move an Amendment to the effect that imprisonment should only take place after an investigation, at which the suspected person should have the benefit of counsel; but he saw that the ground was covered by a subsequent Amendment; therefore, he would not proceed with his proposal.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I wish to call the attention of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to the fact that when he moves his Amendment, unless he pur-

  917
  poses to omit the words "during the continuance of this Act" the alteration he proposes will not be intelligible.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and move to omit the words specified. The object of the Amendment was to give the Chief Secretary an opportunity of substantiating the declaration that he had repeatedly made. The right hon. Gentleman had said that he was prepared to be responsible for every committal that might take place under the Act; not that he would undertake to investigate each particular case, but that he would be responsible for the actions of those on whose evidence he based his committal. This responsibility, it appeared to him (Mr. Biggar), would be of a very worthless kind if it were not subject to the decision of some high Court of Appeal; and the best Court of Appeal to which such matters as these could be referred was, undoubtedly, the House of Commons. It might be urged by the right hon. Gentleman that it was competent for any Member of the House, when he saw the name of a person who was committed to prison, or when he knew the charge brought against a person, to bring forward a Motion for the means of release, thus testing the right hon. Gentleman's responsibility. It would be apparent to everybody who had any practical experience of the working of Parliament, that unless some limit were put to the term of imprisonment to induce the House to come to a speedy decision on a case, it might be weeks, or even months, before a Motion, of which Notice had been given, could be brought on; and they knew that Ministers for the time being had, or were almost certain to have, a largo majority at their back, and that, therefore, they could rely upon getting, in all just cases, votes of the House to enable them to keep the guilty or suspected persons in prison. It was only fair that a certain and bona fide opportunity should be given to the relatives and friends of a person in prison to raise the question of his innocence, if he were innocent. If the Amendment were agreed to, the House would have to decide upon a case within a fortnight; and within that space of time the Chief Secretary would have an opportunity of making such explanation as he thought desirable, and the friends of the person in prison would
  918
  have an opportunity of making such statements as they believed to be necessary in his behalf. It was quite possible that if the Amendment were adopted many prisoners would be able to prove their entire innocence, showing that they were by no means the persons to be reasonably suspected of a certain charge.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 13, after the word "detained," to leave out the words "during the continuance of this Act," and insert the words "for two weeks after notice has been given to Parliament, and their imprisonment shall end, unless otherwise ordered by a vote of the House of Commons."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'during the continuance of this Act' stand part of the Clause."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can hardly think that the hon. Member for Cavan is serious—that he can really mean this. His opposition to the Bill is very intelligible; but it would be impossible to have a measure with such a provision as this in it, a provision that would limit the imprisonment to two weeks, or compel the House of Commons to consider every case.
  MR. O'DONNELLconsidered the right hon. Gentleman's objection to the Amendment inconsistent with some of the pledges the Government had given. It had been promised, in effect, that the House should try every case; or, if that was not so, the English language must be an instrument for misleading the human mind. The Government had declared that the names of arrested persons, and the particulars of arrests, were to be given in Parliament—that it was open to the Irish Members to test the correctness of arrests by getting a decision of the House upon them. ["No, no !"] Then what was the meaning of the assurances they had got from the Government? He could understand the Government coming forward, and saying —"We want a code to enable us to arrest anyone in Ireland." He could understand such an act of despotism, without contortion, turning or twisting, or circumlocution; but he could not understand their coming forward and endeavouring to slip this Bill through the House by manœuvres and contrivances of this kind. Looking at the small amount of credit these attempts to disguise facts must bring on their authors,

  919
  Her Majesty's Government, they should now attempt a little straightforwardness. The want of straightforwardness of the Government must be trying, even for the Liberal Party, who, Heaven knew, had not had too much to boast of. The Conservative Party could not sympathize with it, for, in charge of such a measure as this, they would not be guilty of fencing with the question. And as for the Irish Members, the conduct of the Government was not fair to them. They were promised that the powers of the Bill should not be abused; subsequently, Ministers said to them, "You shall have an opportunity of testing our Acts —wo will give you full particulars of these arrests;" and now, when the question arose on the clauses, and the responsibility of the Government was under discussion, the Chief Secretary coolly said, "We have no notion whatever of allowing you to inquire into the cases—we are not going to have trials on the floor of this House, and at the same time we will not allow trials on the floor of any other house." He did not understand this species of political morality with which Her Majesty's Government had associated themselves in the name of Liberal administration; and he hoped their ingenious explainings-away would be reserved for periods of electoral excitement, and would not be depended on by Ministers in their dealings with the Gentlemen elected to represent the constituencies in Parliament. Hon. Members were being introduced to a sort of Pagan's Political School. The pocket of the country was being picked without the country having any knowledge of the question. Her Majesty's Government might deem themselves very clever and very fine to deal in this way with Irishmen; but he ventured to say that they were dealing unfairly with all hon. Members of the House. By giving one explanation one day, and offering another the day after—
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is now travelling altogether beyond the Amendment.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the effect of the Amendment was that, unless otherwise ordered by a vote of the House, a man who had been arrested should be set at liberty at the end of a fortnight, if representation were made to Parliament. It seemed to him that, in moving
  920
  this, the hon. Member for Cavan was only anxious to embody in the measure the Ministerial pledge, that after each arrest the question should be fully debated in the House of Commons, and in the event of the House voting against the detention of the person arrested, he should be set at liberty.
  MR. GRAYdid not yield to the hon. Member for Cavan in hostility to the Bill, and, because of that general hostility, if the Amendment were pressed to a division he should feel himself bound to vote for it. Yet he trusted that the hon. Member would not press it, because he did not think a very strong case could be made out for it. The Bill having been read a second time, the House had assented to the principle of coercion, and he did not see how that was to be enforced if such a provision as this were adopted. They had still upon the Amendment Paper so many Amendments of real importance which they (the Irish Members) could push, and push to an extreme limit, if necessary—being morally justified in doing so in fair fight— that he was reluctant to waste strength on a question which was not worth fighting for. Placing information on the Table of the House, and enabling the House to vote upon that information, was a totally different tiling to bringing every case of arrest under the notice of the House. It would be open to the hon. Member for Cavan, or anyone else, to seize an opportunity for discussing the arrests when the details of those arrests were placed in sufficient fulness upon the Table of the House; but that was a very different thing to asking the House to commit itself to discussions, especially within a limited time. He was confident that if the Amendment were passed, Parliament would be doing nothing else but discussing these matters.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was in the somewhat difficult position of having been left in charge of the Bill during the absence of the hon. Member for Cavan, with strict injunctions to carry it to a division; and the difficulty of the position was increased by the fact that he did not altogether agree with the proposal. He could see what the hon. Member had in his mind when he proposed the Amendment. According to the Bill, a list of persons arrested was to be laid before Parliament, and the hon. Member wished to have these lists decided

  921
  upon. The Prime Minister, when speaking on the Bill at an earlier stage, had said that the suspicion upon which a man should be arrested should be "reasonable;" and when that was met by interruptions from the Irish Members—'[Cries of "Oh! oh !"]—which implied that that was no safeguard, the right hon. Gentleman said—"The reasonableness of the suspicion can be challenged on the floor of this House." Well, the hon. Member for Cavan wished to take the Prime Minister at his word, and put in the Bill a power to have the reasonableness of the suspicion challenged on the floor of the House. As he did not wish to detain the Committee, he would content himself with these observations and would not press the Amendment to a division.
  Question put, and negatived.
  MR. J. COWENmoved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "without," and insert the word "with."
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had a previous Amendment, in line 13, to leave out "during the continuance of the Act."
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member for Dungarvan's Amendment raises a point which the Committee has just decided. He would move to leave out words which it has been decided shall remain in. The Amendment, therefore, cannot be moved.
  MR. J. COWEN, resuming, said, that during the discussion of this Bill great complaint had been made of the largo amount of power that was to be given to the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Cowen) quite admitted that. They were despotic powers. He proposed, however, to add to them. But the powers that the right hon. Gentleman had hitherto obtained were for the purpose of oppression; the power that he proposed to give was of a mitigating and moderating character. The object of the Bill, as stated by the Government, was to re-establish what they described as "order in Ireland." Their contention was that a state of lawlessness existed in that country, and that that lawlessness had been brought about by the action of persons whom they sometimes called "miscreants," and at others "village tyrants." These miscreants and tyrants, according to the statement of Ministers, had set on foot something like a reign of terror. Many of the
  922
  people were afraid to run counter to their wishes or desires, and others sympathized with them. This was the Ministerial contention. He (Mr. Cowen) did not admit that it was a correct contention. The facts, in his judgment, were all against it; but, for the purpose of argument, he stated the case of the Government. The Bill was designed to give Ministers the power of arresting on suspicion persons whose actions were inimical to law and order. These persons would not be charged with an offence; but they would simply be put into prison and kept there for 18 months on suspicion. Now, it was impossible for the Irish Secretary sitting in London, or the Lord Lieutenant residing in Dublin —of themselves—to discover all these offenders, or supposed offenders. They must depend upon spies, informers, and detectives for their information. Those persons were not infallible. It was quite possible that they might make a mistake unintentionally. It was quite possible, too, that they might be influenced by vindictive and revengeful feelings, and that innocent persons might suffer in consequence. The case presented to the Lord Lieutenant or his Advisers might be such as to create a doubt in their minds. They might think there was some suspicion attaching to the individuals charged, though not sufficient to send them to prison. What he proposed was that the Lord Lieutenant should have the power of requiring the suspected persons to give bail for their conduct. This was a common practice in England. A man was afraid of being assaulted by his neighbour, and laid an information before a magistrate. The magistrate bound the offender, or threatened offender, over to keep the peace for a given time, and that was taken to be a sufficient security. Now, what he wanted the Government to have was power to act in Ireland in such cases as they acted in this country. It did not follow that they would take bail in every case. He know that in accusations of treason or treasonable practices bail could not be taken. But agrarian offences were bailable. A single instance would illustrate his argument better than any lengthened statement could do. He referred to the case of the hon. Gentleman the Member for County Limerick (Mr. O'Sullivan). That Gentleman was arrested on suspicion,

  923
  and kept in prison for some weeks, without being allowed to communicate with his family. Then he was sent to Dublin, where he was detained 14 months. No charge was ever preferred against him. It was a mere matter of suspicion. During all that time his business was seriously damaged. A former Irish Secretary had admitted that the arrest was made without sufficient grounds. Now, if the Lord Lieutenant had at that time been allowed to accept bail, the hon. Member would, no doubt, have got 50 persons to give any security as to his good conduct that the Government could have wished. That security being given, he might have remained at home, and conducted his business without any detriment to the State and with great benefit to himself and family. What he proposed was that such power should be taken by the Government. If they agreed to the principle of his Amendment, he would introduce words at a subsequent part of the Bill which would enable them not only to accept bail, but also to agree that a suspected person might leave the country rather than go to prison. Of course, if the Ministers refused to accede to his proposal, it was no use attempting to introduce the words that he had just intimated. He felt sure, if the Government would accept his Amendment, that it would do something—it might not be much—to soften the bad feeling that the present measure had created in Ireland.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 15, to leave out the word "without," and insert the word "with."— (Mr. Joseph Cowen.)
  Question proposed, "That the word 'without' stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOE IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he did not intend to discuss the Amendment at any length. In a case of that kind, where it would be held desirable, in place of putting a man in prison, to obtain security for his good behaviour, the Lord Lieutenant would not arrest him at all. He did not think the words proposed were at all necessary.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORcould not think that the reply of the Attorney General for Ireland would be considered satisfactory. There were plenty of respect-able men in Ireland whom this Act might reach, and who, under its powers,
  924
  might be treated as the hon. Member for Limerick had been; why, therefore, should not the Lord Lieutenant have this optional power? Did the right hon. Gentleman wish to persuade the House that it would be impossible for any man who was innocent to be imprisoned under the Bill? Had not innocent men been put in gaol under previous Coercion Acts—men whose inuocence was confessed the moment those Acts expired? If the Government wished to make this a preventive and not a vindictive Bill, so long as they could have a guarantee of the presence of a person who was suspected in the country, they had no right to put him in prison. Every single proposal that would have had the effect of rendering this measure less vindictive and more preventive had been rejected by the Government, and rejected with scant courtesy.
  MR. CALLANasked whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had mentioned his only objection to the other Amendment? He (Mr. Callan) thought the object of the Amendment could be carried out by enabling a Judge, with the consent of the Lord Lieutenant, to accept bail for a person's good behaviour. This would remove any technical objection to the Lord Lieutenant accepting bail.
  MR. GRAYwished to know whether the Government merely objected to the Amendment on technical grounds, or whether they objected to the principle of liberating a man once he had been arrested? Any innocent man arrested under this Bill would hate the Government for the rest of his life. At present he was not a Revolutionist; but he was quite sure that if he was put in prison he should come out one, and would strike the Government by any means he could. There could be no question that under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in 1866, plenty of men were arrested and morally murdered in prison. There could be no question about that. When an innocent man was arrested and driven to insanity by the treatment he received in prison, it was a moral murder. If, then, they could leave a loophole of escape by which they could prevent men from turning upon them when they came out, it was most desirable. He was afraid that the Government had made up their mind, in order to avoid any discussion on the

  925
  Report, not to change any of the provisions of the Bill; but they might give some assurance, similar to that -which had been given in reference to the retropective clause, that they would consider the propriety, on the third reading, of introducing some provision to enable the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary to liberate persons on bail after they had been arrested. He thought the technical difficulty could be easily got over by the Attorney General for Ireland if he so desired.
  MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they all knew that if the Bill passed through Committee exactly in the state in which it went into Committee there could be no debate upon the Report. If that was the intention of the Government, they ought to say so at once. Nothing could more tend to turn the Forms of the House into ridicule than for the Government to come down to the House with a foregone conclusion not to listen to any argument which involved the alteration of the Bill, not because they objected to the alteration, but in order that they might carry through the measure without delay on the Report. He hoped the Government would state whether this was so, because, if it was, there was no use going on hour after hour discussing these Amendments.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the reason why he supported the Amendment was one which, although they did not hear it from the Ministerial Bench, was not the less true and valid—namely, that it was a mistake to suppose that all the persons liable to be arrested under the Bill were men of a low and and disreputable character. He could understand the Government refusing all Amendments if all the persons to be arrested under it were of the class of dissolute ruffians, of whom they had heard so much on the other side of the House. But the fact was, that the most influential agitators against the existing system of landlordism in Ireland—the agitators most bitterly treated by the local magistrates— were men of the highest character and moral worth. He would give an instance. The Secretary of the Land League in Dungarvan was one of the most respectable persons in the town. He was a gentleman of pronounced politicial opinions, who formerly held the Commission of the Peace, but was deprived of it on account of the warmth
  926
  of his political views. This gentleman gave evidence before a Royal Commission as to the management of certain property in the district, and in consequence some of the magistrates had taken a deep hatred against him. Only the other day, one of them meeting him in the street, said, using an oath—"How dare you look at me or salute me?" Beyond doubt, this man would be as certain to attract the venom of the Act as any man in Ireland. His high moral character would avail him nothing, for he was looked upon as fanatical in his political and agrarian opinions, and he was, no doubt, already marked out for summary imprisonment by the majority of the magistrates of the county of Waterford. Surely, if such a man were arrested under the Bill, it would be a case for liberating him on substantial bail. The Amendment would weaken none of the powers of the Government for preventing outrage and maintaining order; it would only allow them to use a reasonable discretion in regard to accepting bail. It was curious to see that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was afraid of nothing so much as trusting to his own judgment and discretion. The Amendment only went to the extent of allowing bail to be tendered; it did not oblige the Government to accept bail. There would seem to be a combination of hon. Members engaged in abusing the Forms of the House, and that combination of Members sat upon the Ministerial Benches. The reason why no Amendment was accepted was that the Government might deprive the House of the opportunity of considering the Bill upon another stage.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he should be sorry that the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), or any other hon. Member, should believe there was a disposition on the part of the Government to refuse any reasonable Amendment. But the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) would add to the arbitrary powers of the Government instead of diminishing them. "What was it that the hon. Member proposed? If, under the Bill, the power of arrest was exercised by the Executive Government, of course there would be equally a power to allow the persons arrested to go at liberty. Did the hon. Gentleman suggest that instead of allow-

  927
  ing a man to go at liberty, the Lord Lieutenant should direct him to be arrested and then admitted to bail? If he deserved to be arrested at all on reasonable suspicion of having been guilty of any of the offences contemplated by the Bill, he would deserve to be imprisoned. The proposal of the hon. Member was to place a temptation in the way of the Lord Lieutenant by giving him the power, where there was not believed to be sufficient evidence to justify imprisonment, of creating a secondary class of offenders, against whom there were no grounds morally to justify their detention, but who were to be admitted to bail. He did not think the Committee would sanction such a secondary kind of punishment as arresting a man and holding him to bail, especially when the Government had not asked for such a power. The Amendment sought to add to the powers of the Executive Government, by enabling them to require a man to give bail although there was not sufficient evidence to warrant his imprisonment. ["No !"1 That was really the fact. If the Lord Lieutenant was of opinion that a man ought not to be kept in custody, when the proper time arrived he would order him to be set free. He hoped the Committee would see there was no necessity for a long discussion upon this Amendment. It was impossible for the Government to accept it.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had given the most extraordinary reasons for maintaining that this Amendment would add to the arbitrary powers of the Viceroy in restricting the liberties of the Irish people. Whenever he thought there was no further occasion for keeping a man in prison, of course the Lord Lieutenant would have the power of setting him free. But the Amendment asked that, in addition to the power of arrest, the Lord Lieutenant should also have power to admit men who might be arrested to bail. He failed to see in what way that would be adding to the arbitrary powers of the Viceroy. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think that if the Lord Lieutenant had the power of admitting to bail, he would allow people to be arrested all over the country who would not be arrested as the Bill now stood. Now, he (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) asked why the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary for
  928
  Ireland should not be entrusted with a limited power of admitting to bail? It would be a great improvement upon the Bill; and he was induced to repeat the question already put to the Government, whether they intended to accept no Amendment? If their minds were made up not to alter a single provision of the Bill, they might as well tell the House so at once, and inform the Committee that, in suggesting these Amendments, they were only wasting their time and breath; that they would not even argue the point, and that it would be a waste of time to expend words even in confuting the arguments that were raised.
  MR. RYLANDSobserved, that so far from having shown any indisposition to entertain any reasonable Amendment, the Government had already accepted a most important one. ["No !"] They had undertaken, on the third reading, materially to diminish the stringency of the provisions of the Bill. It was quite true that they had not accepted the Amendments offered to them, and that, so far, they had refused to amend the Bill in Committee. He dare say that his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Labouchere) was quite correct in his supposition that the Government intended to refuse to accept Amendments proposed in Committee; but the reason was that they thought it would be inconvenient to have another stage of discussion. It must be remembered that the House was now placed in an extraordinary position, and he quite concurred with the Government that it would be inconvenient to have upon the Report a repetition of what had been going on in Committee. But what he wished to point out was, that if the Government undertook to accept Amendments on the third reading, that was only a justification why suitable Amendments should be pressed upon them. As regarded the present Amendment, he entertained a strong opinion that the Attorney General for England was altogether correct in the view he had expressed. It was not a matter of law, but rather a question of what was likely to be the case in practice. If the Amendment were adopted, there would be two classes of operations under the Bill—one would be the arrest of a man under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act and the sending of him to prison, and the other would be the issue of a warrant for the arrest of a man who was not to be kept

  929
  in prison but only admitted to bail. He believed the effect of a clause allowing men to be liberated upon bail would be to extend the power of arrest and imprisonment as it stood at present. He thought the Government were wise in not encouraging the alteration of the measure. He hoped to see it brought very little into operation, and that very few persons would be affected by it; but be could not support an Amendment that extended the operation of the Bill, because he was afraid that to do so would be, not to mitigate, but to aggravate the operation of the Bill.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANunderstood the suggestion thrown out from the Treasury Bench was, that if they gave the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary discretion to admit a man to bail they would so abuse the discretion reposed in them that arrests would become common. It was a remarkable thing that the Attorney General for England was so sensitive as to the possible abuse of that discretion when he did not believe that the other discretion would be abused at all, which allowed the Executive Government to arrest and imprison men for 18 months. Upon that point they were quite ready to swear to the infallibility of their Pope in Dublin Castle. He could and would do no wrong. All the Amendment did was to allow the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary a chance of saying—"Here is a man arrested upon good grounds of suspicion; but if he can got substantial bail in his native village binding him to answer a year hence, or two years, or six months, any charge that may be made against him, it is only reasonable that, having given Constitutional security to the Crown, he should be liberated on bail. "The Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Mr. J. Cowen) stripped bare another inch of this miserable coercion policy of the Government. There were few phrases dearer to Englishmen in the charter of their Constitutional rights and liberties than the phrase "bail and main prize," and even this little shred of liberty the Government were now proposing to take away. And what offences would there be that a man could not be arrested for? Last night he had quoted an instance which came to hand of a child who was arrested, and dragged before a bench of magis-
  930
  trates, for whistling disrespectfully in a street in which there was a magistrate. Here was the latest outrage which would afford ground for imprisonment on suspicion without bail and main prizo. Would the defendant in the case he was about to mention have any chance of bail or main prize? The case was one brought by the police against Joseph Lacy, at Trim. A witness saw the defendant throw and kick a ball, and when asked his name, he held up his head in a most irritating manner.
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. and learned Member is quoting a case of outrage which would not come under this Bill.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, it was a case of outrage sufficiently grave for the police to report and prosecute; and it certainly was in its nature quite as grave as the breaking of a pane of glass in Widow Mulligan's windows, which had already been spoken of in these discussions. All that it amounted to was that a boy, when he was spoken to, hold up his head in an irritating manner. He certainly hoped, even with a Coercion Bill hanging over them, the people of Ireland would continue to hold up their heads, and his great objection to the Bill was that it sought to make thorn bow their heads. He believed, in his soul, that if any attempt were made to perpetrate this degradation upon the English community it would lead to a civil war. They were doing it here against the Constitutional rights of the Irish people, and against the wishes of the Irish Representatives. If they counted the heads of the Irish Members who would go with them into the Division Lobby, they would find that the feeling of Ireland was overwhelmingly against them. Lot there be no mistake about it; they were suffocating the voice of Ireland, and trampling upon the Irish people, by their steady and contemptuous refusal of these Amendments, many of which they knew in their hearts to be just, and wise, and true. They would not dare to come to the House of Commons, and refute bail and main prize for an English-born man; but in the case of an Irishman he was to have neither the one nor the other, and should not even be heard in refutation of the accusations made against him. He defied them to show him such another measure in all the records of European despotism.

