Sitting of 22 February 1881

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Parliamentary Elections (Expenses and Second Election)* [93].
Second Reading —Free Libraries [43], debate adjourned.
Considered as amended — Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) [90].
Withdrawn — Parliamentary Elections (Expenses) [36].

QUESTIONS.

  THE ORDNANCE SURVEY.
  MR. PUGHasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether he can inform the House what steps have been taken, since an additional sum was last Session voted for that purpose, to accelerate the completion of the Ordnance Survey?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: Sir, in reply to the Question of my hon. and learned Friend, I have to say that in consequence of the promise given last Session every endeavour has been made to accelerate the survey. A Supplementary Estimate for £5,000 was voted at the end of last Session. I shall ask shortly for another Supplementary Estimate for the current year of £3,000, and for next year the Vote asked for will be £40,000 in excess of last year. This will enable a very considerable acceleration of the survey, as much as will be possible within the time, and with some further increase in subsequent years the survey may be completed by the year 1890.

  A MONETARY CONFERENCE.
  MR. J. K. CROSSasked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether any communications have been received from the French or American Governments respecting a proposed Monetary Conference?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have as yet received no invitation to send delegates to a new Monetary Conference; but they have reason to believe that such an invitation may shortly be received.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. HARCOURTasked the Postmaster General, Whether he will state, for the information of persons who may

  1519
  be desirous of establishing Post Office Savings Banks (under guarantee) in remote rural districts, what arrangements will be made in respect to local officials now acting as postmasters or postmistresses in such districts; whether the facilities offered by the Postmaster General in respect to Post Office Savings Banks in rural districts will (if they are taken advantage of) involve loss of livelihood to many of the present humble officials; and, if such should be the case, whether provision can be made in future for the appointment of rural officials, who, in case of the establishment of Post Office Savings Banks, will be competent to retain their situations?
  MR. FAWCETT,in reply, said, that, though in many cases money order offices had recently been established in the rural districts, he was unable to discover that a postmaster or postmistress, or any other official connected with the Post Office, had, in consequence, been dismissed. He hoped, therefore, that as no hardship had arisen in the past, none would occur in the future.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAL NOTES.
  SIR ANDREW LUSKasked the Postmaster General, Whether the Post Office pays to strangers, on demand, postal notes presented by them; whether, in such cases, any, and, if so, what steps are taken to identify the holder; and, whether, as a matter of fact, and in the absence of any suspicious circumstances, such notes are, if in order, paid at once on demand?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, when a postal order is presented to a postmaster for payment the regulations prescribe that he shall examine it carefully to satisfy himself that it is a genuine document, that he shall see that it has been made payable at his office, that the payee's name has been inserted in the body of the order, and that the person presenting it signs his name, whether he is the payee or not, in his presence. Should the postmaster be satisfied on all these points he cashes the order at once. Should he not, he suspends payment to make inquiry.

  RAILWAY PASSENGERS' COMMUNICATION—THE CORD SYSTEM.
  MR. ARMITAGEasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether it is
  1520
  true that the "cord system" of communication between Railway passengers and Railway servants has been condemned as ineffective; and, whether the Board have taken, or intend to take, any, and what, steps for the protection of Railway passengers in this matter?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: It is true, Sir, that some years ago the Board of Trade withdrew their approval of the "cord system" of communication on railways, because they considered it ineffective. It appears that the 22nd section of the Railways Regulation Act, 1868, is the section under which the Board of Trade acts; but it gives no power to the Board to initiate any system of communication, but only to approve or disapprove those that are submitted to it. I may add, however, that any Railway Company making default in regard to the section of the Act mentioned is liable to a fine of £10 in the case of each default.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CONVEYANCE OF TELEGRAMS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary to the Treasury, What payments have been made by Her Majesty's Government to steam packet owners for landing telegrams from Natal or the Cape Colony at St. Vincent since the breaking out of the Zulu War?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, payments amounting to £2,750 have been made to steampacket owners for calling at St. Vincent in order to expedite telegrams either to or from the Cape of Good Hope.