  931
  Even the victims of the Bourbons and the Bastile had some chance of bail and main prize, and of being able to point to the community, among whom they had passed their lives, for an answer to any charge that might be made against them. But here no bail and main prize was to be given. The Chief Secretary would not undertake that a personal hearing should be given to a suspected man; nor would he undertake to say—"If you give good bail we will liberate you." He was strongly tempted to say to the Government, who, in the question of bail and main prize, refused to give the benefit of a doubt to the prisoner, what was once said to a prosecutor in Cork—"I hope when you stand before the Great Judge on the last day he will give you the benefit of the doubt." The benefit of the doubt here was to be given against the prisoner. Bail and main prize, which were the last protection of a prisoner, were taken away by the Bill. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), in his touching plea for public liberty, said they would have a better chance of securing that liberty by making the Bill as arbitrary and despotic as possible. The hon. Member was likely to have his views fully carried out; and he hoped the debate on these Amendments would go down in history as a monument for posterity, showing the love of Constitutional liberty and law which were manifested by Liberal Members and a Liberal Ministry.
  MR. CHARLES LEWISthought that, after the extraordinary and high-flown speech of the hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), it would be difficult to come down to the regions of plain common sense. The Committee had been gravely informed that it was possible to make a boy, for whistling in the street, come under the provisions of the present Bill. It was impossible to reach a lower depth of absurdity. He opposed the Amendment, because be was of opinion that a case in which it would be right and proper to take bail would not be a proper case for arrest and detention under the Bill. It was subverting the ordinary course of affairs to suppose that such a case could occur. It would be liable to universal condemnation; and it was only aggravating injury, and adding insult to injury, to suppose that in the case of a man actually found innocent, the Government could make
  932
  a smooth pillow for themselves, not by letting the man free, but admitting him to bail. The Amendment came to him from a source which entitled it to respect—for they understood the bona fides of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen), although they might not agree in the hon. Member's extreme views—but he was unable to support it; and he felt that the continued discussion of it only amounted to an unnecessary prolongation of the debate.
  MR. BIGGARunderstood that the Amendment would afford an opportunity for the re-hearing of a case, and he would therefore support it, because he failed to see in the Bill any provision by which an accused person would be able to appear before the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary for a fresh decision. If, however, the Amendment were adopted a prisoner would have an opportunity of having his case re-heard. The contention of the Government was altogether untenable; and the only reasonable way out of the difficulty, where there was a doubt, or the possibility of a mistake, was to say that there should be a fresh hearing. It was, unfortunately, the case that in Ireland the governing classes had no idea whatever of justice; and unless the Bill contained dear and specific instructions justice would be ignored. The Bill proposed that parties should be condemned on ex parte statements, and that the prisoner should not even hear the charges made against him, or upon what evidence he was arrested.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it might, perhaps, be fairer if the Government objected to the Amendment in the case of treason, treason-felony, and treasonable practices; but, as the Bill stood, it would empower the Lord Lieutenant to arrest a man suspected of inciting to an act of violence or intimidation. It was proposed to give the Lord Lieutenant power to sentence a man to 18 months' imprisonment on suspicion of inciting to an act for which, supposing a man committed it and was charged before a Court and found guilty, he might only be liable, under the ordinary law, to three months' imprisonment. Surely, under those circumstances, it was not unreasonable to ask that a person merely suspected should be admitted to bail. A man would be arrested for the purpose of detaining him and preventing him from committing further outrage; but surely that

  933
  object would be effected if he were allowed to go out upon substantial bail. If this Bill was actually aimed at men of the worst class named by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it was utterly absurd to suppose that men of that kind would be able to get substantial bail; the mere fact, therefore, of a person being out upon bail would be a proof that respectable people believed him to be innocent of the offence with which he was charged as well a guarantee for his future good behaviour. His chief objection, however, to this part of the clause was that under it a man might be imprisoned for 18 months for an offence that, under the ordinary law, would only render him liable to three months' imprisonment.
  MR. FINIGANfailed to see why Her Majesty's Government should not accede to this Amendment, inasmuch as it would only apply, as his hon. Friend had just pointed out, in cases where a person had been wrongfully arrested—that was to say, upon suspicion, which might turn out to be unreasonable. He did not see what injury would be done in that case; and as the power given to the Lord Lieutenant to admit persons to bail would be dependent on evidence brought before him after the committal of the unfortunate individual, no injury either to the law or the provisions of this Bid from the Government point of view could take place. He trusted they would not allow it to go forth to the people of Ireland that the principles expressed by them were not consonant with the real principles of the Bill. He thought that if, through the zeal of some officials, a person not liable under the ordinary law were arrested, the Lord Lieutenant should have permissive power to admit him to bail.
  MR. MACDONALDthought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle deserved the earnest attention of Her Majesty's Government, and not only so, but of every lover of liberality and fair play in that House. For his own part, he was tired of hearing the Chief Secretary talk of personal kindness; and he therefore appealed to the Premier to leave one outlet and way of escape to the unfortunate persons who otherwise would be liable to imprisonment for 18 months, during which the Chief Secretary and the Lord Lieutenant could confine them.
  MR. BYRNEgave his entire support to the Amendment. It was a subject for satisfaction that he and his hon. Friends wore trying to discharge their duty to their constituents under great discouragement, not to say opposition. If Her Majesty's Government accepted the Amendment they would not in any way injure their position, for they would have the option of refusing to accept bail under proper circumstances. The Amendment would only prevent some persons who could give a satisfactory explanation to the Lord Lieutenant from being locked up for 18 months.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 141; Noes 44: Majority 97.—(Div. List, No. 45.)
  MR. STANSFELD, in rising to move, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 16, after "main prize," to insert—
  "And every warrant whereby any person is declared to" be reasonably suspected of any crime or crimes, other than high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, shall specify such crime or crimes, with particulars of time and place,"
  said, he would promise—first, that his statement should be as concise and, he hoped, as clear as it ought to be; and, secondly, that if his arguments should succeed in convincing his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland, it would be perfectly immaterial to him whether he acceded to his view at that or another stage of the Bill. He asked the attention of the Committee to the wording of the 1st clause of the Bill. In the first part of the clause the Bill dealt with one class of offences—namely, treason, treason-felony, and treasonable practices. With regard to those offences, he (Mr. Stansfeld) could perfectly well understand that Her Majesty's Government might feel great objection and difficulty in acceding to the proposal to state the particulars of those offences, as well as the time and place on the face of the warrant, for the reason that they were crimes arising out of a succession of acts which might be stated in an indictment or information, but which could not be expected to find their place on the face of a warrant. But he desired especially to call attention to the distinction in the phraseology and in the construction of the 1st clause. In the first part of the clause the terms

  935
  treason, treason-felony, and treasonable practices, were terms of definition, and were collective words. They either defined the nature and character of the offence, or they were the collective representation of a long series of acts which amounted to those offences. But when the latter words of the clause were reached there was so marked a distinction that it was impossible to conceive it could exist without a clear purpose in 'the mind of the draftsman of the Bill. He (Mr. Stansfeld) found, then, they came to consider not crimes, acts of violence, or intimidation, or the inciting thereto, but a crime, an act of violence, or intimidation, or the inciting to an act of violence or intimidation. The Committee were aware that the arbitrary power about to be vested in the Lord Lieutenant could not come for question or revision before a Court of Law. But he (Mr. Stansfeld) was prepared to express his opinion that, in this part of the clause, reference was made to the specific acts of individuals. The phraseology was extremely specific, and the only cases, he would repeat, which the clause had in contemplation were, first, an act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to an act of violence or intimidation—that was to say, according to his reading of it, a specific act of violence or intimidation, or the inciting to such specific act. In those words they came to the class made familiar to the mind of the House by the words of the right hon. Gentleman when he spoke of the "village tyrant" and the "dissolute ruffians." They were not speaking there of high crimes and misdemeanours, but of indefensible acts or incitement to indefensible acts. There had been some discussion how far speeches at public meetings might bring those who had spoken within the terms of the clause. His (Mr. Stansfold's) interpretation of the clause—and he challenged the expression of a different opinion—was that the Lord Lieutenant would not be entitled to arrest and detain a speaker, the general tendency of a succession of whoso speeches was to incite possibly to crimes of violence or intimidation. He did not doubt that his right hon. Friend knew well what he was about when the clause was so conceived. It had been confined specifically, and pointedly directed, to individual acts of violence, or inciting to such individual acts. His argument
  936
  was this—that the Amendment which he had placed on the Papier was entirely consistent with the necessities of the case placed before them by the Government, and it had been suggested to his mind by the drafting of the clause. Now, what was the mischief against which, so far as those offences were concerned, the Government was to have power to guard—acts of violence or intimidation? They had heard from the Government those acts were of an agrarian character, and that, although in some of such cases witnesses had appeared to give evidence, juries would not convict. That was the whole of the case; but that evil or defect in the law, so far as the present difficulty arose, was met by confiding the proposed power to the Lord Lieutenant. The Act would give him power to judge of a case without open Court and the intervention of a Judge or jury, and to act on reasonable suspicion in his own mind. It might be even difficult, or practically objectionable, to make the evidence public; but he failed to see, according to the Government's statement of the necessities of the case, why there should be any objection to stating on the face of the warrant the specific incitement, or act of violence or intimidation, which was the ground of arrest and detention. In ordinary cases a warrant contained such particulars; and in ordinary cases a warrant was merely a first step in the case, to be followed up by trial in open Court before a Judge and jury, He thought there should be no objection, when such arbitrary power was conferred, particularly in cases of that kind, to adopting the course he proposed. He was not proposing to limit the action or judgment, or to interfere with the responsibility of the Chief Secretary for Ireland or the Lord Lieutenant; but when the Lord Lieutenant had decided, he could not see why, in a simple case of violence or intimidation, the Government should refuse to make a specific statement on the warrant; and he feared they would place themselves in a wrong light and position before the country if they persisted in refusing to adopt that suggestion. They asked hon. Members to oppose limitations on the arbitrary power they said it was necessary to confer on the Lord Lieutenant; and he thought that the course he proposed was in the interests of liberty, and one which

  937
  they had right to ask the Government to assent to. The Government proposed some limitations on the power they asked Parliament to concede, and provided that within the first seven days of every month a statement of the arrests made, and the names of the persons arrested, should he laid before Parliament. He thought that it was not unjustifiable to urge that if that power was to be conceded, hon. Members were entitled to ask the Government, in return, to show on the face of the warrant why a man was arrested. Parliament would not be judges of the facts of the case, or judges of the reasonableness of the suspicions of the Lord Lieutenant; but let them, at least, have the right of exercising some judgment upon the question, whether, upon the showing of the Lord Lieutenant, giving him the benefit of his own judgment alone, he had acted within the limitation which the Government themselves had proposed in the clause. Some of the Members on that side of the House had been, and were, supporting the Bill partly, and some very largely, on the ground of the character of the Government. He (Mr. Stansfeld) did not say that was a good ground, and he entirely acquitted the Government of asking for the powers they desired on that ground; but, as a matter of fact, that consideration had affected the minds of many hon. Members; and what he would say to the House was this—let them not forget that they were creating another of those unhappily numerous precedents of Coercion Bills in Ireland, and that it might be, at some future time, under different circumstances, that what they were doing to-day might be thrown in their faces, and they might be asked, when they wore less disposed to place confidence in a Government than now, to enact another Coercion Act. He therefore urged on the Committee, and on the Government, if that power must be conceded, as the vast majority of the Members believed, let them not ask, let them not willingly concede one jot or little more than was called for by the necessities of the case as stated by the Government itself. In conclusion, he would move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 16, after the words "main prize," to insert the words "and every warrant
  938
  whereby any person is declared to he reasonably suspected of any crime or crimes other than high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, shall specify such crime or crimes, with particulars of time and place."—(Mr. Stansfeld.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have given the closest consideration to this subject, and also to the Amendment he proposes. His antecedents, and his position in this House, would have commanded the fullest possible consideration of his proposal; and I hope that neither he nor any other hon. Member of the Committee will suppose that we are determined to force this Bill through as it stands in order to avoid the stage of Report. I do not deny that we should be glad to avoid that stage; but that is no reason why any change which ought to be made in the Bill should not be made. But it might save the time of the Committee if any such change as may be desirable could be made at a more convenient time. In this Bill we follow the precedents of past Bills—or rather of the Westmeath Bill—for that was the first Bill that put on the Table of the House the grounds of arrest, and under which the grounds were stated in the warrant. That concession was then made for the first time, and we thought it right to continue it in this Bill. But I am willing to admit that the fact that this Bill is like previous Bills is no reason why we should not make any change if it should seem desirable. I wish to state exactly what it is proposed to do by this Bill. There are seven classes of offences in the Bill; treason, treason - felony, treasonable practices, acts of violence or of intimidation, inciting to acts of violence, and inciting to intimidation. My right hon. Friend's Amendment clearly applies to the last four of these. We understand by the Bill that the warrant—reading this part of the clause with the sub-section—will oblige us to state, on the face of the warrant, which of these seven offences the individual is arrested upon. Now, I do not quite gather whether that would satisfy my right hon. Friend. I suppose it would not. I suppose he thinks we ought to go further, and state the exact case, and the particular time and place where the offence was committed. We must remember that the real test of the

  939
  warrant will be the puting it on the Table of the House. The effect of putting in all those particulars would almost necessarily and certainly be to turn this House into a Court of Appeal in each case. I do not see how that could be avoided. I believe it could not work in practice, and I do not believe that the House would be in a condition to act as a Court of Appeal. We must not forget the grounds on which we find it necessary to pass this Bill at all. It is because we believe there is existing in Ireland an amount of lawless intimidation which defies the ordinary mode of justice. If the House does not believe this, then the Bill ought not to be entertained. Suppose we state on a warrant that such a man is arrested on reasonable suspicion of having maimed cattle, or fired into a house, or fired at a person, or any one of those offences which we have reasonable suspicion he has committed, but have not got, and cannot get, in a Court of Justice evidence which would enable us to do without this mode of preserving law and order, we may be perfectly certain that this will happen—that hardly a man in the oneighbourhood— unless we have broken in on this system of intimidation—will dare to refuse to sign a statement that he believes the man to be innocent. That is the sort of case which would have to be tried in this House. I do not think we could possibly work the Act in that manner; and I do not think the House would be prepared to give up its time for that purpose, or that it conceives itself to be a tribunal for reviewing such cases in detail. And, most assuredly, if the particulars of a particular crime are to be given, it will be almost impossible to refuse to allow persons who sympathize with the individual, or who take his part, to have the case thoroughly debated before this House. This is open to objection; then what remedy is there? Suppose there is injustice, what remedy is there? There is none. There is no remedy. There is no doubt about it; and there is no doubt, as I admitted in my opening statement, that the Bill will give this arbitrary power to the Executive. It ought not to be given except on the strongest possible grounds; and I do not believe that, by any sort of machinery you can adopt, you can give this power and take it back at the same time.
  940
  It is a very natural thing for my right hon. Friend, and for hon. Members opposite, to say—"We will check this power by making this House a Court of Appeal;" but I do not believe it can possibly be worked in that manner, and I must repeat that I do not think the House would be in a position to got the facts before them. We think the House ought to be informed, and the public ought to be informed, of the nature of the different kinds of offences for which those people may be arrested, and' of the number there are in each case; but I do not see how it is possible to go further to carry out our Bill. I admit that this power ought not to be given except on the ground of the greatest possible urgency, and so it must be given on this occasion.
  MR. M'COANsaid, he had listened with positive astonishment to the speech of the Chief Secretary, though not with much disappointment at his refusal to accept the Amendment so reasonably and authoritatively recommended to the Committee by the right hon. Member for Halifax.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. M'COAN, resuming, repeated that he had listened with amazement to the speech of the Chief Secretary, though it was not with much surprise that he refused to accept the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Halifax, since it was now evidently the intention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to refuse every possible Amendment that could be proposed. He had had some hopes, when the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld) rose to support the Amendment, that a suggestion made with such personal weight and so much force of argument would have had some chance of acceptance; but the Chief Secretary had not simply refused to adopt the Amendment, but he had said what had swept away the whole previous conception of nine-tenths of the hon. Members of the House, based upon the statement of the Prime Minister himself. He had admitted with cynical frankness that the House was to have no sort of power of review or control over the exercise of the law by the Lord Lieutenant. In one of his speeches, one of the

  941
  strongest points made was that the ultimate power of review would virtually rest with the House; and under subsection 3 it was provided that a list of all persons detained, with a statement of the grounds upon which each person was detained, should be laid before Parliament within the first seven days of every month. The Prime Minister had stated that in that provision there was ample security against any possible abuse of the powers of the Bill, and that if any abuse was attempted the House would be in a position to pronounce upon the action of the Lord Lieutenant or the Chief Secretary. That had been the one gleam of hope, and the one element of reconciliation, with the Bill in his mind; but when the Chief Secretary now avowed that hon. Members had been under misapprehension, and that the power was to be purely and simply a tyrannical power, over which the House of Commons would have no control, he was positively amazed. When the Government was asked, but refused, to provide some small protection against abuse of the powers of the Bill by inserting on the face of the warrant the particular act for which a man was arrested— which would not have interfered with the fullest exercise of the powers of the Bill—the confidence he had previously expressed in the good faith and excellent intentions of the Chief Secretary was considerably shaken. The only possible feature which could have reconciled the House to the Bill was that if it should be grossly abused, in the last resort there would be the ultimate Court of Appeal against every abuse in the Empire—namely, the House of Commons, He did not think it was likely that the House would interfere unduly with the discretion of the Lord Lieutenant; but he had hoped that the Government would have given them some slight protection against the tyrannical exorcise of the Act, which the proposed Amendment would have afforded.
  MR. BRADLAUGHregretted exceedingly that the Government could not accept the proposed Amendment, and he proposed to direct special attention to two classes of offences to which the Amendment particularly applied. One was the act of intimidation; the other was inciting to intimidation. Last night he had tried to impress on the
  942
  Law Advisers of the Irish Executive that in the words "act of intimidation" were included, as crimes known to the law, assemblies which the Prime Minister had been understood to say the measure was not intended to touch. He had, however, failed to elicit any reply, and he would repeat that argument. It had been laid down by Mr. Justice Bayley, in "The King v. Hunt," in 1820, by Justice Holroyd subsequently, and previously by Lord Chief Justice Holt, that any assembly in great numbers meeting together to complain of a common grievance, might be, and had been, ruled be an unlawful assembly, if there was an appearance of large numbers of people which created terror in the minds of people in the neighbourhood. In two of those cases there was not the slightest pretence for alleging any breach of the peace whatever; but the meetings were declared unlawful assemblies, and some of the people were convicted. That was a crime known to the law, and those cases came entirely within the scope of what the Attorney General for Ireland had to deal with in the present Bill. Those matters might be either grave or trivial. There had been definitions of acts of intimidation in the Returns presented to the House, some of which were so grave that no one would hesitate to give to the Executive power to do anything to stop them, such as firing in the neighbourhood of houses, or breaking into houses; but some were so trivial that it would be monstrous and ridiculous to give any power to arrest persons upon them. But unless the particular act of offence was stated in the warrant, there would be no means by which the House could know the character of the offence. But the objection of the Chief Secretary was that the Amendment would make the House a Court of Review. Surely the Prime Minister, in speaking on the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill, said that any case of arrest might be challenged on the floor of the House; and if that did not mean that the House was to be a Court of Review, then words had no meaning at all. By sub-section 3 there was to be laid on the Table of the House a statement of the grounds of every arrest; but if the ground alleged was only intimidation, the House would not know whether it was one of the gravest acts of intimidation, such as a threat to murder, or to mutilate, or to

  943
  disfigure, or one of the most trivial acts. I He submitted, therefore, that sub-section 3 was utterly delusive, unless the Amendment now proposed was accepted—that the details of the grounds of the arrest should be stated on the face of the warrant. If the grounds stated were not to be the real grounds of the arrest, why should anything be laid on the Table of the House? The fact that a man had been arrested would be known from a hundred sources; but if the House was not to be a Court of Appeal that subsection had better be loft out of the Bill altogether. He wished to know whether the crimes known to the law were to be such cases as Lord Chief Justice Holt, Mr. Justico Bayley, Mr. Justice Holroyd, and Lord Ellenborough held to be as he had described them? The House was entitled to ask that the Law Officers of the Crown should, in some distinct fashion, state exactly what was intended.
  MR. GIBSONthought it would be in the best interests of Parliament that the proposed Amendment should not be entertained. What was the whole scope and structure of the Bill? It was a Bill which, for the highest and supremest purpose—the safety of the State—intrusted Her Majesty's Government for the time being with great powers; and the Amendment sought, practically, to revoke that trust. They must trust the Government under the Bill; and it would be impossible in one moment to express trust in the Government, and then, by a series of Amendments, to nibble at that trust and cut it down to nothing. The whole structure of the Bill at present was that it vested in the highest Representative of the Queen in Ireland the power by warrant to take away for a certain time the liberty of some of Her Majesty's subjects; and it prevented any of the Queen's Courts from investigating or considering the validity of the Lord Lieutenant's warrant. The structure of the Bill— and it was not challenged by a single Amendment — was that the Queen's Courts in Ireland, which were the Courts always intrusted with the power and obligation of decisions, were excluded from the consideration of the validity of the Lord Lieutenant's action; and yet the Committee were asked, practically, to add to the already numerous functions of the House the duty of con-
  944
  sidering at length, and at all times, all questions which might be suggested in reference to each particular commitment. Surely Parliament had enough to do without being made a Final Court of Review for each particular commitment. And really the question lay in a nutshell. Suppose the Amendment was carried. He ventured to think that when the Bill passed into law it would operate in such a preventive way that there would be but a limited number of arrests, for the entire history of such legislation showed that there were few arrests. Under the Westmeath Act of 1871 there were only 19 arrests, and that was a very stringent Act, which would have theoretically enabled the Executive to have arrested a great number of persons, as it had been prophesied they would do. But he would ask the Committee to take it that when the present Bill became law the Executive would temperately, and with great moderation and forbearance, exercise the powers intrusted to them, and make a limited number of arrests. He ventured to think that when Parliament met next Session, every single person arrested would, if the Amendment were adopted, be made the theme of a debate which might last for several days. Was it desirable, in the interests of Parliament, that when they necessarily took from the Queen's Courts the power of reviewing the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant, they should assume to themselves, without judicial training or machinery, that duty? He hoped the Committee would decide that it was in the interests of Parliament, and that it was carrying out to its logical conclusion the second reading of the Bill, to refuse to accept the Amendment.
  MR. PUGHdiffered in toto from the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson). He did not think it right that they should hand over all their powers and responsibilities into the hands of Her Majesty's Government unless it were absolutely necessary to do so for the maintenance of peace and order. He had no wish to advocate any Amendment that would impair the efficiency of the Bill; but he did ask the Committee if they thought any protection could be given to these people without impairing the efficiency of the measure to give them that protection, and not for

  945
  a moment listen to such arguments as they had hoard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman. No doubt, he placed a larger amount of trust in Her Majesty's Government than the right hon. and learned Gentleman did; but he did not think it was necessary for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to place in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary the words of the poet—
  "Trust mo not at all; or all in all."
  That was the real argument which was at the root of the opposition to the Amendment. Hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench met all the Amendments suggested with the remark that perfect trust was to be placed in Her Majesty's Government. The question was not whether they were to make a Court of Appeal, and what that Court of Appeal should be, but whether, if they gave to Her Majesty's Government the power of arresting a man and imprisoning him without any evidence at all, it was just or fair that he should know the reason why he was arrested, and that his friends also should know. It would be taking up the time of the Committee unnecessarily and improperly if he were to enter at length into that point, because he was sure the Committee would feel that it was simply right and fair and reasonable that a man, when he was arrested, should be told the reason why he was arrested. It would be most unreasonable to commit a man to prison, and not to signify to him the nature of the crime charged against him. They heard from the Treasury Bench that if a man appeared to be innocent the Lord Lieutenant had power to discharge him. He admitted that the Lord Lieutenant would have that power; but it was also desirable that the man who was arrested should have every facility for laying before the Lord Lieutenant the grounds upon which he ought to be discharged. He did not want to make the House of Commons a Court of Appeal, nor to have every case dragged before the House in order to show that the suspicion upon which the Lord Lieutenant had acted was well founded; but he did want that the man, when arrested, should have every facility for satisfying the Lord Lieutenant that he was not guilty of the charge preferred against him. It was for that reason alone that he sup-
  946
  ported the Amendment, and he trusted that the Committee would concur in the views of his right hon. Friend who had brought it forward. He trusted that the Government, before the Committee came to a decision, would re-consider the matter. On that (the Ministerial) side of the House, they certainly wished to see some attempt at conciliation in the matter. Many hon. Members, as well as himself, had been struck yesterday by the immediate effect produced upon the minds of the Committee by the conciliatory course taken by the Prime Minister. He was sure that the country was prepared to back up the Government in regard to the main principles of the Bill, and that they approved of the course taken by the House in reading it a second time. But he did not believe that the country would regard with favour the opposition in Committee of every attempt to mitigate the severity of the Bill wherever it might be safely mitigated. On the contrary, he believed it was the wish of the country generally to see every safeguard thrown round the persons who would be rendered liable to the operation of the measure.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought, quite apart from any intention of making the House of Commons a Court of Review or Final Appeal upon, the justice or injustice of arrests under the Act, that every facility should be given to the suspected and imprisoned man himself to supply the authorities with such proof as was in his power to show that he was unjustly suspected. If they were not arbitrarily to assume that the Government intended to be an unjust Government, and that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, whose name was synonymous with liberty and the protection of liberty in so many countries, meant to govern Ireland as an insulting and reckless tyrant, then, in justice to the Government themselves, they ought to place within the power of persons suspected under the Act a full and fair opportunity of proving to the Government whether or not they were justly suspected. When a man was arrested on information derived from a source with which he could not be acquainted, and sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment upon such information, without any statement being made to him as to the nature of the act on suspi-

  947
  cion of which he was subjected to this heavy punishment, no matter how innocent he might be, and how inclined the Government might be, if he showed his innocence, to liberate him, it would be impossible, in the absence of some such Amendment as that moved by the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), to place the Government in possession of the facts of the case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) was quite within his role, as a Party champion, in supporting the new reading which the Chief Secretary had given of the declaration of the Government on the subject. But the last declarations of the Chief Secretary were in direct contradiction to the pledges which the Government gave in the earlier stages of the Bill. The Government pledged themselves to lay upon the Table of the House the Returns of arrests, together with such explanations of the grounds of the arrests as would allow hon. Members to challenge the conduct of the Government. If there was to be nothing laid upon the Table of the House but the vague, ambiguous, and misleading statement that A. B, the imprisoned and suspected person, was guilty of some act coming under a general head of intimidation or inciting to an act of violence, there would be no data furnished to the House upon which they could proceed, or upon which any individual Member could proceed, in bringing the case under the notice of the House, or in pursuing any course which might tend to elucidate the right or the wrong of the matter. The Amendment only sought to provide that every warrant by which a person might be declared
  "To be reasonably suspected of any crime or crimes other than high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, should specify such crime or crimes with particulars of time and place."
  Did Her Majesty's Government intend to put a man in gaol without a reasonable suspicion that he had committed any specified act whatever, without acquainting him with the particulars of time and place under which he was suspected; and did they intend, under such circumstances, to sentence him to a long term of imprisonment? If they did not intend to do so, they were bound by every consideration—by Constitutional decency itself—to furnish the accused
  948
  with these particulars, and to furnish Parliament with the particulars also. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had now cast them ask aside, and had declared that there was to be no appeal from the act of the Government under the provisions of this measure; that there was to be no opportunity given to the Irish Members or to the accused persons to test the accuracy of the charges on which the Irish people were to be deprived of their liberty. If that was the case, it was a bare, and naked, and insulting despotism which the Government sought to impose upon Ireland. The Government, strong in the possession of their. Liberal majority, might defy the public conscience itself; they might scorn the protests of the Irish Members, but, before long, the Liberal Government would not be the Liberal Government, but only a Liberal Opposition in that House; and on that day it would be remembered bitterly to them how they had insulted and how they had defied the Irish nation, and refused to the Irish people even the poor guarantee of having it stated under what circumstances of time and place Irish citizens were to be deprived of their freedom, their liberties, and their rights. He had said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson) was perfectly within his role as a Party champion in coining forward and supporting the apostacy of the Liberal Party, because it would be a trump card for the Tory Party to remind not only their own supporters, but all that intermediate class of politicians who were in the habit of wavering between Party and Party, and who formed their opinions independent of Party considerations, how a Liberal Government dealt with the protestations and appeals of the Irish nation. A Tory Government might feel justified in refusing all particulars and all concessions, because they based their right on more authority; but it was the policy and the pretence of Liberalism that it only interfered with private or public liberty on specific grounds and for weighty reasons. ["Question!"] That was exactly the question, and hon. Members should not try to throw an obstacle in the way of the exposure of Her Majesty's Government on this particular question and on this specific Amendment. If Her Ma-

  949
  jesty's Government did not intend to establish an unmitigated and irresponsible tyranny in Ireland they were bound to accept this Amendment. ["Question!"]
  MR. MACLIVERasked if the hon. Member was speaking to the Question before the Committee?
  THE CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is certainly going somewhat wide of the Question; still, I can see the way in which he desires to make his argument bear.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas not surprised at being interrupted by an hon. Member who sat in the immediate vicinity of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government, had, doubtless, instructed their supporters not to see the relevancy of any argument that might be brought forward by the defenders of the rights of the Irish people. The Irish people and the Irish Members had been deceived from the beginning to the end by Her Majesty's Government. The Government now openly refused the acceptance of the most moderate precautions and the most just provisions suggested in the Amendment of the right hon. Member for Halifax. Their last hope was gone that an opportunity was to be given to the House—in which, most assuredly, Irish nationality did not stand at a premium—to revise, or consider, or examine, with the slightest acquaintance with the details, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in Ire-land. Her Majesty's Government had entered into a compact with themselves —and there was no authority they respected more highly—to carry this Bill through Committee without amendment.
  THE CHAIRMAN: That argument has been so often repeated that it carries the hon. Gentleman quite out of sight of the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. O'DONNELLwas prepared to accept with the greatest satisfaction the ruling of the Chair, and was prepared to admit that it was now taken as a common-place truism on both sides of the House that such was the policy of Her Majesty's Government. At the same time, he respectfully submitted that if the Government reasonably suspected a man, they were bound to state the reasons on which they suspected him, and if they refused the reasons the Irish Members could only come to the conclu-
  950
  sion that there had been a change in the constitution of the European State systems, and that Bomba, no longer King of Naples, was now Member for Mid Lothian.
  MR. H. SAMUELSONwould respectfully appeal to Her Majesty's Government to consent to this Amendment. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members were impatient; but he did not see how the Bill could be properly discussed if hon. Members such as himself, who had hitherto taken no part in the discussion, were not to be allowed to offer an opinion. As he had said, he was anxious to make an appeal to the Government not to reject the Amendment. Hitherto they had not found their supporters on that side of the House backward in giving them every assistance in their power. They had all of them put a trust in the present Government, which they would not have put in any other Government they had known in past times. They had voted for the Bill, although they strongly disliked it, because they had full confidence in the present occupants of the Treasury Bench, and because they felt bound to take their word, given upon their reponsibility as Ministers of the Crown, that it was absolutely necessary for the restoration of law and order in Ireland. Many of them would not have voted for it if it had come from the opposite side of the House. He felt himself justified in making this appeal, because they had voted, having confidence in Her Majesty's Government, in the full belief that the true interests and the real liberty of the subject would not be allowed to be interfered with by the Bill. They had not the same confidence that such a measure would have been moderately carried out by those to whom they were politically opposed. But having supported the Bill for the reasons he had stated, they asked the Government to assist them now, and in return to have some confidence in their supporters, when their supporters felt impelled by a sense of duty to oppose them in some of the details of the Bill. The Amendment was offered in no obstructive spirit, the name of the right hon. Gentleman who had introduced it, himself a former Cabinet Minister, being a sufficient guarantee that it deserved consideration, and the want of readiness to meet the Amendment was more likely to delay the progress of the Bill than the accept-

  951
  ance of so reasonable a proposition. He I had been for ten years a Member of that. House, and he had never seen a measure of such magnitude and importance j passed through the House without Amendment. He fully believed the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary when he stated that although the Government would like to have the Bill passed without Amendment, yet they would not attempt to adhere to that resolution if any Amendment was pro-posed which they believed they could reasonably accept. The hon. Member who last addressed the House had spoken of the Government in a manner which he (Mr. Samuelson) believed to be perfectly unwarranted. Such language made it difficult for independent, Members to vote with the Irish Party. There had never been a Government which had done more for Ireland, or intended to do more for it. The Amendment proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax would not, in his opinion, have the effect of altering the real purpose and tenour of the Bill. It would be no more likely to make that House act as a Court of Appeal than the Bill would as it stood at present, by the 3rd section. On the contrary, it seemed less likely that attacks would be made on Her Majesty's Government for the action of the Lord Lieutenant when evidence was given as to the reason why a man was committed to prison without trial, or arrested on suspicion upon a warrant, than if he were committed to prison on general grounds. In supporting the Amendment, he believed he was fully justified by his relations with his constituents. When he consulted them some time ago, he told them he would vote for the passage of the Bill through the House; but that he would consider every Amendment proposed in Committee, and vote for or against it as he thought right. He thought in this case the Amendment would not, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had stated, in any way revoke the trust which Parliament agreed to place in the hands of Her Majesty's Government; because, although, at the present moment, by Section 3 the consideration of every case was committed to the House, yet they all knew that every single case was not intended to be considered in detail on its merits. The only object was to give an
  952
  opportunity, in a case of imprisonment on insufficient grounds, to impeach the officers of the Government for their action. He gathered that the words which followed in this very clause—
  "And every such warrant shaft be conclusive evidence of alt matters therein contained, and of the jurisdiction to issue and execute such warrant, and of the legality of the arrest and detention of the person mentioned in such warrant,"
  would altogether prevent the House from passing in detailed review every individual case of arrest. He thought the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax, in proposing this Amendment, was actuated by the belief that there was a general wish on the part of the House to take away, if possible, from the Bill anything which might be unnecessarily oppressive. The Amendment was proposed in order that the country might be satisfied that some definite offence was aimed at by the person arrested, and that he was not arrested for a course of conduct which, in the opinion of the authorities at Dublin Castle, might, in some indefinite manner, be calculated to lead to a breach of the eace. He could assure the Government that if they accepted the Amendment, or something that would have the same effect, it would be satisfactory to Members on that side of the House. He felt disposed to support Her Majesty's Government in regard to the Bill as he had done hitherto; but he did think it would be a graceful act on their part if, instead of resisting every Amendment, they were willing to accept one which was proposed in no factious spirit, but because it was believed that, while not impairing the value of the Bill, it would give to the country at large and the people of Ireland, and the Members of that House, a satisfactory feeling that nothing was intended to be done that was not perfectly fair and above board in the matter of these arrests.
  MR. DILLONremarked, that this was one of the most important Amendments that had been placed on the Paper. The principle at stake was an exceedingly great one—namely, whether the interpretation of the purpose of the Bill which had been given by the Prime Minister was the true interpretation, or the interpretation which had been given by the Chief Secretary. In order to illustrate the principle underlying the Amend-

  953
  ment, it was necessary to point out that the Prime Minister had announced a totally different intention for the Bill to that which had been stated by the Chief Secretary, and the difference between the two was covered by the Amendment. The Prime Minister stated distinctly that the Bill was not to be used to interfere with any particular agitation or any particular association, even where advice was given to break contracts, but only to advice given that was calculated to incite to acts of violence, or to persons who were suspected of doing such acts of violence. The Chief Secretary announced that the Bill had a totally different purpose—namely, to break down a great political association and destroy its power. Many hon. Members believed in the existence of the village ruffian; but that frightful creature had no existence in Ireland. The question at issue, in rejecting this Amendment, was whether the Government were to have the power over an immense body of men, who had been accused in that House, amidst almost universal cheers, of adopting a line of conduct which led to violence, outrage, and intimidation. These men had been accused by Her Majesty's Government, and by the author of this Bill, of adopting that course; and, if the Amendment were not accepted, there was no man belonging to the association of the Land League who would not fall under the operation of the Bill. When the Act was passed it would simply be a question of selection with the Government whom they would allow to go free and whom they would arrest. But if the Amendment were accepted, no doubt a considerable check would be imposed upon the action of the Government, because they would not then be in a position to make a general charge against a man, but would be required to state in the warrant the particular act to which he incited, or in which he took part, and in that case the arrests would be very few indeed. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had argued that, if he acceded to this Amendment, Parliament would be turned into a Court of Appeal. But, as the last hon. Member who supported the Amendment pointed out, that would be rendered impossible. It was much more likely that Parliament would be turned into a Court of Appeal if the Amendment were not adopted, because,
  954
  when Irish Members saw laid upon the Table of the House the names of parties arrested upon unfounded charges, they would call upon the Government for explanation, and, if that was refused, they would be accused of arresting persons without grounds and without warrant. So far, then, from Parliament being converted into a Court of Appeal, the Amendment would have an opposite tendency, because, the cause of arrest being stated clearly on the face of the warrant, it could be pointed to at once as the justification of what had been done. Therefore, the great argument on which the Chief Secretary relied was in favour of the Amendment and against his own case. But it was clear that the question was not one of argument at all. The Government were determined to get the Bill passed without alterations.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had noticed in the speech that had just been delivered, and all through the debate, that great anxiety had been manifested by the Loaders of the Conservative Party in that House, not merely to get this Bill passed, but to get it passed in the most stringent terms possible, and to keep it fully up to the mark at which the Government had introduced it into the House. He could not but remember that some hon. Gentlemen had been claiming for their Party a balance in their favour of Coercion Bills for Ireland, and that the custom had been for the Liberal Party to bring in Coercion Acts, which were afterwards rescinded by the Tories.
  THE CHAIRMANpointed out that this line of argument was irrelevant to the Amendment before the Committee.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, one of the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary amounted to this—that if the Amendment were accepted one of the conditions which would arise was that too much testimony might be offered to the Government in favour of the innocence of men whom they had arrested. No doubt, it would be very inconvenient to them, when they had imprisoned a man on a groundless charge, that the whole neighbourhood should come forward and testify to his innocence. Was there, he asked, anything unfair or unreasonable in giving an accused man an opportunity of saying a few words in explanation of the cir-