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—WORKING-CLASS LECTURES.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been drawn to complaint recently made against the Education Department as to a reduction in the facilities hitherto afforded in Jermyn Street and South Kensington for the working classes attending the lectures there on chemistry, natural history, and mineralogy; and, whether he is prepared to provide such facilities as will enable as many of the public as wish to attend adequate opportunities for doing so?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the attention of the Education Department had not been called to the subject of the hon.

  1521
  Member's Question till a letter appeared in The Times last week. The course of lectures specially referred to in that letter will be delivered at Jermyn Street as usual. We have no intention what-over to reduce the facilities hitherto afforded for the attendance of the working classes at lectures on scientific subjects; but in some cases whore the apparatus by which the lectures are illustrated is delicate or difficult of transport it may be necessary that the lectures should continue, as during some years past, to be given at South Kensington, where the use of the large theatre will enable accommodation to be supplied for as large an audience as in Jermyn Street.

  ARMY—TIPPERARY BARRACKS.
  MR. A. MOOREasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is intended to carry out the original plans adopted by the War Office for the now barracks at Tipperary; and, if so, whether, to meet the existing dearth of employment, he would set such works on at once?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to the hon. Member, I have to state that it is not intended to add to the existing barrack accommodation at Tipperary, which is sufficient for the requirements of the Service.

  STATE OF IRELAND—SPEECH OF MR. PARNELL AT CLARA.
  MR. FINIGAN: Sir, before the hon. and learned Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd) asks the Question which stands in his name I rise to a point of Order. I wish to ask whether it is in accordance with the procedure of this House that the Attorney General should decide a point of law? This point of law is involved in the second part of the Question.
  MR. SPEAKER: I see no ground for interposing between the hon. and learned Member and the House. If he desires to put his Question to the Attorney General, the Attorney General will make his answer on his own responsibility.
  MR. MORGAN LLOYDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, if his attention has been called to a speech which appeared in the "Times," "Standard," and other newspapers this morning, alleged to have been delivered
  1522
  in Ireland yesterday by the honourable Member for Cork City, containing the following passage:
  "I do not myself think that the evictions will he very numerous, but a practical piece of advice that I might give you would he this, that where the landlords persist in evicting any tenant, the tenant should call his neighbours in a few days before the eviction and plough up all the ground, and leave it with him in that condition. They will then not be able to turn cattle on the land to graze;"
  And, whether such advice is not an incitement to the commission of a malicious injury to property and an offence against the Criminal Law of Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): Sir, in reply to the Question of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaumaris (Mr. Morgan Lloyd), I have to say that the only report of the speech in question which I have as yet seen is that given in some of yesterday's papers. I beg, however, to assure my hon. and learned Friend that the matter to which he refers is receiving and shall receive very careful consideration.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTIONS.
  MR. W. CORBETasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If his attention has been called to the following statement printed in the "St. James's Gazette" and other London papers of Saturday the 19th instant:
  "Several evictions took place yesterday on the estate of Mr. McGeough, J.P. near Newtownhamilton, county Armagh. The sheriff was attended by his bailiffs, and the decrees were enforced under the protection of fifty policemen. Many painful scenes were witnessed; children and aged persons, some of the latter being in very delicate health, were cast out on the road side. The peasantry gathered in large numbers; some of the women threw stones at the bailiffs, and invoked curses on the landlord: but the police behaved with forbearance and kindness, supplying with money the most destitute of those who were evicted;"
  whether, in order to prevent the occurrence of such scenes, he will at once introduce his promised Land Bill as a measure of urgency, and use all the power vested in him by Mr. Speaker's New Rules to pass it into Law; and, if not, whether he will, when the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland comes up for Report, introduce a Clause into it to stay evictions while it remains in force, should it become Law, with a view to the protection