  955
  cumstances connected with the charge made against him. But the Chief Secretary for Ireland feared that too much testimony of this sort would be adduced, and he asked the Committee to believe that it would be false testimony. He affected to believe that the terror of the Land League would make people sign an untrue statement and send it up to the Castle. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) objected to such wholesale defamation of the Irish people. The allegation of the right hon. Gentleman was a slander on the Irish people and a defamation of their character. The right hon. Gentleman had no right to level such an accusation against the Irish people; and he would tell him that, taking the Irish community in any parish, town, or village, he would find amongst them men who had as great a respect for their words, and for the truth of any statement to which they signed their names, as himself. The question of incitement to intimidation came within the scope of the Amendment also. Meetings had already been summoned in various parts of Ireland, which had been objected to by the local landlords on the ground that they were intended to intimidate. This Bill meant the prohibition of all meetings, no matter how innocent the intention with which they were summoned, because, no sooner would it be announced that a meeting was about to be held in connection with the question of Land Law Reform in parts of Ireland than the landlords would consider they were about to be intimidated, and men would be denounced to the Government. That was one of the penalties under the clause. It appeared to him that the Chief Secretary wanted to have the power in his hands to prevent anybody proving or testifying to the innocence of another, so far as the acts contemplated by this measure were concerned. The right hon. Gentleman wished his suspicions to be all-sufficient for the sacrifice of the liberties of the Irish people. The grounds of arrest would not be stated, but would remain secreted in the breasts of the informers and the Chief Secretary. Irishmen might be compelled to submit to the superior armed force of England; but the state of things he had described was an outrage against their feelings and sense of justice, as it ought to be against those of every honest man in this country also.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the Amendment only proposed to effect a very simple matter—namely, that the act of the offender should be stated on the warrant. If the Chief Secretary was sincere in declaring that it was desirable that his powers under this Act should be defined, he was quite unable to understand why he opposed the Amendment. If Her Majesty's Government would not agree to Amendments of this character, of course he and his hon. Friends would be obliged to propose further Amendments, in the discharge of their duty to their constituents. It had been more than once charged that some of the Amendments from that quarter of the House had not been made bona fide; but that could not be alleged against the present Amendment, which came from a Gentleman who occupied a considerable position in the last Liberal Administration. He submitted that when the Radical section opposite voted with so much facility for the second reading, it was in the hope that they would be able to effect some modification of the provisions of the Bill in Committee Their present experience would, he trusted, be a lesson to them with regard to Bills introduced by the Government. The right hon. Member for Halifax had made a remarkable admission in saying that he supported the Government so far because of his confidence in the Prime Minister and Chief Secretary for Ireland, and upon that ground he had voted for the second reading of the Bill; but he had now found out that when the Government had succeeded in their object they throw their supporters overboard.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is travelling beyond the Question before the Committee.
  MR. HEALYregretted the Chairman had ruled him out of Order; and would only say, in conclusion, that as the Chief Secretary for Ireland had admitted there was no remedy for injustice under this Bill, he and his hon. Friends would take that admission as a charter for proceeding in their opposition to the measure.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDunderstood the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to state his wish that the crime charged against a man should be stated on the face of the warrant, but that he did not require time and place to be

  957
  stated at all. He (Mr. M. Lloyd) asked the Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the Bill, as it stood, did not comply with what the hon. Member required? The words of the 1st clause were these—
  "Any person who is declared by the Lord Lieutenant to be reasonably suspected of having, either before or after the passing of this Act, been guilty as principal or accessory of high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, or of any crime punishable by law, being an act of violence or intimidation."
  The warrant must, therefore, declare, or, in other words, specify the offence, which was all the hon. Member for Wexford asked for. The Amendment now before the Committee proposed that in addition to that the time and place of the offence should be stated in the warrant. Now, such an addition would defeat the object of the Bill. This exceptional legislation was required because witnesses were prevented by terrorism from coming forward to give evidence, and required the protection of secrecy. But that object would be defeated if a clue were given to the informant which would be the necessary result of specifying the time and place of the offence in the warrant. He thought therefore, the Committee ought to be satisfied with the Bill as it stood.
  MR. P. MARTINsaid, by the wording of the clause there was no offence known to the law which led to an act of violence or intimidation, or one which in any way disturbed the maintenance of law and order, which did not come under the provisions of the Bill. His hon. Friends opposite were, therefore, right in assuming that any speech made at a Land League meeting, which might be considered by the Chief Secretary as inciting to an act of violence and intimidation, or as interfering with the maintenance of law and order, would come directly within the purview of the Bill. Mr. Justice Fitzgerald had said it was not a crime for a tenant to refuse to pay rent; but that it was a crime for three or four persons to combine to induce another not to pay. If that were correct, the Land League meetings hold for the purpose of inducing tenants not to pay rents that were not just and reasonable were held for the purpose of doing that which Mr. Justice Fitzgerald said was an illegal act. Consequently, if at such a meeting a speech were delivered calculated to lead, in a prescribed district, to
  958
  an act of violence and intimidation, it would seem that the subsequent part of the clause was entirely unnecessary, because the speech itself would be one tending to interfere with the maintenance of law and order. Unfortunately, he happened to be one of those Members who sat on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and who had undergone some amount of condemnation from certain of their constituents for not having joined with those who sat on the opposite side; and, in his opinion, they had been unjustly condemned in that respect. Nevertheless, he would say that, in his opinion, it was only fair and right that when a crisis of the character dealt with by this measure occurred in regard to Ireland, care should be taken to provide that in a measure which embraced every variety of offence that could be committed with regard to person and property, the warrants on which persons might be arrested and detained in prison for a period of 18 months, without trial, should state where and when the offences charged were committed. For the Government to say that the warrant would, under the terms of the clause, set forth the grounds of the arrest, would be highly illusory, unless the Amendment were accepted, as, in that case, all the arrested person would have before him would be a simple statement of the statutory offence. He desired to press this matter on the attention of Her Majesty's Government all the more strongly, when it was remembered how it would be likely to operate in practice with regard to the leaders of the existing organization. They all know what had been the result of every movement similar to the present that had taken place in Ireland. The men who led those movements were able to keep at a safe distance, while those who suffered on account of what was clone under the direction of the leaders—the men who, in a moment of excitement, when, perchance, their passions had been aroused, had listened to the counsels of others, and had allowed themselves to be betrayed into speeches for which they might next da}' be sorry —it was men of this class and character, who had not entered into a deliberate conspiracy, but who had been betrayed into the momentary commission of some offence against the law, who had to undergo the punishment provided by those repressive measures. Seeing that such

  959
  persons were to be arrested and detained on the mere statement of the Chief Secretary, surely the grounds of the arrest, with a statement of the time and place at which the alleged offence was committed, ought to be stated on the warrant, so that their friends and neighbours might have the opportunity of knowing what there was to meet, and of coming forward with any evidence in exculpation they might be able to adduce. Surely it could not be the desire of Her Majesty's Government that a single person should be arrested under the Lord Lieutenant's warrant beyond those who wilfully, deliberately, and persistently committed crime of the character dealt with by this Bill? Under these circumstances, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would not do what, would be, not an act of firmness, but— and he said it with all due respect for the Government—an act of obstinacy, and refuse to accede to the general manifestation of feeling that had come in the course of this discussion, not only from hon. Members sitting on the Benches opposite, but from independent Members occupying seats on the Government side of the House.
  THR ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it appeared to him that a good deal of misapprehension had been evidenced by the turn the discussion had taken on the Amendment before the Committee. He hoped there was no hon. Member who supposed that any warrant would be issued that did not set forth one of the crimes mentioned in the Bill, for which persons might be arrested and punished. As a matter of course the warrant would state the particular crime of which the person arrested was suspected to have been guilty. The hon. Member (Mr. Martin) who had just sat down had repeated a statement, made more than once during that discussion, that the Bill dealt with every kind of offence. He must take leave to say that it did not deal with every class of offence; but, on the contrary, left out of its scope every kind of offence not coming within the category of those which it distinctly specified. It did not, for example, deal with a class of crime to which attention had been called—he alluded to conspiracy to induce people not to pay their debts— which was not a crime of violence or intimidation, unless it could be
  960
  shown that intimidation was used as the mode of inducement. A great deal had been said as to the necessity of specifying the crimes for which arrests were made; and although he had pointed out that the Bill had provided for such specification, he would state that if there was any real doubt as to whether the warrant would sufficiently state the nature of the crime, he could see no objection to words more expressly setting this forth being added to the Bill at a future stage. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had asked that there should be inserted in the warrant not merely the nature of the crime, but also "particulars of time and place." Now, with regard to this portion of the Amendment, he would merely point to the manner in which such a provision would be almost certain to act. They knew that pressure would, in all probability, be brought to bear on every hon. Member representing an Irish constituency to interest himself with respect to cases occurring in his own county or district, and that the representations made to those hon. Members would be backed up by all sorts of certificates and testimonials, and, in fact, by a class of evidence which that House would have no means of sifting except by the appointment of a Select Committee to investigate each case upstairs; and he did not suppose that it was intended to ask the House to appoint Committees thus to examine evidence in whatever cases of arrest under this Act might be brought before them. One strong reason why this portion of the Amendment would be found impracticable in it3 actual working was this— many of the offences named in the Bill were offences committed not by one person only, but by a number of persons; and if it wore made necessary to state on each warrant the full particulars with regard to time and place, and all the grounds on which the persons arrested were suspected of having committed these crimes, the difficulty of obtaining information against their accomplices would be greatly increased. It should be remembered that the main principle of the Bill was based on the assumption that the Executive had not a perfect case such as they could, under ordinary circumstances, put before a jury and support by evidence detailing the circumstances of time and place under which the of-

  961
  fences charged were committed. On those grounds he thought the Committee would not act wisely in accepting this part of the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman; but with regard to the specification of the nature of the crime, he repeated that he should have no objection to the addition of such words as would remove any doubt that might be found to exist, and assist in carrying out more completely the objects of the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was aware that, under the new Rules, he had no right of reply; but he might be allowed, by permission of the Committee, to say that he was afraid his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland had not correctly stated the argument he had put before the Committee. He was not quite so ignorant of law as the right hon. and learned Gentleman supposed, and in the Amendment he had moved he did not wish the crime to be defined on the hypothesis that it was necessary to put the case as one that was to go before a jury; all he had really desired was that the actual fact which brought the person arrested under one of the categories of crime named in the Bill should be specified.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he had not intended to have taken any part in that discussion; but he could not help pointing out, as he had felt it necessary to do once before, the extraordinary divergence of views which seemed to exist on this question between hon. and right hon. Gentlemen seated on the Treasury Bench. In a speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland they had been told that the perpetrators and abettors of outrages were perfectly known to the police, but that the difficulty was in getting juries to convict, and that he would have a great amount of labour in carrying out the Amendment, and he had, therefore, resisted it; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland now said that the powers of the Bill were required because the evidence was imperfect, and the Government would be obliged to arrest before a case was at all made out. When these two assertions were laid side by side, it appeared to him that it required some little explanation to show their consistency.
  DR. COMMINSsaid, he desired to say a few words on this question. He held
  962
  that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) had not been met at all. The right hon. Gentleman had contended that no such thing as arbitrary power, free from check or control, was necessary, or ought to be suffered to exist in this country; and he had, therefore, brought forward a proposal which he thought would act as a salutary check on the exercise of that power. In doing that, the right hon. Gentleman was only following the traditions of English liberty. Giving Her Majesty's Government the benefit, as he did, for the best and purest intentions with regard to this measure, he, at the same time, in order to furnish a check against any mistakes had moved an Amendment declaring that no warrant should be issued that did not specify not only the nature of the crime charged against the person arrested, but also particulars of time and place at which the offence was committed. How had the argument of the right hon. Gentleman been met by the Chief Secretary? The Chief Secretary had stated that there were seven varieties of crime provided for in the Bill, and that the Amendment dealt with the four later ones—namely, crimes of violence or intimidation, and incitement to crimes of violence or intimidation. The Chief Secretary had said it would be quite sufficient to give the heading of whichever of those four crimes happened to be the one on which an individual might be arrested. Now, he (Dr. Commins) would ask what information would this give either to that House or to the individual himself, provided he should receive a copy of the warrant specifying the particular crime he was charged with having committed? Let them take, for instance, a specific crime—say that of burglary. What information could be derived from the statement that a person was arrested on a charge of burglary? The Amendment proposed to be made by the Attorney General for Ireland showed that the Government had not fully made up their minds how they should proceed. As the matter now stood, supposing a man should be accused of burglary, there being 32 counties in Ireland, unless the time and place were specified on the warrant, and the circumstances stated, it would be impossible, on a mere review of the warrant, to tell in which of those 32 counties the burglary had taken place —whether it was in the castle of a lord

  963
  or in a cottage of a peasant in a bog. Therefore, he asserted that even the concession offered by the Attorney General for Ireland amounted, in reality, to no concession at all. Supposing an act of violence were alleged; it might be an assault on the police, or an assault on a bailiff, or an assault on a landlord; it might be an attempt on the life of one of these persons, or it might be anything at all, from the smallest offence possible to the endeavour to commit a murder, and it might have happened in any one of the 1,030 parishes in Ireland. Therefore, by such a legal designation of the offence as the Attorney General for Ireland was willing to allow to appear on the warrant, there would be no check at all on the undue exercise of the arbitrary power conferred by the Bill, and there would be no guide whatever to hon. Gentlemen in that House as to whether any particular case had occurred in this or that locality, and whether the powers vested in the Irish Executive had, or had not, been exceeded. But the Chief Secretary had said, if the Amendment were admitted it would be giving the arbitrary power asked for with one hand and taking it away with the other. This, however, was not so. It would leave the arbitrary power where the carrying of the second reading of the Bill had placed it; and all it would do beyond this would be to set forth that Englishmen were not prepared to see left undone that which would place some kind of check on arbitrary power. He was surprised that the legal mind of the Chief Secretary had not seen it in this light. Another argument used in reply to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax was that it was objectionable to give the place at which an offence was committed, because, by doing so, they would be alarming all the other persons who were supposed to have been concerned in the commission of the particular act of violence or intimidation specified on the warrant. But one of the very things which the Bill proposed to do, and which it ought to do, was to alarm these people. If a particular act, committed at a particular place, were to be so specified, this very fact would tend to prevent a repetition of that act. In point of fact, not one of the arguments that had been used in reply to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfold) was at all conclusive; in fact, they went in an opposite direction to
  964
  what was intended. He submitted, with confidence, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax had made out his case for the insertion of the Amendment, and that it ought to be adopted by Her Majesty's Government, unless they were prepared to yield up all claims to the confidence of the House, and to turn their backs on all the traditions of English liberty and English law.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)desired to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld) to what it was that he was asking the Committee to do. It was admitted that upon the face of every warrant it would be necessary to state the nature of the crime for which the arrest was made. This was the case with every warrant issued under the ordinary law of the country; and the right hon. Gentleman was probably aware that no warrant could be issued without that fact appearing upon it. But the right hon. Gentleman was not satisfied with what would, under ordinary circumstances, appear on the warrant. He asked that those facts should be stated which pointed out the nature of the crime. These facts would require the insertion of particulars of time and place, which need not appear in warrants issued according to the general law. If the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman were adopted, the House of Commons would have placed before it, not an ordinary warrant, but what would really constitute an indictment; and he apprehended that it was not intended that each case in which a warrant was issued should be placed before that House as if it were an indictment in a case for trial. If that were to be done, the House had better not have passed the second reading of the Bill.
  MR. STANSFELDdesired, with the leave of the Committee, to offer a further explanation. He had not proposed that the Lord Lieutenant's warrant should contain the particulars ordinarily contained in an information or indictment. All he had proposed was that the offence should be specified, with particulars of time and place. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General had stated that no warrant now issued contained particulars of time and place. He (Mr. Stansfeld) probably had no right to say a word in

  965
  opposition to such an authority; but he had always understood—and if he found he was wrong in what he was about to state he would apologize to the hon. and learned Gentleman at some future stage of the Bill—that, though a warrant did not contain the particulars of an information or indictment, it did state that upon such a day and in such a place a specific act took place.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, the hon. and learned Attorney General had put it to the Committee that if they had desired that every warrant should specify time and place, and the circumstances giving rise to the arrest, the House ought not to have passed the second reading of the Bill. In reply to that, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) said all that was desired by this Amendment was that the warrant should show to anyone who was arrested the time and place at which the offence of which he was suspected was alleged to have been committed, not for the purpose of multiplying inquiries before that House, but rather of offering a guarantee that the law was properly carried out. What, he asked, could be simpler than to state that A. B. was arrested on suspicion of being one of the parties who had set fire to a house on a particular day in Wexford? If it were proveable afterwards that no such house had been burned, he thought the nature of the warrant would offer ground for appealing to the Lord Lieutenant to allow the release of the man. If a man's liberty was to be taken away on grounds so general as the burning of a house, everyone might be taken up on some such bogus crime and detained until the law expired. What the Attorney General had conceded was merely a concession in terms, and not in fact. To say that a man was suspected of some general crime was not a justification for his arrest, and what all notions of fair play and the least those who prized the liberty of the subject required was that there should be on the warrant a sufficient specification of the offence.
  MR. BIGGAR, referring to the argugument that if that Amendment were adopted it would make the House a Final Court of Appeal, and each individual case of imprisonment would be argued in the House, said, nothing was further from practice than that course. All that the passage of the Amendment would amount to would be that in any particular case in which a case could be
  966
  made out for revision of the decision it might be submitted to the House to consider the justice of the arrest. He said the consideration of the case would not be so much in the form of a debate as of a chat with the Chief Secretary. In point of fact, as the matter stood then, the right hon. Gentleman said he would draw the words of the warrant in such a way that it would be perfectly impossible to identify a crime charged against a man; and he thought it would be well for the Committee to reserve to itself some power of re-considering decisions that were given by the Lord Lieutenant, and should give an arrested man an opportunity, if he was innocent, of showing that he was not guilty of the offence of which he was suspected. The proposition of the Government was very illogical, and it was not creditable from any point of view; and he urged the Committee to agree to the Amendment. Other Amendments had been refused which would have given some opportunity for re-considering decisions of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary; and he thought this was as reasonable a one as any of them, and it would be unjust of the Government not to assent to it.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he would occupy the Committee no further than to read a copy of a warrant of apprehension which he found in Burns' Justice of the Peace. It ran as follows: —
  "To the Constable of (), and to all other peace officers in said county of ()—Whereas, A. B., of (), has this day been charged before one of Her Majesty's justices of the peace in and for said county, for that ho, on (here state offence shortly)."
  After that he would say no more.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided: —Ayes 96; Noes 220: Majority 124.—(Div. List, No. 46.)
  THE CHAIRMAN: Before the hon. Member for Carlow County (Mr. Gray) moves his Amendment, I will call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the first part of his Amendment is substantially the same as that of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld); and it is, therefore, incompetent for him to move that part which goes so very near to the Amendment which has already been decided. But the Amendment then pro-

  967
  ceeds to enable the High Court of Justice, within three days from the making of an application, to hear evidence on behalf of the person arrested. The hon. Member proposes to put that provision after the words "Lord Lieutenant" in line 17. The preceding words have, however, expressly declared that no Court shall try a prisoner without the direction of the Lord Lieutenant. The proposed Amendment is, therefore, entirely inconsistent with the words which would precede it, and, therefore, cannot be put.
  MR. GRAYasked if he was to understand that he could not put his Amendment?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Except the first part, which, however, is very near the Amendment which has just been decided, although it is technically different.
  MR. GRAYsaid, he would put as much as he was permitted to propose, and leave the Chairman to strike out what he might not put.
  THE CHAIRMAN: It is not the duty of the Chair to modify any Amendments.
  MR. GRAYsaid, some portion of his Amendment was totally different, and asked whether he would be allowed to propose that part?
  THE CHAIRMAN: That part is inconsistent with the previous words of the clause.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he had an Amendment to propose which came before that of the hon. Member for Carlow County, and was similar in words to that of the hon. Member, striking out that portion to which the Chairman objected. He should propose after the word "application" in his hon. Friend's Amendment to add words which would require that when the person was arrested a statement of the grounds upon which the arrest was made should be furnished, and that upon application by the person arrested to the governor or other officer of the prison, denying that he had committed the offence, he should be heard within three days of making the application.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Such an Amendment would be perfectly inconsistent with the previous words in the line.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked whether it could not be moved at that point, that every person arrested should, at the time of arrest, be furnished with a copy of the wan-ant and a statement of the
  968
  act or acts upon which the arrest was made?
  THE CHAIRMAN: Yes.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought it would commend itself to the sense and the feelings of the Committee that the person arrested should, at the time of the arrest, receive a statement on the face of the warrant showing the actual act with which he was charged; and he thought the fact that a considerable number of hon. Members had supported a some-what similar Amendment recently was an additional argument why the Government should grant that simple concession to the prisoners.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after the words "Lord Lieutenant," to insert the words, "Provided, That every person so arrested shall, at the time of his arrest, be furnished with a copy of the warrant, and with a statement of the act or acts for which the arrest has been made."—(Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, it appeared to him that the Amendment was substantially the same in form as that which had already been decided, and he could not accept it.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAcontended that every alleged offence should be distinctly specified, so that if it were found afterwards that it had not occurred the accused person might be set at liberty. Suppose it was believed that a man had been killed, and some other man was arrested on suspicion of being either principal or accessory in the killing of that person, and it was afterwards found that the man was living, would not that be a miscarriage of the law to require redress? He did not wish to take away the power of the Lord Lieutenant to arrest a man who was suspected of an offence, oven of one which might not have been committed; but it was most important that the man who was suspected of a particular offence should have a right to claim to show that he ought not to have been arrested, for instance, for killing the man, seeing that the man was living. He thought it was scarcely asking the Government to make any considerable stretch to accept the Amendment, because they were receiving the power to arrest; and what he urged was that it was only reasonable that there should be some means by which the ar-