  1523
  of the lives of Her Majesty's poorer I subjects in Ireland?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in regard to the first part of the Question, I have been informed by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the general purport of this statement. I do not imagine that the hon. Gentleman wishes to address to me any Question on that statement except for the purpose of eliciting the fact of my being cognizant of it. With respect to the second part of the Question, I have to state that I hope, on Thursday, to be able to be in a position, with reference to the probable progress in the interval of the Bill now before the House, to make some additional statement to the House as to the future course of Business as far as it depends on the Government. With regard to the third part of the Question, as to whether we will, when the Bill for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland comes up for Report, introduce a clause into it to stay evictions while it remains in force, I have to say that we do not intend to propose such a clause.

  SOUTH AFRICA —THE BASUTOS (NEGOTIATIONS).
  MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the Basutos have asked to be permitted to negotiate directly with the Representatives of Her Majesty's Government instead of with the Cape Ministry; and, if so, whether Sir Hercules Robinson has been instructed to accede to their request?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Yes, Sir; that was the drift of the Petition to Sir George Straban last month. That Petition led to the suggestion of Sir Hercules Robinson, made with the approval of his Ministers, that if the Basutos now in rebellion against the Crown should place themselves unreservedly in his hands, they should receive treatment at once just and generous. That suggestion further led to the deliberations with a view to which the present armistice was granted.

  NAVY — TRICHINOSIS — AMERICAN TORE.
  SIR JOHN HAYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If the Admiralty are taking precautions in regard to the
  1524
  ration of pork for the Navy in consequence of the serious outbreak of trichinosis in America, which has caused the French Government, as reported, to forbid the importation of American pork?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, of the salt pork used in the Navy, about a third is supplied by Irish curers, and two-thirds by Danish firms, who deliver at Deptford cheaper than the Irish; and, in either case, to substitute American pork would be a distinct breach of contract. Both Danish and Irish pork, apart from the fear of trichinosis, is better suited for Navy purposes than the American; so much better, that the presence of American pork could be detected in the barrels. But another and more effective precaution is afforded by the determination of the Admiralty to deal only with responsible and reputable firms, a determination to which they, in all cases, take the utmost pains to adhere.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Vice President of the Council, If he has seen that the importation of pork from the United States has been prohibited in France, Russia, Italy, Austria, Spain, Portugal, and Greece, in consequence of the prevalence of trichinosis and the hopelessness of inducing the poorer classes to disinfect the pork and so prevent disease; and, whether he is prepared to forbid its introduction into Great Britain and Ireland?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, as the Question of the hon. Member affects large interests, and only appeared in the Paper for the first time this morning, I am not able to answer it as fully as I could wish. We have no official information that the Governments of the countries referred to by the hon. Member have prohibited the importation of pork from the United States; but we are making inquiries, through the Foreign Office, as to this part of the Question. The importation of pork-bacon and ham into this country exceeds 5,250,000 cwts. (nearly 20 lbs. per head of the entire population), and the estimated value exceeds £9,500,000. Nearly the whole of this comes from the United States, Canada, Germany, and Belgium, and this is exclusive of the importation of live swine. To cut off such an enormous supply of animal food would inflict great hardship on the poorer classes, and could not be done except upon the most

  1525
  urgent necessity, and after the gravest consideration. It would not suffice to prohibit the American supply without prohibiting the importation from all other countries—the disease exists in other countries as well as America—for so long as any country admits American pork the trade is of such magnitude and importance that we should be sure to receive supplies at second hand. We have made inquiries of the Local Government Board, and we find no report of trichinosis in this country. Two years ago there was a report of an outbreak on board a training ship, which has since been investigated, and the medical authorities are satisfied that it was not trichinosis. The Duke of Richmond and Gordon, when Lord President in 1879, was asked a similar Question, and in his reply he called attention to the fact that safety was only to be found in the thorough cooking of pork, whether fresh or salt. And it is only reasonable to suppose that the practice of eating smoked sausages, ham, and imperfectly cooked pork on the Continent and in Northern Europe, has contributed to the spread of this terrible disease; whereas, in this country, where the importation has been on so large a scale, there has been no serious disease, owing, as we believe, to the thorough disinfection by cooking at a high temperature.

  TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether, on the 12th of January last, Mr. Levy, a British subject, having been admitted by the necessary legal formalities to possession of the property called "Enfida," in Tunis, left in occupation of the house one Salvatore Schembri, a British subject, and one Ahmed Trudi, a Tunisian; whether, the next day, on the refusal of these agents to vacate the house, they were assaulted and forcibly expelled therefrom by M. Robin, the Chancellor of the French Consulate General at Tunis, and one Buhawela, a dragoman of the said Consulate General; whether, apart from the general question at issue, any representation has been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of France as to this act of violence committed by French public officers against the persons, servants, and property of British subjects; and, whether the
  1526
  French Government have made, or propose to make, any reparation for the acts of their officers?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have been informed that the French officials were not aware that the persons ejected were the duly empowered agents of Mr. Levy, and were only present for the purpose of executing certain notarial formalities; but took no part in the violent expulsion. Her Majesty's Government have made no special representation to the French Government on the subject of the assault, and consider that it should be dealt with in connection with the general question, which, as I have already informed the House, has been referred for the consideration of the Law Officers of the Crown.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFinquired, whether a Report on the subject had been received from Her Majesty's Consul General at Tunis?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Yes Sir; Reports have been received from Her Majesty's Consul General at Tunis. These in part confirm the statements in the Question; but they do not entirely do so.

  SOUTH AFRICA — THE TRANSVAAL (MILITARY OPERATIONS)—REINFORCEMENTS.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the receipt in England on the 4th December of Sir George Colley's telegram, to the effect that the attitude of the Boers required increased force at Pretoria, any offers of reinforcements were telegraphed to him by the Home Government before the 21st December; and on what date the first offers of reinforcement were made to him?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I am glad to have an opportunity of answering this Question, for I think the hon. Baronet has put it under some misapprehension. It is quite true that on the 4th of December Lord Kimberley received a telegram from Sir George Colley to the effect that the attitude of the Boers required increased force at Pretoria, and that a portion of the 58th Regiment was sent into the Transvaal at that time. But it would be quite a mistake to suppose that that message from Sir George Colley indicated in any degree any deficiency in the aggregate force in South

  1527
  Africa. What happened is this. A portion—I think a battalion—of the 58th Regiment was brought from the Transvaal to Natal a short time before, a good deal, I believe, with reference to considerations of health and convenience; and it was a mere local and administrative measure. The portion of the regiment had been brought down a short time before, and on that occasion Sir George Colley thought fit to send it back again. That was the whole scope of his communication, and it had no reference to any increase of the force in South Africa at all.
  SIR HENRY TYLERasked the Secretary of State for War what was the actual force in the Transvaal and at I Pretoria?
  MR. CHILDERS: The hon. Baronet asks me a Question without Notice, and I can only answer it from memory. There were four regiments of the Line at the time in Natal and the Transvaal, Those four regiments had been there for some time. There has been no reduction in the Line regiments, and they have remained there since.

  NAVY—COURT MARTIAL AT SYDNEY—CASE OF C. P. STAMP.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he can give any information in regard to a court-martial held at Sydney, New South Wales, on the 20th December last, on board H.M.S. "Wolverene," by which Charles P. Stamp, engine-room artificer of H.M.S. "Lance," was sentenced to be imprisoned for twelve months with hard labour; whether he is aware that a considerable amount of sympathy has been expressed by the inhabitants of that city, on the ground that they consider the punishment excessive; and, if he has no information, will he cause inquiries to be made into the circumstances of the case, so that he may give information on a future day?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, on the 20th of September this man, who had returned off leave that morning, went up to the ship's corporal and struck him on the side of the head, and was making at him again if he had not been prevented by a stoker. While the case was being investigated by the senior lieutenant, Stamp again struck the ship's corporal in the officer's presence. He pleaded "Guilty," and was sentenced to dis-
  1528
  missal and imprisonment. That is the plain story from a Service point of view; but circumstances have come to the knowledge of the Board of Admiralty which may lead them to mitigate the punishment. The man is now on his way home.