  969
  rested man should be able to prove his innocence of an offence which had not been committed.
  DR. COMMINSsupported the Amendment. He failed to see any force in the objection taken to it by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANurged the Government to accept the Amendment. They must, at all events, conceive it to be possible that the Lord Lieutenant would have the pain of mind of discovering, in some case or other, that he had been misled; but to whoso interest would it be to show that he had made even one error in 100 cases? It certainly would not be to the interest of the police who led him into it; it would be the friends of the injured man. But how were these persons to find out the error if they did not know the charge? Some of the men who would be imprisoned under the Act would leave parents, children, brothers, behind them; and was it to be supposed that for 18 months these people would deplore the absence of members of their family without making some effort to get them out of prison? If they' believed in the innocence of their relatives in prison, would they—and he would put it to any Member of the Government who had children or had those who were near and dear to him—let those relatives lie down and languish for 18 months without making a manly effort to prove their innocence? Certainly not; but how were they to know their relatives were wrongfully arrested, and how were they to make an effort for their release unless they knew the charge? This was a matter upon which it would not do for the Chief Secretary to remain silent, for the case was put to him on the ground of common justice, and common humanity. The question pressed for a reply, and the Chief Secretary was bound to give one, bound by his duty to the country, by his duty to the Committee, and by his own public character and reputation, which, until the right hon. Gentleman put his hand to this Bill, had borne no stain of public cruelty or savage severity. Did the right hon. Gentleman wish to assume that he was right in every act he performed? However high their opinion might be of him they hardly accredited him with infallibility; and if he claimed that on the present issue it would be difficult for them to believe in his sincerity as they used to. No doubt, efforts
  970
  had been made in other shapes to get a provision inserted in the Bill requiring an explicit statement of the charges on which persons were to be sent to prison; but it was the duty of the Irish Members to exhaust every conceivable means of obtaining that statement. It was their duty to imagine every form of words or phrase which could raise this issue of putting on record the charges against suspected persons, in order that the Lord Lieutenant might have the chance afforded him of finding out in six, nine, or twelve months time, that he had made a mistake in a particular instance. The Lord Lieutenant might be right in ten cases; but he might be wrong in the eleventh. Men as able, as keen, as wise, as honest, as painstaking, as the Lord Lieutenant had admittedly committed errors in the past; and he did not blame them. To err was human. No doubt, other high officials had executed their powers to the utmost in good faith, nevertheless it was too much to contemplate that even one man in 20 might be wrongfully incarcerated under the Bill. He would appeal to the Committee-—to English Gentlemen whose friends would not feel the wrong and injury which would be done under this measure. They were in the enjoyment of comfort and case, and luxury, and came here only to listen to that which seemed to them a tedious debate. ["Hear, hear!"] There! that cheer showed he saw what was in hon. Gentlemen's minds. They did not feel as the Irish Members felt. None of their constituents would be in danger; no wrong, no oppression would touch those who were near and dear to them. But the Irish Members wore fighting here for those who were dear to them, and many who might be dear to them too—for they had. had members of their families inside prison cells ere now. They knew this Bill was levelled at public agitation in Ireland, and was intended to suppress a movement distasteful to the Irish landlords, in order that no outcry might be made against the miserable, half-hearted land measure that the re-actionary portion of the Cabinet might have determined to bring in. Would any hon. Member get up in his place and say that the friend or relative of a man imprisoned under this Act ought not to have the chance of going about in the parish collecting evidence, taking that evidence, when collected, to Dublin, and putting

  971
  proof of the prisoner's innocence in the Lands of the Chief Secretary, saying—"I admit your power to keep my friend —or brother or father—in prison, and to keep him there for 18 months; but will yon ask the police in my village to look into these facts, will you yourself examine into them, and, if you find wrong has been done, reverse that wrong?" There was not a Turkish Pacha who would not grant so much to the most oppressed in all the dominions of the Sultan. He (Mr. Sullivan) was curious to know whether those amiable and estimable Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, who posed as the friends of humanity all over the world, would say that the poor peasant of Ireland should not have the chance of proving his innocence before the Lord Lieutenant?
  SIR JOHN HOLKERsaid, he Lad given considerable attention to the Bill; and though he deemed it arbitrary, despotic, and somewhat tyrannical, he was prepared to give it his hearty support, because he considered it necessarily arbitrary, despotic, and tyrannical, the discontented, disaffected, and disloyal in Ireland having necessitated its introduction; but, at the same time, he could not conceive why they should make it more arbitrary, despotic, and tyrannical than was needful. he conceived it was one of the first principles of justice that a man who was arrested should know the why and the wherefore of his arrest. To lot a man arrested under this Bill know that would not weaken the efficiency of the measure, and might possibly conduce to great good, because it was possible to conceive that egregious mistakes might be committed. With such a provision as this in the Bill, the man who was arrested, or his friends, might possibly be able to demonstrate that a mistake Lad been made. He supported the Amendment simply on the ground that it could not weaken the Bill, but was essential if they wished to proceed on the lines of justice.
  MR. STAYELEY HILLsaid, that, with reference to the last Amendment, he agreed that there might be some difficulty in specifying "crime or crimes with particulars of time or place;" but he could not for the life of him see why they should allow a man to be arrested without giving him a copy of the warrant, with a statement of the act or acts for which the arrest Lad been made. He should most certainly vote for the Amendment.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the Committee should clearly understand the grounds upon which they were about to vote. They had stated that the warrant would show the nature of the crime, and that the person arrested was, therefore, entitled to know what he had been arrested for. A man would be able to see the warrant, which would be lodged in a public office; any solicitor could see it at any moment, and it would be laid before Parliament. With regard to the forcible observations of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) the matter narrowed itself down to the meaning of certain words in the Amendment. What was meant by "act or acts?" If they meant a statement of the crime in the warrant, of course that would be given, and a person would know what he was charged with; but if the words were to be taken as a statement of "time and place" they had already voted against that.
  MR. M'COAN: No; the particular charge, the particular offence.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, the hon. Member who was interrupting him would presently have an opportunity of expressing himself rather more regularly than he was now doing. If the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) meant by "act or acts" that he wished to Lave "time and place" inserted in the warrant, they had already voted against that. He did not know how his hon. and learned Friend had voted; probably with the majority; he had often done so; and, if he had, he had voted against "time and place." Did the hon. and learned Gentleman wish to have evidence of the crime in the warrant; if so, he would have to contradict a vote he had already given.
  SIR JOHN HOLKERsaid, he had voted in the last division with the majority, because he believed the Amendment proposed to be, on the whole, impolitic, and not, perhaps, very reasonable. All he desired was that a man who was arrested should have a copy of the warrant. What that warrant should contain they had decided in the last division.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was sorry he should have to vote against the late Attorney General. He was one of those who, to use a common expression, supported the Bill through thick and thin;

  973
  and he intended to support Her Majesty's Government in carrying it, in whatever form they chose to submit it. On an important Amendment like this, the late Attorney General should, in his opinion, have objected to the second reading of the Bill, and not now go into the Lobby with the minority. This was a Bill of the greatest importance to thousands of Her Majesty's subjects, and the Amendment was of great importance; and it was the duty of the Conservative Party to support the Government in passing it, and to see that the measure went through Committee without Amendments of any hind, considering that the Conservative Party had, after mature consideration, agreed to support the Government in the passing of the Bill. No one in the House was more opposed to Her Majesty's Government on many subjects than he was; but, at the same time, he could not help thinking that the late Attorney General had made a great mistake in the remarks he had offered, and that the Conservative Party would scarcely be acting honourably if they opposed the Government on this important Amendment. He (Mr. Onslow) should not go into the same Lobby with him, as he intended to support Her Majesty's Government in all the clauses of the Bill.
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think it will be a question of going into the Lobby at all, because, so far as I can make out, no one agrees with the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General. We have no objection whatever to the person arrested being furnished with a copy of the warrant. We have already provided that it shall be quite easy for him to see it, and that a copy shall be lodged where his friends can have access to it; and, beyond this, it may be desirable that he should have an actual copy given to him. I will undertake, at a later stage, that a provision shall be inserted to secure to the person arrested a copy of the warrant. ["Now, now!"] Hon. Members wish to have the Amendment inserted now. I have looked carefully over the Amendments, and I must confess there are not many to which I do not see the strongest objection; but there will be one or two alterations to make, and I do not mind acknowledging that I think it would be better to make them on the third reading. It is not in my
  974
  own interest, or that of the Government, I say so; but in the interest of the House and of Public Business. We promise that the person arrested shall have a copy of the warrant, and I will undertake that the Bill shall not leave the House without words to that effect being introduced.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLdid not know anyone who was better able than the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General to confuse the Committee as to the real facts of the case, when the Committee was on the point of deciding. He had declared that anyone who voted for the Amendment, which said that a statement of the actor acts for which a person had been arrested should be furnished to that person, was supporting that which was contradictory to the vote already given. The practical working of the Amendment would be this—People would be arrested in Ireland for being suspected of having been concerned in outrages; and these people would, from time to time, make application to the Crown for their release. Well, they wore not going to assume that the Government were absolutely infallible. He had not the robust faith of the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), although he was prepared to place considerable confidence in Her Majesty's Ministers, for mistakeshad been made by Governments before, and might be made again; and it was, therefore, of the greatest importance, nay, absolutely essential, to a prisoner, that he should be furnished with a copy of the "act or acts" he was suspected to have committed, in order that he might make application to the Crown for his release. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. Law) dissented.] The Attorney General for Ireland shook his head; but he knew these applications came in as thickly as possible even now, and that they would come in as thickly as possible after the passing of the Act—that, in fact, they would probably be as numerous as the arrests. It would be impossible for a person committed under the measure to make a proper statement of his case to the Crown, if he were not furnished with a statement of the act or acts for which the arrest was made. He was sorry to be obliged to differ from the hon. Member for Guildford, because he thought the Amendment a reasonable one, and unless

  975
  the Chief Secretary was prepared to furnish the statement asked for to the prisoners he should support that Amendment.
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 222: Majority143.—(Div. List, No. 47.)
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Amendment he intended to propose now was a simple and humane one. He took it that the Committee had decided that there could be no appeal under the Act from the Lord Lieutenant to anybody else. He would therefore propose to insert in page 1, line 17, after the words "Lord Lieutenant," the words—
  "Provided always, That where any person shall he incarcerated under this Act for a longer period than three months, at the end of every three months of his detention his case shall come under the review of the Lord Lieutenant, who shall endorse on the warrant a statement to that effect."
  That Amendment recognized that the only appeal from the Lord Lieutenant was to the Lord Lieutenant; but it also provided that there should be no danger under this Act, as had unfortunately happened under the operation of previous Acts, that the persons arrested in the first rush of arrests should not be totally forgotten and loft in their cells. He did not think that such a provision would interfere with the responsibility or the initiative of the Lord Lieutenant. It simply provided that from three months to three months the cases of the prisoners under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act should be brought before the Lord Lieutenant, and that the Lord Lieutenant should review each case. The Amendment would act in a humane direction; and, in a great many of the cases that came up for review to the Lord Lieutenant, he would see that these poor men were no longer deserving of continued incarceration. During three months, facts might come to the knowledge of the Lord Lieutenant which would induce him to believe that detention in particular cases was no longer necessary. The Amendment simply-proposed that where any person was incarcerated under the Act for a longer period than six months, at the termination of every period of three months the case should come before the Lord Lieutenant for review, and the fact be stated
  976
  on the back of the warrant. He hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 1, line 17, after the words "Lord Lieutenant," to insert the words 'Provided always, That where any person shall be incarcerated under this Act for a longer period than three months, at the end of every three months of his detention his case shall come under the review of the Lord Lieutenant, who shall endorse on the warrant a statement to that effect."— (Mr. O'Donnell.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must say that I think the proposal of the hon. Member deserves consideration; but I think it would come in more properly at the end of the section. I should like a little more time for a consideration of the words, and I do not like to give up all idea of saving the time of the House if I can help it. The Committee is quite aware that there are two or three matters which will have to be dealt with on the third reading; and I do not wish to refuse to consider any Amendment that is not unreasonable. I understand the hon. Member to moan that every three months the Lord Lieutenant should show, by endorsement upon the warrant, that the case has been re-considered. I should be quite glad that that should be done; and perhaps the hon. Member will let me have the exact terms of his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, 'withdrawn.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwished to move an Amendment after the word "warrant" in line 17. It was a very reasonable Amendment, and would facilitate that which had just been acceded to. He would not attempt, in the slightest degree, to waste time by moving the same tiling over again; but he honestly moved this Amendment in the belief that, although somewhat similar to the one which had been accepted by the Government, it was, in some respects, essentially different. He proposed, after the word "warrant," to insert the words—
  "And every such warrant shall he endorsed with the date of the act or acts the said person is suspected to have committed, and the place where such act or acts were committed."
  The Committee had decided already that the acts themselves should not be speci-

  977
  fied, and the warrant would simply state that such a person had been arrested for sedition, or any other particular crime. There was to be no classification of the crime; but if the date and place were mentioned they might afford materials to enable the person arrested, or his family, to lay before the Lord Lieutenant at the end of three months, for the purposes of review, the materials upon which a review could take place. The Amendment did not require the Lord Lieutenant to specify the Act. It would simply be sufficient to say—"Sedition committed on the 7th of February, 1881, in the barony of such a place, in Ireland. "That would give a reasonable chance to the friends of the accused of obtaining materials to enable the Lord Lieutenant to review the case at the end of three months. Who would be the interested parties in collecting materials for the review of the Lord Lieutenant? It would never be the police; but it would be the family of the accused; and all he asked was that they should have some clue as to the nature of the accusation on which they could go to work, in order that they might be enabled to send up to Dublin Castle the materials for a review of the case at the end of three months. Unless they had such a chance, the Lord Lieutenant would have nothing to review. He would merely have to review the statement of the parties who caused the man to be arrested in the first instance. He entreated the Government to give this faint chance to the friends of the immured victim of laying before the Lord Lieutenant, at the end of throe months, something on which his conscience might go to work, otherwise the concession already promised would be useless. As he was not the late Attorney General of a powerful Administration, he was afraid his suggestion would not command much support from Her Majesty's Government. When he had pleaded in this way before the Committee had not seen that there was much in it. But when the late Attorney General for England got up to support an Amendment he was listened to with attention. He (Mr. Sullivan) was unable to lend to the present Amendment the weight of the hon. and learned Gentleman's position, ability, or character. Nevertheless, he would press the proposal upon, the Government that at every
  978
  three months a review of each case was promised they would do something to provide the Lord Lieutenant with materials for his review, by allowing the mother, father, or friends of the prisoner the chance of going to work to procure such materials. He was placing before the Committee no hypothetical case. He had in his mind an actual occurrence that took place some years ago, when the father of a prisoner, in his 79th year, walked to Dublin to the prison gate to make an effort for the liberation of his son, whom he had not seen for three years, and who had been incarcerated without accusation, and without proof. All he asked was that the Government would give some chance to another father to go to the Lord Lieutenant, with the facts in his hands, to enable the Lord Lieutenant to judge whether he might not have been misled in imprisoning the man in the first instance. He thought the charge ought to be localized, so that some chance might be afforded for disproving it. It would be sufficient to state that the charge was sedition, and to accompany it by a statement when the sedition was committed, and whore.
  THE CHAIRMAN: I am unable to put this Amendment, because the Committee have already negatived a proposition that particulars of time and place should be given.
  MR. BRYCEsaid, he had intended to move, in line 18, after the words "and every warrant shall be conclusive evidence," the omission of the words "of all matters therein contained;" but he had had some communication with the right hon. Gentleman responsible for the Bill which would prevent him from troubling the Committee. He understood that Her Majesty's Government were willing to consider the matter.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANasked what the understanding was?
  THE CHAIRMAN: I must point out to the hon. and learned Member that there is no Question before the Committee.
  MR. CALLANrose; but—
  THE CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he was perfectly in Order, as he rose to move the Amendment which stood in the name of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce).
  THE CHAIRMAN: There was no Amendment before the Committee when I called upon the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy).
  MR. CALLANsaid, it had taken some time, both for the Chair and the Committee, to see that he was in Order; but they found now that he was perfectly within his right, seeing that the Amendment he intended to move came before that of which the hon. and learned Member for Limerick (Mr. O'Shaughnessy) had given Notice. He begged to move, in page 1, line 18, after the word "evidence," to leave out the words "of all matters therein contained, and." He did so for the purpose ox having a declaration from the Government that upon the third reading, or at whatever time was most convenient, these most objectionable words would be left out. The clause, as it stood, said—
  "And every such warrant shall he conclusive evidence of all matters therein contained, and of the jurisdiction to issue and execute such warrant, and of the legality of the arrest and detention of the person mentioned in such warrant."
  That was all right and proper; but a subsequent section of the clause went on to say that the warrant should be laid before Parliament. No declaration that the words directing the warrant to be conclusive evidence of "all matters therein contained" had yet been made by the Government. That was an assumption never yet contained in an Act of Parliament; and it would puzzle the ingenuity of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Law) to give any good or valid reason for the retention of the words. The hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was content with some private understanding with the Government; but the only safeguard the Committee had for the protection of Irish interests was that whatever promise was made should be made openly and aboveboard, across the floor of the House, and not be a matter of private negotiation and understanding. Ho, therefore, moved the omission of these words, in order to enable the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, or the Chief (Secretary for Ireland, to make a clear and explicit declaration that, at some future period, the
  980
  words would be omitted, or else give some reason for their retention.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page l, line 18, after the word "evidence," to leave out the words "of all matters therein contained, and."—(Mr. Callan.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)objected to the Amendment. It was necessary to retain the words. They were substantially the same as those contained in the Westmeath Act, being only more concise and condensed.
  MR. METGEsaid, the Pill up to this point had been allowed to contain a special limitation that the authority should be placed in the hands of the chief magistrate. A great deal of stress had been laid on that limitation. The Prime Minister told them that he had no fear that the powers conferred by the Act would be arbitrarily exercised, and that their reasonableness might be challenged on the floor of that House. Put they all knew what the result of such a challenge would be. It would be no consolation to a man who had been 18 months in prison, and driven to the verge of insanity, to have his case brought up on the floor of the House of Commons, when a good speech might probably be delivered by the senior Member, and a few remarks be made from the Ministerial Bench. The clause recited that any person could be arrested who was declared by warrant of the Lord Lieutenant to be reasonably suspected of having been guilty of certain crimes; but if every warrant was to be conclusive evidence of all matters therein contained, what would become of the reasonable suspicion? The law would at once hold that the accused person had been fully convicted on direct proof. He could not believe that that was the intention of the Committee—that they actually meant to say that the warrant was to constitute a crime, and that the warrant thus constituting a crime should be made substantial evidence of that crime. If the clause remained unaltered it would be impossible to raise any plea against the reasonableness of the arrest, because the warrant would constitute conclusive evidence of the crime, and be

  981
  really the crime itself. He could not imagine that the Chief Secretary wished to obtain from the House an indemnity for his acts; and if the words which his hon. Friend wished to strike out were left in the Bill such an indemnity would be given, because the right hon. Gentleman could at once plead that the warrant itself should be taken as conclusive evidence of all matters therein contained. His responsibility would, therefore, be at once done away with. The expunging of these words would not in any way affect the strength of the Bill; but would merely give power to impeach the acts of Ministers if they abused its powers. The small concession asked for was of immense importance in view of the after consequences of the Bill.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDhoped the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would state whether these words were to be retained with any modification or not. He (Sir Henry Holland) understood the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) had given Notice of a similar Amendment, and had withdrawn it upon some understanding with the Government. It was only fair and reasonable that such understanding should be fully explained to the Committee. He did not think the words were necessary, considering that the warrant was to be conclusive evidence, not only of the jurisdiction of the Lord Lieutenant, but also of the legality of the arrest and detention of the prisoner. If it was conclusive evidence of the jurisdiction and detention, it was necessarily conclusive evidence of all facts that justified the exercise of such jurisdiction.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the question involved in these words was purely of a legal character; and, for that reason, he did not think his answer would be of much value to the Committee. He could not quite decide whether or not the words were necessary; and, under the circumstances, as he did not wish to retain any words that were unnecessary for the purpose of the Bill, he asked the Committee to give Her Majesty's Government time to find out whether they were required.
  MR. BRYCEexplained that he had given Notice of an Amendment upon this subject; but, before moving it, he had endeavoured to discover what the legal effect of the words was in the view
  982
  of Her Majesty's Government. Gathering from the Government there was some doubt as to their legal effect, he had not felt himself justified in asking the Committee to divide upon his Amendment, conceiving that it would be better that the point should be considered subsequently. But there had been no understanding between the Government and himself.
  SIR JOHN HOLKERwas delighted to hear that the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryee) was so accessible to reason, and that he had, upon such slight grounds, consented to withdraw his Amendment. He (Sir John Holker) confessed that, after having carefully considered the arguments brought forward in favour of retaining the words, he did not see the reason upon which they were founded. It was very well to say that the warrant should be conclusive evidence of the jurisdiction to execute it, and of the legality of the arrest; but why the Committee should be asked to say the warrant should be conclusive evidence of all it contained he failed to see. A man might be arrested upon suspicion that he had been guilty of murder; and if this Bill passed into law the warrant would be conclusive evidence of his guilt. He was sorry to offer any opposition to the Government; but they appeared determined, for some reason or other, that they would admit of no Amendments to the Bill, which, in his (Sir John Holker's) opinion, stood in need of a good many. He was ready to support the further progress of the Bill, on the ground that it was necessary for the preservation of law, order, and good government in Ireland: but he could not forget there was such a thing as a Constitution, and that liberty was more precious than coercion.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)would like to know where his hon. and learned Friend (Sir John Holker) had been since the introduction of the Bill, and why that night the Constitution of England was to be protected by him for the first time? He (Sir Henry James) protested against his hon. and learned Friend coming down in the midst of the arduous discussions which had taken place upon the Bill and formally taking the Constitution under his protection, as if its existence had been forgotten. He would