  MALTA (TAXATION).
  MR. MACIVERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether any actual reduction in the taxation of Malta is contemplated, or if it is intended to substitute other taxation for the duties upon imported grain which are now proposed to be remitted?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: Sir, no reduction in the total amount of taxation is contemplated. If the Council determines to diminish the Grain Duties, as I hope it may, it will find a substitute for them.

  NAVY—PROMOTION FROM THE RANKS.
  SIR JOSEPH BAILEYasked the Secretary of State for War, How many commissioned officers serving in the Army have been promoted from the ranks, and what rank they now hold, with the number in each rank?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. Baronet, I have to state that the total number of commissioned officers promoted from the ranks is 329. The number is made up as follows:—Lieutenant-general, non-effective, 1; major-general, effective, 1; colonels, 3; lieutenant-colonels, 6; majors, 7; captains, 41; lieutenants, 26; second lieutenants, 17; riding-masters, 33; quartermasters, 194— Total, 329.

  FRANCE—COMMERCIAL NEGOTIATIONS.
  MR. MACIVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he can now give the House any assurance that the negotiations with the French Government with regard to a Commercial Treaty will result in the reduction or abolition of import duties on British and Irish manufactures, other than "shoddy," in the abandonment of the bounty system, and in the abolition of the "surtaxe d' entrepot"?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: As formal negotiations have not yet commenced, it is impossible for me to give any assurances as to their results.

  LEGISLATIVE MEASURES FOR IRELAND—THE ARMS BILL—THE LAND BILL.
  MR. CALLANasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he purposes making any statement of the nature and extent of the intended proposals of Her Majesty's Government with respect to the tenure of land in Ireland, before proceeding with the Bill—notice of which stands in the Paper in the name of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland—relating to the carrying and possession of arms in Ireland; and, if the Arms Bill be forced on under the plea of urgency, he will move that the Irish Land Bill should also be declared a matter of urgency?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, at present I can only state, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member, that Her Majesty's Government have no intention of explaining the nature and extent of their proposals with regard to the tenure of land in Ireland until they are in a position, to lay the Bill on the Table, and until they have a reasonable prospect— I hope it will be an early one—of proceeding with it. With regard to the other matter, I would refer the hon. Member to the statement which I have already made, that I hope to be able on Thursday to make such an explanation as to the views of the Government in respect to the course and progress of Business as may be for the convenience of the House.

  TUNIS—THE ENFIDA CASE.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Foreign Office was in possession of affidavits to the effect that the officers of the French Consul General at Tunis took part in the assault on the agents of Mr. Levy?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have received a large number of documents from Mr. Levy's agents at Enfida; but I cannot at present speak with certainty on the subject.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he wished to appeal to the Prime Minister as to whether the right hon. Gentleman would not take into view the desirability of voting urgency with regard to the re-
  1530
  consideration of one or two measures which were carried hurriedly at the end of last Session? He desired to inquire whether the Prime Minister would not take into consideration, under the Urgency Rules, the repeal of the Grain Cargoes Act—a measure which had only just come into operation, and which had produced results which nobody anticipated and which nobody approved? ["Order!"] But that was not the only measure which—
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is passing beyond the limits of a Question.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, he did not wish to press the right hon. Gentleman now; but perhaps by Thursday he would reconsider this Question, as to measures which had been hastily passed last Session.
  MR. RITCHIEasked the Prime Minister if he would inform the House whether there was any truth in the rumour that the Government did not intend to proceed with the Arms Bill?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have already said that I propose on Thursday to make a statement with respect to the course of Public Business. That being so, I hope the hon. Member will wait till then for a reply to his Question.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 90.]
  (Mr. W. E. Forster, Mr. Gladstone, Sir William Harcourt.)
  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 90.]