  983
  ask him what course he proposed to take with respect to the present Amendment —whether he was about to act as he had done in the last Amendment? At the same time, he would urge him, with all his enthusiasm for the Constitution, to Have some regard for facts. There would only he a statement in the warrant that the Lord Lieutenant had reasonable grounds for suspicion; and, therefore, he asked his hon. and learned Friend to toll him upon what ground he said that the statement in the warrant would be conclusive proof of the guilt of the person arrested for all purposes? The hon. and learned Member for Preston owed that explanation to hon. Gentlemen who sat near him—to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and even to the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock, who cheered him so loudly. He would leave his hon. and learned Friend to settle his difficulty with those amongst whom he sat. If the words remained in the Bill they would not interfere with the Constitution; but it was not desirable to have it traversed in any way that the Lord Lieutenant had reasonable grounds of suspicion, and if the words were struck out, it would be in the power of anyone to contend that the Lord Lieutenant should be put to the proof that he had reasonable grounds for suspicion. Whether the Lord Lieutenant should be put to such proof was a matter upon which something was, perhaps, to be said upon both sides; but it appeared to him (Sir Henry James) that the Lord Lieutenant ought not to be challenged to establish reasonable suspicion.
  SIR JOHN HOLKERdesired to say one word as to his vote on the last division.
  THE CHAIRMANreminded the hon. and learned Member for Preston that, under the now Rules, he would not be in Order in speaking again, except to make a personal explanation.
  SIR JOHN HOLKERsaid, he had merely to say that he had voted in the last division under the impression that the Government had acceded to all he wished.
  MR. WARTONexpressed his opinion that the difficulty in which the Committee was placed was due to the Government having followed too scrupulously the drafting of some former Pill. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief
  984
  Secretary for Ireland, on the third reading of the Bill, would bring up a straightforward form of warrant.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLsaid, the Committee had a statement from the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland with respect to some important words in the Bill that those words had not been brought to his notice before, and that, in spite of a quarter of an hour's consultation with the Irish Law Officers, he was not able to get into his head what they meant. Then, because the hon. and learned Gentleman the ex-Attorney General for England had expressed his opinion as to their effect, the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Attorney General directed his fury upon him for giving a perfectly clear and precise statement of the law. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) ventured to say that if the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could not give the meaning of the words in question, it was perfectly impossible for the Committee to proceed beyond that portion of the clause which contained them. It was his duty to remind hon. Members opposite, who called themselves Liberal, and Members of the Liberal Party, who supported this Bill for the suspension of the liberties of the Irish people, and who, when the Chief Secretary for Ireland rose and said, with respect to important words in the Bill, that he was unable to give any opinion, actually endeavoured to talk down a Member of the House because he still kept to his opinion, that it was impossible to make progress with the measure until the right hon. Gentleman was able to give his opinion as to the meaning of the words in question.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he was afraid the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock had unintentionally done the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland some injustice. The right hon. Gentleman said he had heard contradictory statements with reference to the words in the clause; and when the hon, and learned Gentleman the ex-Attorney General (Sir John Holker) rose to express his opinion, which must be in accordance with that of either one or other of those statements, he could not get an explanation as to whether the words were necessary or not. Absolutely, one of the conflicting and disagreeing Law Officers of the Crown rose and

  985
  entered into a kind of gladiatorial combat with the late Attorney General for England. Let the Committee not lose sight of the fact mentioned by the hon. and learned Gentleman sitting on the Opposition Benches, that so persuaded were Her Majesty's Government that there was something untenable in these words that they had entered into a private transaction with the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) with respect to them. If there had been a private negotiation the Committee should be plainly told that one of the Law Officers of the Crown had told the Chief Secretary for Ireland that the words in question were either unnecessary or mischievous. Would that hon. and learned Gentleman remain muzzled, or would he rise in his place and confirm the opinion of the late Attorney General for England? This Amendment had been given in at the Table two days ago; but the Chief Secretary for Ireland told the Committee that every word in the Bill had been carefully weighed, and had used that as an argument against accepting any Amendment whatever. The right hon. Gentleman now found himself in a quandary, and said that he required time to consider these words. Then let him candidly confess that Progress was impossible until he had assured himself as to the necessity of the words. He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) should not move to report Progress for any such purpose, because he thought the Committee might continue their labours a little time longer; but he would suggest that if there was on the Treasury Bench a conflict of legal opinion, the Government were bound to pledge themselves explicitly with regard to the words in question.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERpointed out that the course he had pursued in asking a little time for consideration of the point raised was not at all unusual. He had, when in charge of Bills on former occasions, been obliged to do the same thing. In the present case he undertook, if the words were not necessary, that they should be removed from the Bill. He asked the Committee to accept his assurance upon this point. The Committee could not expect him to strike out, then and there, words that might turn out to be necessary from a legal point of view. He trusted the
  986
  Committee would be allowed to continue its labours for a short time longer; his view being that they were now so near the end of the section that it could be finished that night.
  MR. GIBSON, having listened to the discussion with great attention, had regretted that neither of his hon. and learned Friends, the Attorney and Solicitor General for Ireland, had spoken, because, unquestionably, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated that he was at a loss to understand exactly what was the legal opinion given to him. It was in reference to that that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Sir John Holker) had stated that, having read the Westmeath Act, he was at a loss to understand what was the exact legal advantage of retaining these words. The first Amendment with regard to this point had been laid upon the Table of the House some days ago by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce), therefore he was sure this matter must have been considered by the Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland, as it was their duty, and they must have made up their minds by this date as to the necessity of these words. For his own part, he (Mr. Gibson), thought the Lord Lieutenant would be protected if the warrant were made conclusive evidence of the jurisdiction and the legality of the arrest. Nevertheless, he should be glad to hear the Law Officers of the Crown in their arguments to show that these words were necessary. If those arguments were conclusive, he should be willing to support their view; but he understood that, unless the Amendment before the Committee were withdrawn, they would have at once to vote upon the question one way or the other. Therefore, if that Amendment were not to be withdrawn, it was clearly necessary that Progress should be reported, or else that the Law Officers of the Crown for Ireland should state whether they considered it necessary that these words should be retained, and what was the advantage of retaining them.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOB IRELAND (MR. W. M. JOHNSON)denied that there was any conflict of opinion between him and his right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General for Ireland. His opinion was that those

  987
  words were necessary and essential. Nearly every Act of Parliament prescribed that the decision of some person under the Act in any matters which must be merely Ministerial should be taken as conclusive. The warrant would commence with a statement of the district; and the statement in the warrant that a defined district was prescribed would be conclusive of that fact by the words "all matters therein contained." The warrant must also declare that, the district being so prescribed, the Lord Lieutenant reasonably suspected that the person to be arrested had been guilty of some cimre—say arson, or whatever it might be, being a crime punishable by law, committed in the district prescribed and being an act of violence and so on. Unless the words "all matters therein contained" were maintained, it would have to be proved by evidence aliunde the warrant that the district was prescribed.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, the argument of the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) was that the veracity of the statement must be made certain by the words "all matters therein contained"; but, as he (Mr. O'Shaugtmessy) understood it, the ordinary form of warrant did not embrace those words, and the last Act for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act did not contain them.
  THE SOLICTTOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): That Act gave the form of warrant.
  MR. O'SHAUGHNESSYsaid, they were not questioning whether the warrant would be bad, but whether the warrant in itself was to be a proof of the matters stated, and of all other matters contained in it, and not what the warrant was to contain. The right hon. Gentleman stated that it would appear in the warrant that the district was prescribed, and also that the Lord Lieutenant had reasonable grounds for suspicion, and that it would be necessary that the warrant should be a proof of the district being prescribed, and of the grounds of arrest being reasonable. But all that was covered by the other words was that the warrant was made evidence of the jurisdiction of the authority which issued the warrant and of the legality of the arrest. If the district were not prescribed, and if the Lord Lieutenant had not reasonable grounds, then jurisdiction would not exist, and there would
  988
  be no legality. Therefore, the words in the clause were not necessary.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, the position in which the Committee found itself was very much due to the reticence of the Irish Law Advisers, but primarily to the mysterious statement of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce). The Amendment which that hon. Member had submitted some days before was withdrawn at the last moment in consequence of a communication, the nature of which he did not describe, from a person whom he did not name or indicate, and that was enough to set the whole House by the ears, and to lead to that very animated debate. For himself, having listened to the explanation of the Solicitor General for Ireland, he was quite prepared to vote in favour of the Government, as be had done all through these discussions, and to throw on them the responsibility for the phraseology of a Bill which they conceived to be necessary for the restoration of peace and good order in Ireland.
  MR. E. POWERwas very sorry to find at that hour that the Committee had got themselves into troubled waters. It had been said that in that House whenever lawyers took a prominent part in the discussions the House generally got into a confused state. He should conclude with a Motion; but he could not do so without expressing the deep regret which he felt, and which he was sure many hon. Members felt, at finding that the good feeling which had, up to that time, characterized the Treasury Bench and the Front Opposition Bench had entirely disappeared. He was not in the least surprised that the unholy alliance should have broken down; but a most extraordinary change had come over the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He declared that he must carefully consider every line and clause of the Bill, and in order that the right hon. Gentleman might have every chance of so studying every line and clause of the Bill, he (Mr. Power) would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Richard Power.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 38; Noes 212: Majority 174.—(Div. List, No. 48.)
  Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  DR. COMMINSobserved, that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) had furnished the strongest case for leaving out the words as proposed by the Amendment. He (Dr. Commins) quite agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it was right that a warrant should recite the jurisdiction and such facts as might be necessary to decide the question as between the person arrested and the Lord Lieutenant as to the legality of the arrest and detention; but it was proposed that the warrant should contain other matter than that. That was referred to by the phrase which it was proposed to be left out—"All matters therein contained" over and above the necessary facts; but until they had the form of the warrant before them they could not guess what it would be. The form of the warrant would depend on the Law Advisors, for the 2nd subsection provided that the Lord Lieutenant, by and with the advice of the Privy Council in Ireland, might, from time to time, make, and when made revoke and alter the order prescribing the forms of warrants for the purposes of the Act. They had not the slightest idea what the form of the warrant would be; and the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland and the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland, in their sketch of the warrant, gave a strong illustration of the danger of voting what would be put into the warrant, seeing that the warrant might be altered. Taking the illustration the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had given, the recital in the warrant—that a man had committed arson would become conclusive proof oven though there had been no arson at all, but the occupant of the house had himself set fire to the house; and that person, although he had burnt the house himself, could go with a warrant in his hand before a Grand Jury and claim damages from the county. The result would be, if the Amendment was not accepted, that countless frauds would be committed, and an amount of mischief done which, could not now be conceived. He, there-
  990
  fore, considered that the illustration given by the Attorney General for Ireland was absolutely conclusive as to the importance of the proposed alteration of the clause.
  MR. SYNANput it to the Government whether, having placed the Committee in such a state of embarrassment, they should not consent to report Progress, and not force the Committee to a division upon words which they could not positively say were necessary, and which, if not necessary, might be mischievous? That was not a time to enter into a legal argument; but if it were, he thought he could show that the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland had no force whatever. Where would he find in the Bill that it was necessary to state in all cases that the district should be proclaimed? There was no necessity. He thought it would be better that the Government should take time to decide whether the words in the clause were absolutely necessary or not, and would, therefore, themselves move to report Progress.
  MR. DILLONsaid, the hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland's remarks had proved to his mind that the words were unnecessary, and it had been shown by other hon. Gentlemen that they could be used for a very mischievous purpose—a purpose for which they never could have been intended. To his (Mr. Dillon's) mind it was perfectly absurd to discuss whether the words should remain in the Bill or not, without some definite statement from the Government as to the grounds on which they considered them necessary. There appeared to be a vague impression amongst hon. Members that the Government considered them necessary; but the only Member of the Government who had got up to prove it had conclusively shown the contrary. As for hon. Members on the Front Opposition Bench, they had, first of all, shown that the words ought to be left out, and then they had consented to their being left in, throwing the responsibility on the Government. That, he submitted, was not a proper spirit in which to approach the decision of such an important Amendment; therefore, he would conclude with the Motion that the Chairman do now leave the Chair.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—{Mr. Dillon.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would not ask the Committee to go to another division; and if the Motion were withdrawn he would consent to reporting Progress.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

MOTION'S.
  RAILWAYS—THE RAILWAY COMMISSION OF 1873—CHARGES FOR CARRIAGE ON RAILWAYS AND CANALS.

    MOTION FOR A SELECT COMMITTEE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the charges of Railway Companies for the conveyance of merchandise, minerals, agricultural produce, and parcels on Railways and Canals, into the Laws and other conditions affecting such charges, and into the working of the Railway Commission of 1873; and to report as to any amendment of the Laws and practice affecting the said charges and the powers of the said Commission that maybe desirable."—(Mr. B. Samuelson.)
    MR. MONKsaid, he did not regret to see that the Government consented to the appointment of this Committee. He thought in the second line of the Motion as it stood on the Paper, after the words "Railway Companies," "Canal Companies, and Railway and Canal Companies," should be included. As the Motion stood, the inquiry would only be into the charges of Railway Companies.
    Amendment proposed,
    In line 2, after the word "Companies" to insert the words "and Canal Companies, and Railway and Canal Companies."—(Mr. Monk.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HEALYasked, whether the Motion applied to Ireland?
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Main Question, as amended, proposed.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he would move that the inquiry extend to Ireland.
    MR. B. SAMUELSONinformed the hon. Member that it did extend to Ireland.
    Main Question put, and agreed to.
    Ordered, That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the charges of Railway Companies, and Canal Companies, and Railway and Canal Companies, for the conveyance of merchandise, minerals, agricultural produce, and parcels on Railways and Canals, into the Laws and other conditions affecting' such charges, and into the working of the Railway Commission of 1873; and to report as to any amendment of the Laws and practice affecting the said charges and the powers of the said Commission that may be desirable.

COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC PETITIONS.

  INSTRUCTION TO THE COMMITTEE.
  SIR DAVID WEDDERBURNsaid, the Motion he had upon the Paper was a very simple one, and entirely explained its own object; and he could not think there could be any objection to it on the part of the House. The facts were those—certain important Petitions which had been sent from India, though very carefully drawn up, were found to be informal, and the Committee on Public Petitions had been unable to print them. The Committee had several times divided on the question, not as to whether they should print the Petitions, but as to whether they had power to receive them. In mating the Motion he did, he had the authority of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions; and he thought that as the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government had once made a similar Motion, not in regard to Petitions in general, but in respect of a particular Petition, the Government could not object to the proposal.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Public Petitions, that they have power in the case of Petitions from India to receive and print Petitions, which may be informal under the Rules of the House, if it shall appear to the Committee that the informality is due to inadvertence or ignorance of the Rules."—(Sir David Wedderburn.)
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwould appeal to the hon. Member not to press his Motion at that hour of the night (1.40 A.M.), for the question was a very important one; and though the Motion had the approval of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, that hon. Member was not in his place, and it should not be agreed to until the grounds on which it was based were fully explained. He (Lord Randolph Churchill) had heard very important

  993
  debatesraised on this question of informal Public Petitions, and the matter was one which always attracted a large amount of interest. Much as he respected the opinion of the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, he must ask the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) to let the Motion stand over until it could be discussed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—{Lord Randolph Churchill.)
  MAJOR NOLANhoped the noble Lord would withdraw his Motion. If the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) was not allowed to proceed with the question that night, someone might put down a blocking Notice, and he might have to keep in the House night after night at great personal inconvenience. The hon. Baronet might not be able to proceed with it at all. The people of India were very much interested in the question, as hundreds of Petitions were sent back respecting some informality, owing to ignorance of the Rules of the House. The Irish constituencies were interested in the subject also, for it was only the other day that a Petition was sent back to that country owing to the slight error that the words "Your Petitioners will ever pray" were put at the wrong end of the document. The proposal seemed very reasonable; and as there would be plenty of opportunities for raising the general question, he hoped the Motion for the adjournment of the debate would be withdrawn.
  MR. E. N. FOWLERagreed with the hon. and gallant Member (Major Nolan), and could not see how the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) would ever be able to bring on his Motion at an earlier period of the evening. The time of the House was taken up at an earlier period by the discussion of Irish matters. He would ask the House to recollect the great difficulty in which their fellow - subjects in India were placed. It was not possible to get them to understand the Rules of the House as people in England understood them, and the result was that a great many mistakes were made in the Petitions. The House ought to look leniently upon such mistakes.
  MR. PUGHsaid, he hoped the Motion for adjournment would not be pressed. He did not wish to take up the time of
  994
  the House by pointing out what few facilities the Natives of India had for getting their views represented at all in Parliament; but those facilities were very meagre. What was put forward in support of the Motion for adjournment? The noble Lord said the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions was not in his place, and that was perfectly true; but surely there could not be a stronger ground than that for saying that the Chairman was satisfied with the justice of the Motion? And that argument would apply in the case of the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India (the Marquess of Hartington). No one could doubt that if the noble Marquess had considered there was an objection to be taken to the Motion he would have been in his place to point out that objection. All that was the matter with the Petitions was certain informalities; and he considered it would have an evil aspect if the House adjourned the debate, and so threw over the Motion to some future time—probably to another Session.
  MR. DODSONthought the House might very well agree to the Motion of the hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn). The matter had, he presumed, been submitted to the Chairman of the Committee on Public Petitions, who had agreed to it on behalf of that Committee. The House would see that it was only an empowering Resolution, giving the Committee a discretionary power to admit Petitions from India in cases where there were informalities, nor defects of character or substance.
  MR. D.O'CONORwished, as a Member of the Committee on Public Petitions, to make a remark on this subject. The hon. Baronet (Sir David Wedderburn) had not the authority of the Chairman to say that he approved of the Motion on behalf of the Committee, for the Committee had authorized no such statement. When the matter was brought before them, the general opinion was that it would be inconvenient to make an alteration in the Rules of the House, for this was not a mere matter of irregularity on the part of their fellow-subjects in India as the Motion would lead one to suppose. If it were, there would be no objection to the Motion; but the difficulty had arisen through a number of Petitions having come from India, pray-

  995
  ing that charges should be defrayed out of the public funds in this country, which otherwise would be defrayed out of the public funds of India. It was a direct Rule that if a Petition prayed for public money it could not be accepted by the House; and, therefore, if they passed this Resolution, they would be passing that which would be an infraction of a Rule that, up to the present time, had been adhered to most strictly. The Committee would have no difficulty in dealing with the matter under the now Rule, if the Motion were accepted; but be wished the House to know that there was no general opinion on the part of the Committee that the existing Rules should be altered.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that, after the statement they bad just heard from a Member of the Committee, they should hesitate to pass the Motion until the Chairman of the Committee were in his place. The Resolution, if passed, would be taken by the Committee as almost an order or direction to them to print these Petitions unless there were some strong objection to that course. The Committee, it seemed, had not decided on the matter, and were not agreed upon it; and it was, surely, not of such vital importance that the House could not wait until the Chairman of the Committee could take part in the discussion.
  MR. M'LAGANsaid, he was also a Member of the Committee, who were not unanimous on this question, which had never been raised formally before them. They must bear in mind that it was very easy for them to send back an informal Petition to their constituents; but it was a different thing to send back a Petition to India, whence it could not, in all probability, be returned until the following Session. The Committee should have a discretionary power, which they would, no doubt, exercise in accordance with the views of the House; but care should be taken that it was not made an Order.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Committee on Public Petitions, that they have power in the case of Petitions from India to receive and print Petitions, -which may be informal under the Rules of the House, if it shall appear to the Committee that the informality is due to inadvertence or ignorance of the Rules.