    CONSIDERATION. [FIRST NIGHT.]
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Bill, as amended, considered.
    Clause 1 (Power of Lord Lieutenant to arrest and detain).
    MR. W. E. FORSTERrose to move the insertion after Clause 1 of the following new clause:—
    (Grant of out-door relief.)
    "The enactments contained in the third section of 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act, 1880,' as amended by the ninth section of 'The Relief of Distress (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1880,' shall, so far as relates to the families of persons for the time being detained under this Act, continue in force during the continuance of this Act."
    When the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Metge) brought forward the question of

    1531
    out-door relief he had stated that the Government had no desire to do any injury to the families of persons who might he arrested. The Irish system of out-door relief was different from that in England, and made no provision for such families. The prima facie argument was more in favour of the English than the Irish system—not in regard to this particular case, but in regard to prisoners generally. At the same time, there were a number of persons exceedingly averse to encouraging out-door relief in Ireland, and he did not wish to do anything that would generally relax the restriction upon it; but, with out at all prejudging the question, he had come to the conclusion that in the present case the benefit of the doubt should be given to those to whom the operation of the Act might cause distress, especially as the head of a family might be detained in prison longer than any untried prisoner. The strongest reason adduced in support of the proposal of the hon. Member for Meath was the case of a small farmer, who might be sent to prison, while his family were sent to the workhouse. In that case, the farm would become unoccupied, and would lapse to the landlord. That would be a hard case. He did not think it was likely to occur; but still it was well to provide against it. The Amendment, as brought forward by the hon. Member for Meath, would not have met the case, because it would not have excluded from the usual operations of the Bill farmers who had a tenancy of about a quarter of an acre. However, in order that his (Mr. W. E. Forster's) proposal might not be made a precedent, he would merely add to the Bill one of the provisions of the Relief of Distress Act of last year, and make it applicable to the families of the persons in question. The 3rd section of that Act gave power to the Local Government Board to authorize the Guardians to grant out-door relief in certain cases; and his intention was that the Local Government Board should issue a General Order empowering them to use their discretion as to the special cases he had mentioned. He therefore begged to move the insertion of a clause embodying the 3rd section of the Relief of Distress (Ireland) Act.
    Clause (Grant of out-door relief,) — (Mr.W. E. Forster,) —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be road a second time."
    MR. HEALYsaid, that looking to the constitution of the Boards of Guardians in Ireland, and to the influence possessed by ex-officio Guardians who were magistrates and landlords, he was afraid that they would not give out-door relief in these cases if it were left to their discretion. He thought it would be desirable to provide that the families of detained persons should be regarded as by right entitled to out-door relief.
    MR. METGEsaid, that, having had some experience of parochial work, he was of opinion that the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman went quite far enough. The only difficulty would be as to the Circular or General Order of the Local Government Board.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERpromised that the Circular should be issued at once from the passing of the Bill.
    MR. A. MOOREbelieved that much of the crime which existed in Ireland was due to the hardship inflicted upon the families of prisoners by relief being refused during the incarceration of the head of the family. He was, however, glad to hear that the Irish Poor Law system was to be in some degree assimilated to that of England. He believed that the Guardians had hitherto had very inadequate power of giving out-door relief. He was much indebted to the Government for the clause now brought forward amending this anomalous state of things.
    MR. SEXTONhoped that the Guardians would be empowered to grant relief for the whole period of the operation of the Act, and not only for the period, as at present limited, of two months.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he was not quite sure whether they could give relief for more than two months under the Acts; but if he found they could not, the power would be renewed, if necessary.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORfeared that it would be difficult to overcome the inertness and the excessive love of economy that characterized the Boards of Guardians in Ireland. There could be no doubt that there was a strong prejudice amongst them against out-door relief; and he should be glad, therefore, if the