  PUBLIC ACCOUNTS.
  Committee of Public Accounts nominated:—Sir WALTER BARTTELOT, Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH, Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY, Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Mr. LAING, Sir JOHN LUBBOCK, Sir CHARLES MILLS, Mr. RYLANDS, Mr. SEELY, Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSON, and Mr. SHAW.— [Lord Frederick Cavendish.)
  House adjourned at ten minutes before Two o'clock,

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Beading— Alkali, &c. Works Regulation (29).
Third Reading — Consolidated Fund*, and passed.

CENTRAL ASIA—CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN RUSSIA AND THE AMEER OF CABUL.

  PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
  THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, before your Lordships proceed to the business of the day, I would wish, with the permission of your Lordships and of

  857
  the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll), to whom I have given private Notice of it, to make a very short personal statement with reference to some observations addressed to your Lordships by the noble Duke last week with regard to alleged preparations made by the Government of India in 1876, those being a great military expedition, involving the construction of a bridge of boats across the Indus, and the concentration of a large army on the Afghan Frontier for the purpose—at any rate, for the apparent purpose—of invading or menacing Afghanistan, or the Russian possessions in Central Asia, or both. In addressing to the noble Earl the present Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the Question to which my remarks were strictly confined, I did not expect that I should myself be questioned on other matters by the noble Duke; because, to tell the truth, I was not aware that it would be regular for the noble Duke, any more than for myself, to address to your Lordships a somewhat elaborate, and, as it seems to me, a not very relevant series of remarks upon the answer so courteously given to the Question by the noble Earl. But, my Lords, I cannot but think that it would be exceedingly inconvenient to this House—and I confess it would be encumbering and embarrassing to myself—-if, in moving the Resolution of which I have given Notice in reference to Candahar, I were to enter in detail upon matters wholly unconnected with that question; because I must freely confess that I am quite unable to see how the expediency of retaining or abandoning Candahar can possibly be affected by the question whether, five years ago, I wished to build a bridge of boats across the Indus; and, therefore, I wish to take this opportunity of answering at once the question asked by the noble Duke on the subject. The noble Duke last week told your Lordships a very interesting and impressive story about the construction of this bridge of boats, and the collection of a large army for which this bridge of boats was to be employed; and, having completed his narrative, he called upon me to state to your Lordships whether the whole story as told to you was a myth. As told to you by the noble Duke, that story, undoubtedly, is a myth, and I think I shall be able to satisfy your Lordships that it is a very
  858
  imaginative myth; but, like all other myths, it has a very minute substratum of fact, and the substratum of fact is this. Your Lordships are, no doubt, well aware that there is a small tongue of independent and barbarous territory which juts into the old unscientific Frontier on the North-West of India directly between the important fortresses of Peshawur'and Kohat; and so long as the Government of India had been at peace with the turbulent tribes which populate it, all our communications between Peshawur and Kohat had been carried on straight across this tongue; but when I arrived in India, in 1876, disputes had arisen between the Frontier Tribes and the Punjaub Government, which, I need hardly remind your Lordships, has always been, and is, the local guardian of our interests, and this pass had been closed by the hostile tribes, and the Punjab Government was blockading those tribes who had closed the road. But, unfortunately, the blockade was so ineffectual that when I visited Peshawur in the winter of 1876 there had been no fewer than eight very serious outrages perpetrated on our own territory by the Frontier Tribes and other tribes who were supposed to be acting with them. In these circumstances, the Punjaub Government represented to me the expediency of showing those tribes that our means of communication with Kohat could be made practically independent of their permission or protection. With this object Sir Robert H. Davies, who was then Lieutenant Governor of the Punjaub, recommended three measures. He recommended, in the first place, the immediate improvement of the old road between Kohat and Delhi, which had been formerly used for our communications between the two fortresses, but which had not been used while we had the other road communication. He recommended, in the second place, the establishment of a mail-cart service from Kohat, via Kushalghar, to Rawul Pindi. In the third place, he recommended in connection with this mail-cart service the substitution of a boat-bridge over the Indus for the then existing ferry, which had been found very uncertain, and which was insufficient for the passage of the mail-cart. Well, all those measures were, I believe, simply a revision to the means of communication which had formerly existed with Kohat before the

  859
  opening of the road across the tongue of territory which was closed by the hostility of the Durani Tribes. In addition to those measures, the principal military and political authorities at Peshawur had urged upon mo the expediency of a military expedition to Thull for the purpose of active operations against the recalcitrant tribes. That was the situation I had then to deal with, and, in doing so, it appeared to me that all three measures which I have mentioned—that is to say, the improvement of the road from Kohat to Delhi, the re-establishment of the mail-cart service, and the re-construction of the bridge of boats—might be sanctioned or carried out, in compliance with the suggestion of the Punjaub Government; but with regard to the proposed military expedition, I am of opinion that it was not expedient at that time to sanction it, and I will tell your Lordships why. It appeared to me that at the time there was a very unfortunate, but a very marked, predisposition on the part of certain influential parties and persons in England to attribute, upon any conceivable pretext, to the Government of India certain very bellicose propensities which we were certainly very far from entertaining towards neighbours very much more important than those Frontier Tribes. Therefore, though, in ordinai'y circumstances, I should have regarded this proposed expedition as a very natural, a very proper, and a very efficacious measure, still, having regard to what I considered the relations of the whole situation I was dealing with, it appeared to mo that it was not expedient for the Government of India at that time to sanction any military movement not absolutely indispensable which might possibly have the effect of giving even the faintest pretext for those most deplorable and mischievous impressions with regard to our policy. We were most anxious to avoid giving even the shadow of any sort of provocation to the ill-will of the Ameer of Cabul, who had long previously assumed an attitude towards the Government of India which was very ambiguous, very sinister, and, short of actual hostilities, very hostile, and at a time when the whole Eastern Question was under the consideration of a European Congress at Constantinople, with results which, of course, we could not foresee or fore-reckon. Well, that
  860
  was my view of the measure on which I had to give my decision. But, before finally acting on that view of it, at least in reference to the proposed expedition to Thull, I thought it advisable to refer my view to my Military Colleague, Sir Henry Norman, whom I had left as President of the Council during my absence, and who had, during that time, reached Calcutta with his other Colleagues in Council. These are the terms in which Sir Henry Norman replied to me from Calcutta on the 3rd of December, 1876—
  "The opening of the mail-cart again from Kohat to Rawul Pindi, improvement of the road, and construction of the bridge of boats over the Indus on that route will he beneficial. Your Lordship's resolution not to send a detachment to Thull in the face of the advice to do so from influential quarters was, if I may venture to say so, admirable. What was actually ordered is desirable, and can have no bad effect."
  Perhaps I may be allowed to mention, further, that, so far from collecting a large army, or any army at all, on our Afghan Frontier, either at that time or any subsequent time until we were in open hostilities—forced upon us by the conduct of the Ameer—I, in the year referred to by the noble Duke, rescinded the order issued by the Punjaub Government for the employment of troops for the enforcement of its blockade against these tribes. I gave my sanction to the augmentation—it was not a largo augmentation—of the ordinary police force upon that Frontier. I also sanctioned the issue of smooth-bore arms and ammunition to one or two villages of our own on that Frontier, which were specially exposed to raids and depredations by those hostile tribes, and which, in the opinion of the local authorities, it was extremely desirable to furnish with means of defending themselves against any hostile attack, because I need hardly remind your Lordships that that part of the Frontier is very wide, and the defensive force employed upon it is comparatively small. All those measures were carried out on the express and repeated recommendations of the Punjaub Government, and they were by that Government reported most fully in detail, and officially, to Her Majesty's Government in a despatch from the Governor of India dated March 9, 1877. I do not know whether that despatch has ever been pub-

  861
  lished, as it dealt with purely local circumstances. It is not a secret or confidential despatch, so far as I know; and I have no doubt that the noble Duke will find it in the archives of the India Office. I trust I have said enough to satisfy the noble Duke that in the ardour of his search for evidence of design in phenomena which are really of the commonest and most ordinary character, his acute and powerful intellect—and it is an acute and powerful intellect in the treatment of any subject to which it is addressed, but I wish it was not so frequently addressed to the denunciation of crimes which I have not committed— I trust I have satisfied him, and that he himself will see it, that for once he has been misled, as many other acute and powerful intellects have been misled, by the fatal influence of a preconceived theory. But in answering the question of the noble Duke—and it is one which I am most anxious to answer fairly and completely—perhaps it is only fair that I should not altogether leave out of mention another fact, totally disconnected with the circumstances to which he has referred; but which, for all I know to the contrary, in a time which was literally teeming with misrepresentations, alarming rumours, and I might even say personal calumnies, may probably have given rise to gossiping surmises and conjectures; and if those surmises and conjectures did reach the noble Duke at that time, I do not suppose he was in a position to verify them, and they may have tended to confirm those impressions which have excited his long-continued anxiety. It is undoubtedly true that at that time—and I must ask your Lordships to remember what were the circumstances of that time, how uncertain they were, how critical they were, and how anxious they were—I did deem it my duty, as the Viceroy of India, to endeavour to render myself personally cognizant in some detail of the actual condition and efficiency of our Indian Army; and with that view I addressed, most confidentially, to my chief military advisers, certain questions, to be dealt with only on paper, in reference to the commissariat, transport, and other branches of our military organization, which I feared might possibly be found to be defective should they hereafter be called upon for active service. I need hardly toll your Lordships that these
  862
  were simply the ordinary inquiries which every vigilant Government is bound from time to time to institute amongst those departments; and that they did not involve any public action, any movement, any concentration of troops, or anything which by any possibility could be construed as a menace or demonstration against any foreign Power. I shall only add that I conceived then, and I conceive still, that in making those inquiries I was simply performing one of the plainest and most imperative duties incumbent on me as Governor General of India.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL: My Lords, the noble Earl has taken, I think, a somewhat unusual course. I received from him the day before yesterday a communication saying that he would make a personal statement to the House on the subject of the military bridge of boats over the Indus, but without giving any date or any indication as to when he would make that personal statement. I concluded without doubt that it would be in the course of the observations which he would address to your Lordships when moving the Resolution on the question of Candahar, which he is to submit to the House on the 24th of this month. Under that impression, I returned an immediate reply, thanking the noble Earl for his courtesy, and I immediately set myself to collect and tabulate such evidence as might be relevant with regard to the statement which I had made—or rather, I ought to say, with regard to the statement which was implied in the Question I attempted to answer. These inquiries have only proceeded one day. I only got the Notice of the noble Earl the day before yesterday, and I have employed the intermediate time in making inquiries as to the circumstances connected with the bridge of boats in question. My Lords, so far as I have yet gone they are entirely confirmatory of the impression at which I had originally arrived; and I have heard with unfeigned astonishment the statement just made by the noble Earl. I can only say that I think the noble Earl has forgotten certain things which passed at that time. In these circumstances, I think it will be more respectful to the noble Earl and more respectful to your Lordships' House that I should take into careful consideration the statement which he has made to-

  863
  night, and that I should on a future occasion and on special notice state to the noble Earl and explain to the House the grounds on which I venture to think the noble Earl has not given a complete explanation of all the circumstances connected with that celebrated transaction. On this occasion I will only say this— that the noble Earl has made a mistake in dates in referring to what he calls the preconceived opinions and the anxiety of the country, and fastening upon him imputations, or ascribing to him motives, which were far from his mind. The noble Earl appears to have forgot that all these operations of his and threatening of Shere Ali were words and deeds that were conducted for many months— I think for 18 months or two years, certainly for more than a year—before a single question was asked in this House, or reference made as to embarrassing the Government or implying any accusation against the noble Earl. The operations upon the Indus, the violent threats issued by the noble Earl against Shere Ali, took place between May and October, 1876, and I put my Question to the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) not in 1876, but in July, 1877. The noble Earl and his Government, and the Government of that time, had absolutely free course in all their operations connected with Afghanistan. Nobody interfered with them either in this or in the other House; and it was not until the country and Parliament began to awake to the serious consequences likely to ensue that I ventured to put the Question. The noble Earl is, therefore, completely mistaken in supposing that I had any preconceived opinion. I had no preconceived opinion; and when I come to make my counter-statement, I hope I shall be able to make good to the House and to the noble Earl sufficient grounds for the suspicion I then entertained, that the operations on the Indus were part of the foreign policy of the Government in regard to our North-Western Frontier.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSEIELD: My Lords, I do not object to the course proposed to be taken by the noble Duke; but I think it would have been just, if not generous, had the noble Duke acknowledged the completeness with which my noble Friend treated the subject introduced into your discussion last week by the noble Duke himself, and not in a
  864
  manner usual in debate in this House. I must recall your Lordships' attention to the fact that the noble Duke has made no answer whatever to the statement of my noble Friend. The noble Duke has told us that he will make a statement afterwards; and he is so confident of the result of his researches, which have not yet been made, that he has already arrived at a conclusion. I confess I do not predict from that statement the candour for which I would willingly give him credit. I am afraid he does approach this subject with a degree of prejudice and passion which I am sorry that one so distinguished and capable should extend to a matter of Imperial interest. With regard to the step taken by my noble Friend in vindicating himself from the charge made against him by the noble Duke, I think it a step discreet and wise, and which was adopted in duo deference to the convenience of your Lordships. Because I think, if we are to have a debate on the real question of the policy or impolicy of retaining Candahar, we should approach that subject with great difficulty, and arrive at a conclusion little satisfactory to your Lordships and the country, if it were to be mixed up with the vindication of the Government of my noble Friend, which must cover a period of nearly five years. I repeat, then, that, in my opinion, it was discreet of my noble Friend that he should disencumber himself of these episodes, which it would have been most inconvenient for your Lordships to have attended to, and that he has relieved us from considerations which would have inconveniently interposed and interfered with that judgment which I hope the House will exercise in arriving at a conclusion on the question of the detention of Candahar.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Earl who has just spoken has approached this subject with a warmth which I do not think it calls for. I am not going to continue this discussion, which is of a somewhat irregular character. My recollection is to this effect. A few days ago the noble Earl (the Earl of Lytton) asked mo a Question about certain Papers —whether, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I was prepared to present them or not. He made rather a long preface to that Question, and, in answer to his observations, my noble Friend

  865
  behind me (the Date of Argyll) put two questions of a rather pointed character. The noble Earl gave no answer to these questions at the time, which was within his discretion. Nor did the noble Earl do so next day; but he gave an indefinite notice individually to my noble Friend behind me that he intended at some time or other to make a personal explanation. I do not know whether it is the intention of the noble Earl to make another personal explanation about the other question that my noble Friend put to him—namely, what was the authority on which he stated that Russia was ready to join this country in the destruction of Afghanistan; but if he does, it would be very much to the convenience of the House if he would give a general Notice of his intention, so that we should know on what day we should come to listen to, or take part in, the discussion. I quite agree with the noble Duke that he should not at once deal with the question, but should take time to consider the information which is in his collection, before attempting any complete answer to the noble Earl (the Earl of Lytton); and I entirely concur with the noble Earl (the Earl of Beaconsfield) that in considering the main question, as to whether we shall retain Candahar or abandon it, the less personal recrimination we have introduced the better, and that the merits of the question should alone be considered.

ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL—(No. 29.)
(The Marquess of Huntly.)
ALKALI, &c. WORKS REGULATION BILL—(No. 29.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLY, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that there had been already a good deal of inquiry and legislation on the subject. Acts dealing with it were passed in 1863, 1868, and 1874. There had been a Committee, under the late Lord Derby, to inquire into it, and there was a Commission in 1878. Parliament, in dealing with the question, had proceeded tentatively, not being desirous of unduly restricting enterprize, or imposing any heavy burden on the manufacturers, but with the view of correcting the damage done by noxious vapours
  866
  and acids, in so far as remedies could be found. The usefulness of the Acts that had been passed was agreed to both by manufacturers and the inhabitants of the districts in which the works were situated; but there was a general desire to enlarge the usefulness of those statutes, and include other works from which noxious gases were evolved, and to bring them under regulation. The Report of 1878 recommended that a considerable number of manufactures should be included in the restrictive legislation. Briefly, the provisions of the Bill were — firstly, it consolidated the existing Acts; secondly, it subjected sulphuric acid works to a test restricting the escape of acid gases from them; thirdly, it provided a separate power for inspection of salt works from brine; fourthly, it insisted upon the registration, on payment of a fee, for all alkali works and the scheduled works. As regarded the scheduled works, the object aimed at had been to touch the industries which admitted of a remedy, and to secure a substantial improvement without over-burdening the manufacturer. Under the Act of 1863 the muriatic acid was to be condensed to the extent of 95 per cent. The Act of 1874 was more stringent. Clause 3 of the present Bill maintained the test of 1874 as regarded alkali works—(a) that to the satisfaction of the Chief Inspector the muriatic acid evolved must not contain more than one-fifth part of a grain to each cubic foot of air, smoke, or chimney gas escaping from works to the atmosphere; the Bill adds the further test that (J) of all the acid gases evolved in the process of manufacturing the total acidity in each cubic foot of air, smoke, or gas escaping into the chimney or into the atmosphere must not be more than four grains of sulphuric anhydride. Clause 5 provided that alkali waste and drainage therefrom, so long as they contained any sulphide, should not come into contact with any liquid containing acid; and that any work in which acid was produced should be carried on in such a manner that the acid should not come in contact with the alkali waste. The sanitary authority, at the request of the owner of the work, at his expense, was to provide a drain or channel for carrying off acids. Clause 6 prevented deposit of alkali waste on land without the best practicable means

  867
  being used to prevent nuisance. By Clause 7 a new power was given to bring all works named in the Schedule under regulation, and providing, as before stated, for the condensation of acid gases in the case of sulphuric acid works. Clause 9 placed salt works under a milder form of inspection. Under this clause inspectors might inquire as to the gases evolved in any works for extraction of salt from brine, and the Local Government Board might issue Provisional Orders, to be confirmed by Parliament, requiring owners to adopt means to prevent escape, and limit the amount or proportion of sulphurous or muriatic acid evolved. By Clause 10 all works touched by the Bill, except salt works, were to be registered. Clause 11 provided that, in future, no works were to be erected without being furnished with appliances to carry out the purposes of the Act. Clause 13 embodied the existing clauses for the appointment of Inspectors by the Local Government Board. But in Clause 15 there was an extension of power; it authorized Inspectors to enter and inspect any place where alkali waste was treated or deposited, or where any liquid containing acid was likely to come into contact with alkali waste, but not in such a way as to interrupt the process of manufacture. Under Clause 18 the sanitary authority might apply for an additional Inspector, on paying not less than one-half of his salary. Clause 27 provided that any person might bring an action against several persons —individually and separately—for any nuisance arising from noxious and offensive gases; and further actions might, in future, be brought in County Courts. There were not included in the Bill many works recommended by the Royal Commission to be placed under inspection only; because it was considered that where the Government were not prepared to adopt a test regulating the escape of noxious vapours, or any practicable means for restricting them, such inspection would be unnecessarily vexatious to the manufacturers and expensive in practice. He should, doubtless, be asked why the recommendation of the Commission as regarded coke ovens was not adopted. The reason was that coke ovens emitted black smoke — although, to a small extent, acids might be evolved in the smoke—
  868
  and that that could be touched under the Public Health Act, 1875. The Bill included cement works among the scheduled ones not recommended by the Commission.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Marquess of Huntly.)
  VISCOUNT MIDLETONadmired the ingenuity with which the noble Marquess had endeavoured to persuade their Lordships that in introducing this Bill he was really introducing a comprehensive measure that would settle the difficult questions with which it was to deal. He was afraid, however, he could not congratulate him upon his success. The matter was not before their Lordships for the first time; but 15 years ago it attracted attention, and had been almost continuously before their Lordships in one way or another since. With regard to the Bill, it was to be judged rather by what it did not than what it did do. The noble Earl (the Earl of Beacons-field) had stated that the alkali trade afforded one of the most delicate tests of the revival or decadence of the commercial powers of the country, and that statement had been fully borne out by the facts of the case. The amount of capital invested in the alkali trade two years ago considerably exceeded, he believed, £2,000,000, and it had largely increased since. He admitted the extreme delicacy of attempting to deal by legislation with interests so large and so widely diffused. They had to consider the very great amount of capital invested, and also the great danger there was, if they imposed restrictive legislation, of destroying the margin of profit, and thus driving the trade abroad. At the same time, there were considerations of public utility and public welfare which must override those others if a fair case could be made out. As the law now stood there were but few trades affected by the Acts, alkali works, and works in which copper was subjected to the wet process. To these it was proposed to add by the Bill, cement works, chemical manure works, gas liquor works, nitric acid works, sulphuric acid works, works for the treatment of sulphate of ammonia, and one or two others which all required to be dealt with. As far as the Bill went its general principle might be accepted. No doubt a genuine attempt had been made to correct the evil, so far