    1533
    Government could see their way to assimilate the Poor Law of Ireland to that of England.
    Motion agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORrose to move a new clause (List of persons detained to be submitted to Parliament), which stood in the name of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell).
    MR. SPEAKER: It will not be regular for the hon. Member for Galway to move this clause. The House expects that an hon. Member giving Notice of a clause should propose it to the House himself. He cannot depute that duty to another Member. I may point out, however, that the substance of this Amendment might be moved when the House proceeds to the consideration of the Bill.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNArose to a point of Order. He wanted to know whether it would not be competent for him, or any Member of the House, to move on his own behalf any clause which was printed on the Paper?
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that no clause can be received on the consideration of a Bill without Notice.
    MR. CALLAN,in moving the following new clause:—
    (Warrant to issue only on sworn information.)
    "No warrant of the Lord Lieutenant under this Act shall be issued until the grounds for suspecting the person against whom it is directed shall be set forth in an information to be sworn, and kept in such manner as the Lord Lieutenant shall direct, and which information shall be laid upon the Table of the House, if so ordered by Parliament on the Motion of any Member,"
    said, that his object simply was that some record should be kept of the grounds upon which the warrant had been issued and a person arrested. If some one of his hon. Friends near him should hereafter become a Minister of the Crown, it might be alleged that he had been arrested under the Act for some treasonable crime, and he wished that there should be a record available to disprove that. A gentleman, who was afterwards a Member of the House, was arrested in 1848, not under the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act, but, fortunately for him, upon a specific charge, and detained in prison. He afterwards went to Australia, and there become Prime Minister and was
    1534
    honoured with knighthood by Her Majesty. He meant Sir Charles Gavan Duffy. If that gentleman had been arrested under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, it might be alleged that he had been guilty of some dark crime. Some Members of that House, also, who might be arrested under that Act, might emigrate to foreign lands, and become distinguished Members of Colonial Legislatures. They ought to be able to show that there was no real stigma on their characters. What he desired was, to secure that there should in all cases be a tangible ground for an arrest. He desired that persons should not be arrested merely upon a private and irresponsible communication made by the Constabulary, or a resident magistrate to the Chief Secretary. Even for the protection of the right hon. Gentleman, it was desirable that if his conduct was hereafter impugned, he should be able to show the grounds on which he had acted. He could not see, if a magistrate or the police had good grounds for their suspicion, that they could have any objection to embodying the grounds of that suspicion on sworn information. It might not immediately be produced; but it would be available for production if the House should hereafter order. If they were not prepared to do so, then on the commonest principles of justice the person against whom their suspicions were directed should not be deprived of his liberty. As no prosecution for a crime was now allowed to be instituted except on sworn information, so the Irish Executive should not be allowed to exercise the extraordinary powers which it was now proposed to commit to them unless they had before them the sworn information of persons who were ready to affirm on their oaths that they had reasonable grounds for their suspicions.
    New Clause (Warrant to issue only on sworn information,)—(Mr. Callan,) brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that there was a Notice on the Paper of a Motion on this subject which he believed had been withdrawn. But, at all events, the principle of having to act upon sworn information had boon thoroughly