  869
  as they could do so, by scientific processes applied to the exit of gases; and it certainly would be an important advantage for the Inspector under the Local Government to be able to deal with the question of acid drainage and the waste from alkali works, which were alike destructive to vegetation, and which were most offensive to smell and a grievous nuisance. There was one trade embraced in the Bill, but which was put upon another footing, and that was salt works, which were put under inspection merely. That subject formed one of the recommendations of the Commission. There was no doubt that a large amount of the evil which arose from salt works could be cured; but it could only be by an amount of expenditure which would render it extremely difficult to carry on the business, because it would totally destroy the small amount of profit that would enable them to compete with the foreigners, and he therefore thought it quite right to except those works from stringent regulation to which others were subjected. The Bill of the noble Marquess was infinitely weaker than the one introduced in the last Session of Parliament by Mr. Sclater-Booth and than the recommendations of the Commission. In fact, the Bill now presented was only an emasculated copy of that of 1880, and left out 12 trades altogether which the Commissioners specially recommended should be dealt with—one of the most deleterious of which was the treatment of copper by the dry process. Potteries and glass works also emitted distinct noxious gases, but at so high a temperature that no process had yet been found to neutralize them. The Commissioners, therefore, recommended them to be placed in the category of noxious trades. They were, nevertheless, quite ignored by the present Bill. A still more striking omission was that of coke ovens, which were recommended to be dealt with by the Bill of 1880, but entirely disappeared from this Bill. This was purely a matter of expense. He could not help thinking that some of the works the Commissioners, of whom he was one, inspected were swept and garnished for the purpose. The very best of them were those of Mr. Lowthian Bell, where everything was done that science could effect for the destruction of the noxious gases; but, for the most part, the works were ill-
  870
  ventilated, and every species of nuisance was collected around them, and the expense of putting them into a proper condition would be considerable. There was one point of view from which a Bill of this kind became a hardship, unless it was a complete Bill. There was no doubt that the great mass of the trade had endeavoured to comply with the provisions of the existing Act at great personal sacrifices. The object was to bring up the manufacturers who did not do their duty to the level of the best managed works. Complaint was made with justice by some that heavy penalties were imposed on them, while many persons conducting kindred industries were allowed to escape scot free. That was an injustice that would be perpetuated by this Bill. As many as 12 trades were left entirely outside the Bill; and it was refused to put them even under inspection. The Bill, generally speaking, seemed to him to smack far too much of the spirit of compromise, which implied that the Government could not count on the majority which they had in the other House to enable them to carry the proposals which they would wish to have made. He thought any measure on this subject should be fair, full, and comprehensive, and this Bill had none of those qualities. He trusted that the clause providing for cumulative liability would be rigorously maintained, though, from recent experience, he very much doubted whether it would. With regard to inspection, he objected to anything like local Inspectors, and he thought the proposal to keep their appointment in the hands of the Local Government Board a good one. He thought, however, the time had come when they should cease to proceed in this matter in what he would call a tentative manner, and when any legislation on the subject of inspection should proceed on more settled lines. As one who had studied this question, and who, having been on the Royal Commission, had formed an impartial opinion on it, he was bound to say that he did not think the measure would be accepted as a settlement of the question. He thought the result would be to cause an outcry similar to that which was raised in 1876 for fresh legislation, another Address to Her Majesty praying for the issue of another Commission, and that they would be obliged to bring in another Bill. They

  871
  ought not to make the law less stringent than the recommendation of the Commissioners; and, in respect specially to coke ovens, unless he received some assurance from the noble Marquess, he would move that it be an Instruction to the Committee to include them.
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that having been, to some extent, responsible for the issue of the Commission which inquired into that subject, and having examined the matter at some sacrifice of personal comfort and almost of health, he wished to make a few remarks. That question had been brought some years ago before their Lordships' House by the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury), and on that occasion he had himself ventured to suggest that nothing further should be done in the direction of interfering with those noxious trades until after a thorough inquiry had been instituted with the aid of eminent scientific men. A Commission was subsequently issued, to the members of which were joined three chemists of the greatest reputation and ability, who were conversant with the application of chemistry to trades and manufactures. The Commissioners were charged with the duty of taking a comprehensive view of the whole subject. The present Bill, in his opinion, contained some very decided improvements on its predecessors, as might fairly have been expected. As a Consolidating Bill, it would effect an improvement, the value of which all those who had anything to do with the administration of justice would recognize. It dealt in a better manner than had been done before with one of the most noxious of vapours, sulphureted hydrogen, which extended sometimes for eight, nine, or ten miles, making life almost impossible. The measure was also, in some respects, more stringent than the previous one. The Commission had proposed to deal with those nuisances under different classes. They found the works carried on with various degrees of care; and where they felt themselves justified in requiring the proprietors to use the best known processes for remedying the nuisances arising from their operations they recommended the adoption of that course. In regard to another and very considerable class of works, all inflicting nuisances, they did not think they were in a position to insist on the use of the best known processes where it would
  872
  involve the entire stoppage of the works. But it was generally admitted that there would be much advantage in subjecting those works to inspection, with a view to their being carried on with the smallest practical amount of mischief to the neighbourhood; and many of the manufacturers themselves concurred in that view. They objected, indeed, to the local Inspectors as not having such scientific attainments as would justify them in interfering with processes of great nicety; but as long as they were satisfied that the Inspectors possessed adequate scientific knowledge they did not object to their supervision. The Commissioners had proposed that a very large number of works should be placed under inspection. Their object was not only that by inspection the works should be kept up to the latest discoveries of modern science, but as those discoveries became known, they recommended—and the late Government adopted their recommendation — that on the Local Government Board being satisfied that by the adoption of some scientific process the injury which was devastating a whole district might be prevented, it should issue a Provisional Order and include the works under the operation of the Act. Many towns were so bound up by interest with manufacturing industry that their authorities were afraid of inflicting injury on the manufacturers by imposing on them the expense of providing apparatus for consuming their own smoke. He was sorry to see that the Government, with the opportunity now given them, had neglected the subject of coke ovens. It was no answer to say that the subject was sufficiently dealt with by the ordinary law of the land; because there was hardly a manufacturing town in England that put the law into operation, the manufacturing interest and influence being so powerful as to prevent its general adoption or enforcement. It was wrong to suppose that the injury done by coke was confined to the black smoke, because much sulphuric acid was also generated to the great injury of animal and vegetable life. He advised his noble Friend to consult with the President of the Local Government Board, to consider, after what had taken place, if a little more effect could not be given to the recommendations of the Commission. One of these, he would remind him, was that there were some 12 trades in respect

  873
  to which it would not be safe to interfere, but which ought to be periodically inspected with a view to future legislation.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY, in supporting, three years ago, the Motion for a Royal Commission as originally moved by the noble Duke the late Lord Privy Seal had regretted that it did not extend to the River Thames. He did not, however, on that account lose his interest in the question generally, and was glad when the scope of the Commission was extended; and now, on behalf of his neighbours, he was sorry that no remedy was to be applied in Lambeth. The inconvenience he himself suffered in a large and commodious house from noxious gases made him specially alive to the far greater inconvenience and injury to health which the poor people around him must suffer. He was glad to hear the noble Viscount intimate that in Committee he would propose some further extension in the direction in which the Bill went. All people who could fled from cities where noxious vapours were omitted, and saw nothing of the injury done by these works to the poor. In London itself the poor gathered in one place and the rich in another; and thus those sympathies and amenities which would naturally arise from their being brought into juxtaposition were lost—a state of matters which might yet become a great social question. This was a subject in which the rich and the better circumstanced could show their interest in the poor, whose health was so prejudiced by the evils which this measure sought to remedy.
  THE EAKL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, he could remember when this subject was first brought before that House by the late Lord Derby, and ever since that time great interest had been taken in it by Members of their Lordships' House. Now, the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount Midleton) complained that this was not a comprehensive measure. He (the Earl of Kimberley) imagined that every Government would be glad if it could make all its legislation comprehensive; but it was generally found that in all matters involving considerable interference with trades and business a comprehensive measure was practically impossible. Parliament proceeded, as a rule, and he thought wisely, step by step, building up a system by means of
  874
  experience, and not by experimental legislation, causing a reaction against their measures which would not be easily remedied. He pointed out that this was a very considerable advance upon previous legislation, and he submitted it ought not to be measured by its provisions, but by what it actually did. The Bill proposed to include six or seven new trades under its scope. There were three trades by which considerable injury was done to neighbourhoods, and which they should be very glad to deal with—he referred to the gases evolved in the manufactures connected with dry copper, with potteries, and glass. Chemistry, however, had not yet been able to discover any process by which a remedy could be applied without interfering- in a great measure with the manufactures themselves. He was sanguine enough, however, to believe that in course of time, by the aid of chemists and the wonderful progress in knowledge, some process would be discovered by which to deal with the evils referred to. The most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) would agree with him that while it was of vital importance to secure the health of the people who lived in (he neighbourhood of those manufactories, they must also take great care that they were not depriving them of the means of living, by interfering in such a manner as to drive manufactures to a distance. He had been at the scats of great manufactures in this country, and he had certainly felt great pain at the devastation caused by the gases evolved in the manufacturing processes. It was a melancholy thing to see those compelled to live in such an atmosphere; but in this matter of legislation they must be content to make gradual progress. With regard to the concluding remark of the noble Lord (Lord Aberdare), he pointed out that to appoint Inspectors would be very considerable expense, and, besides, it would be awkward to institute an inspection of trades, concerning which they did not enact anything whatever. As to the coke ovens, he was informed that the Sanitary Acts were sufficient for all purposes, if put in operation, and the blame was due only to those who allowed them to remain inoperative. He hoped their Lordships would accept this measure as an instalment of legislation.
  THE MARQUESS OF HUNTLYsaid, that the representations that had been made would be duly considered by the Committee.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2"accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 1st of March next.

AFGHANISTAN—CANDAHAE (COST OF OCCUPATION).—QUESTION.
EARL STANHOPEasked the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for India, If he will state upon whose authority "the entire cost of the occupation of Candahar and the adjacent territory" was estimated by him at not less than £1,400,000 per annum; whether that sum includes the ordinary cost of maintenance of troops within the old Frontier; and, whether he can give, in a general way, the details of the estimate?
VISCOUNT ENFIELD: I am not able at present to give my noble Friend "the authority" which he asks for; but, as the Secretary of State for India stated yesterday in "another place," some details bearing on the Estimate to which reference has been made will be contained in the Papers which he proposes to lay upon the Table. I stated the other evening that I believed, speaking upon what I thought to be reliable data, that the annual cost of occupying the City of Candahar and the posts on the line of communication with our own Frontier had been estimated by competent authority in England at £ 1,400,000. My noble Friend the Secretary of State has said that this Estimate has been made on the basis of a smaller force than that which is now stationed at Candahar and on the line of communication. The cost of the present force, calculated at the ordinary Indian rate in time of peace, is rather over £960,000 a-year. Taking into account the additional charges, military and political, incident to service beyond the Frontier, it is considered that the whole expenditure would not be far short of double the ordinary Indian cost of a similar force, which would bring the amount to nearly £2,000,000. This rough Estimate is an Estimate of the force required for the occupation of Candahar and its communications. In Lord Hartington's opinion this would be a simple addition to the
876
ordinary military expenditure of India, which, he thinks, would rather have to be increased than diminished in consequence of this measure.

LAND IMPROVEMENT ACTS (IRELAND).

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD HARLECHmoved for
  "Return by counties of all loans under the Land Improvement Acts granted in Ireland in each year; the amount issued in each county; and the amount remaining unappropriated at the end of 1880: Also, a summary for the whole of Ireland under each of the above three heads, distinguishing the period from the passing of the original Act in 1847 to the end of 1855, and for each quinquennial period subsequently."
  EARL SPENCERsaid, the Government had no objection to the Return asked for.
  Motion agreed to.

SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (NEGOTIATIONS).

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  EARL CADOGANsaid, that he was reluctant to trouble their Lordships at the present time with the consideration of the Question he had placed upon the Notice Paper; but statements had been made during the last few days, both by the Prime Minister and the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, in "another place," which had excited considerable attention, and which had induced him to invite the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give some further explanation with regard to the negotiations which had been going on between Her Majesty's Government and President Brand, the President of the Orange Free State, which, if he was rightly informed, had been continued up to a very recent period. Their Lordships were aware that for some time past—he believed since the beginning of last December—a Correspondence had been going on between Her Majesty's Government and the President of the Orange Free State with reference to the terms that would be granted to the Boors. It was not necessary for him to read to their Lordships all the communications and telegrams which had passed on the subject, which were to be found in the Papers which had been recently laid upon the Table of the House. He might, however, state that the first communication reached the Government

  877
  on December 30, 1880, and was acknowledged on January 1, 1881. A second telegram, communicated by Mr. Blyth, the Consul of the Orange Free State in this country, on the 10th of January, was answered by the Secretary of State, who stated that he "did not despair of being able to make a satisfactory arrangement." Further telegrams and despatches were exchanged till, on January 26, in reply to a telegram from President Brand asking whether—
  "It is not possible to offer to the people of the Transvaal, through the High Commissioner, Sir Hercules Robinson, certain terms and conditions, provided they ceased from armed opposition,"
  the noble Earl stated that "Her Majesty's Government would thereupon frame," not as before stated, merely "a satisfactory arrangement," but "such a scheme as, in their belief, would satisfy all enlightened friends of the Transvaal community." He believed that all noble Lords in that House might claim to be friends of the Transvaal community, even although we had unfortunate differences with them at this moment; but whether they were enlightened or not would depend upon the answer which the noble Earl might give that evening. There was only one more communication of the date of January 29 in the Blue Book; but on Thursday, February 10, Sir George Campbell, in the other House of Parliament, asked the Prime Minister—
  "Whether Her Majesty's Government will now offer to the Boers of the Transvaal the terms which they consider to be just, instead of enforcing unconditional submission before their terms are announced?"
  In reply to that Question, the Prime Minister stated that a second telegram had been received, which was as follows:—
  "In answer to a telegram from Sir George Colley stating that President Brand urged him to state the nature of the scheme mentioned in the previous telegram, and to guarantee that the Boers should not be treated as rebels, if they submitted, Sir George Colley received an instruction of which I shall give the substance. On the 8th instant, from the Cape, he was instructed to inform President Brand that Her Majesty's Government will be ready to give all reasonable guarantees as to the treatment of the Boers after submission, if they desist from armed opposition, and that the scheme will be framed with a view to the permanently friendly settlement of the difficulty; to which he was to add that Her Majesty's Government would he glad if President Brand would communicate to the leaders of the Boers this as well as the former message."
  878
  The right hon. Gentleman added that it was not certain whether President Brand had communicated those statements in a regular and official manner to the Boers. On Friday last, however, when another Question was put to him on the subject, the right hon. Gentleman stated that—
  "Her Majesty's Government had formally and distinctly requested President Brand to make their communications known to the Boer leaders."
  He wished to put the House in possession of the substance of all these communications before he put the Question of which he had given Notice to the noble Earl. They must all deprecate the ruinous war which was unfortunately being waged against our brethren in the Transvaal; they must have watched with approval the steps which the Government had taken at the commencement of the hostilities to bring them to a peaceful and an early conclusion; and they must also feel grateful to Her Majesty's Government for the manner in which they had met the overtures of President Brand; but he could not help saying that since the last despatch of the 20th of January was sent the circumstances of the case had undergone a considerable change. Up to that time their policy of conciliation must have been considered proper; but now that the hostilities had assumed an unsuccessful character on the side of our arms, he feared that any attempts at negotiation with the leaders of the Boers might have the appearance of suing for peace. That was a proceeding which he need not remind their Lordships was unknown to British statesmen and commanders. As lately as the 8th of February, and after news had been received of the disaster at Laing's Nek and subsequent disasters, it was clear that communication was kept up with President Brand, who was, in turn, asked to make known the effect of these representations to the leaders of the Boers. He felt it his duty to warn the Government against the danger they would incur in continuing negotiations with the Boers in view of the present aspect of military affairs in the Transvaal. There was a danger that the Boers might continue successfully the operations now proceeding against us, until they saw fit to suspend hostile operations, when they might claim from the noble Earl terms which

  879
  it was said had been offered to them, but the nature of which had not been made known; and they might do this at a time without our having had an opportunity of repairing the injuries inflicted upon ourselves. The second danger he apprehended was that, whatever might be the result of the war, when the war was brought to a conclusion the noble Earl would find that the Boers of the Transvaal would have a right to claim from him a settlement which he might have offered before hostilities commenced, and which might have been satisfactory at the time; but which would not be satisfactory when the hostilities were brought to a close. He had no wish to embarrass Her Majesty's Government at the present time, and he sincerely hoped that before long-some means might be found of bringing the war to an end, with credit to ourselves, and with advantage to those with whom we wore in conflict. No one would rejoice more than he would if means were found for such a communication. He must express a hope that Her Majesty's Government, while desirous, as they all were, to obtain peace on honourable terms, and not to press too hardly on those with whom we were fighting-, would not be unmindful of the credit and honour of the country, which he must confess would, in his view, be in a considerable degree imperilled if the Government persisted in a course of communication with the loaders of the Boers at a time when our arms had not met with the success which was hoped and anticipated. The noble Earl concluded by asking the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether he will state to the House the full text of the despatch referred to by the Prime Minister on Friday last, in which Her Majesty's Government "formally and distinctly requested President Brand to mate their communication known to the Boor leaders;" whether negotiations of the same character are still going on between Her Majesty's Government and the leaders of the Boers; and, if so, whether any such correspondence will be at once communicated to Parliament?
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am as anxious as the noble Earl for the honour of the country; but he must allow us who are responsible to form our own opinion and take our own course as to the manner in which the
  880
  honour and the interests of the country can be best maintained. As regards the Question of the noble Earl, it is in itself very simple, and a very simple answer might be given to it. My noble Friend has asked whether I would state the full text of the despatch which had been sent to President Brand. The noble Earl, however, has himself read the whole of the despatch, and every word of it has also been road by Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons. Of course it will be included in any Blue Book upon the subject that may be laid upon the Table. The noble Earl read also the previous despatch, and he stated that he thought our proceedings had rather the appearance of suing for peace.
  EARL CADOGAN: Might have the appearance of suing for peace.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: If the noble Earl will look at the terms of the telegram itself, he will see that it certainly could not bear the character which he bad given to it. The telegram in question was that of the 26th of January, to Sir George Colley, in answer to a telegram from President Brand, which was communicated by the Consul of the Orange Free State in London, and was to this effect—
  "I have to instruct you to inform President Brand that if armed opposition should at once cease Her Majesty's Government would thereupon endeavour to frame such a scheme as, in their belief, would satisfy all enlightened friends of the Transvaal community."
  Your Lordships will observe that the condition laid down is, "if armed opposition at once ceases." This is not suing for peace on our part; but it is giving the Transvaal Boers an opportunity of placing themselves in such a position as would be honourable to us and advantageous to themselves. The noble Earl will observe that these propositions have arisen from communications voluntarily made to us by President Brand, and not sought for by us; and we have answered them in a friendly spirit, due to the friendly tone President Brand has adopted, and to the very friendly action he has manifested throughout this unfortunate business. We could scarcely have done less, either with regard to President Brand himself or the friendly relations which have been maintained with the Orange Free State. The last communication to which the noble Earl referred, and which has been read by

  881
  Mr. Gladstone in the House of Commons, followed naturally on the other communication. President Brand asked for further information on a point as to which it was natural he should feel anxious—namely, whether guarantees would be given, in case armed opposition should cease, as to the safety of those taking part in it, and the answer was that reasonable guarantees would be given. There is nothing, I feel, which I have reason to be ashamed of in these communications, which will, of course, be included in the Papers placed before Parliament. In answer to the noble Earl's further Question—
  "Whether negotiations of the same character are still going on between Her Majesty's Government and the loaders of the Boers; and, if so, whether any such correspondence will be at once communicated to Parliament?"
  I have to say that further communications are going on; but I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject to the House at present.
  THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure none of your Lordships would wish that Her Majesty's Government should be put in a position inducing a sentiment of shame. I am sure that was not the wish of my noble Friend in putting his Question, which was one for explanation, and not for the purpose of shaming the Government. What is wanted is information as to the position of this country when Her Majesty's Government are negotiating and making war at the same time. To enter into negotiations when you are waging war unsuccessfully is a perilous process; and I think, therefore, that my noble Friend was justified in the course he has taken in asking for explanations. It is all very well to talk about making the cessation of armed hostility on the part of the Boers a condition of peace; but how can you lay down as a condition that armed hostilities should cease when you yourselves are suffering under a military disaster; and when there is a possibility that those who are authorized may enter into conclusive negotiations without any consideration of the military disasters which, during the interval of negotiations, may have occurred? The possibility of that is one which I am not at all surprised that my noble Friend should regard, with great distrust and apprehension. It is with that feeling that my noble Friend
  882
  made his inquiry, and I hope good will result from it.
  House adjourned at half past Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.