    1535
    debated, and by a large majority it was resolved to adhere to the provision that persons could be arrested upon reasonable suspicion. He could not accept the Amendment, as its adoption would tend to defeat the object of the Bill.
    MR. LEAMYurged that, in the Amendment referred to by the Chief Secretary, information would have been made public, and in that case the objection of the right hon. Gentleman would be easily understood. In the Motion before the Committee the hon. Member for Louth merely asked that the information should be kept in such a manner as the Lord Lieutenant might direct, and should be laid on the Table of the House only by order of Parliament. The information, therefore, would remain with the Lord Lieutenant, and no one would know anything about it unless Parliament directed its publication.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYhoped the Chief Secretary would accede to this Amendment; and he would put it to him whether they should not preserve in some manner the information which led to a man's arrest, so that afterwards he might have an opportunity, if he thought he was aggrieved, of learning the grounds of his arrest. If the Chief Secretary decided not to accept the Amendment in its present form, he might, at least, give some assurance that there should be some sworn information which would prove a sort of record in the event of the case being afterwards investigated.
    MR. SEXTONpointed out that the Amendment differed materially from the Amendment alluded to by the Chief Secretary. The Government believed that the publication of the information would be attended with very great inconvenience, and, no doubt, it would be; but all that the present Amendment sought was that the information should be secretly taken and kept by the Government. He failed to see how any danger could accrue to any individual giving information by adopting this course, or on what ground the Government could refuse to take information on oath. Again, it was not proposed that the information should be made public except by a vote of Parliament; and surely the right hon. Gentleman did not think the House should be deprived of the opportunity of getting information should it think it necessary
    1536
    to do so. A person detained under this Act should have an opportunity of clearing his character against vague imputations cast upon it; and, therefore, he would strongly appeal to the Chief Secretary, who did not seem to have considered the difference between this Amendment and the one already rejected by the Committee, to accede to the request of the hon. Member for Louth. If the Bill remained as it stood, any man imprisoned under it would be subjected to vague and, perhaps, ruinous imputations of having committed a heinous offence. For this reason the Government ought to preserve a sworn record which, without involving anyone in danger, would enable the suspected person to clear his character at a future period.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped some assurance would be given that no warrant should issue until information of the grounds, sworn or otherwise, had been filed in Dublin Castle. There ought to be something in the nature of a procés verbal, which would enable a man who was really innocent to clear away the imputation resting on his character.
    MR. HEALYthought the reply of the Chief Secretary was exactly the same as the one which a few nights ago he made to another Amendment quite different from the one in question. He would remind the House that imprisonments under this Bill would be very different from the imprisonments which had taken place in Ireland for Fenianism. The Fenians had been regarded as heroes and martyrs, whilst persons charged on suspicion with some such offence as an incendiary fire or maiming cattle would be liable, perhaps, to be disgraced. Persons ought not to be disgraced for life under vague charges with no chance of clearance as to the nature of the offence.
    MR. FINIGANpointed out that the terms of the clause did not propose to render it necessary that the sworn information should be made public. What was intended was that the information should be kept as a State record by the Lord Lieutenant. It would be but fair, he contended, that the House should have an opportunity of reviewing the circumstances in cases where a warrant might be issued, not upon information grounded on reasonable suspicion, but upon information prompted by malice or

    1537
    vindictiveness. If this Amendment was adopted, it would contribute to the pacification of Ireland and the prevention of crime; some slight element of justice would also be imparted into the Bill, and this would be a better precedent for future statesmen to act upon than was the Bill in its present harshness.
    MR. BARRYobserved, that the information could only be made public by a vote in the House, and it was simply an act of common justice that some record for reference should be kept of the reasons for arrests at Dublin Castle. He hoped the clause might be agreed to, as it would give innocent persons, if any were arrested, or persons arrested for some trivial offence, the means of removing the stigma under which they must otherwise remain in consequence of their incarceration.
    MR. DALYthought the Government would benefit themselves by accepting the Amendment, for it would show that a reasonable ground existed for the arrest of the person suspected. As far as he could see, there was no valid reason whatever for refusing the Amendment.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 41; Noes 317: Majority 276.—(Div. List, No. 71.)
    MR. LEAMYproposed the insertion of the following Clause: —
    (Any person detained under this Act, if defendant in action of ejectment, may appear in court.)
    "Every defendant in an action of ejectment commenced either before or after the passing of this Act, who may he imprisoned under this Act shall be allowed to appear in person in court during the hearing of the said action."
    He hoped the Chief Secretary would see his way to accept the Amendment. He need scarcely point out to him that in every action of ejectment, especially where the defendant was entitled to claim compensation for disturbance, the defendant was nearly always an important and necessary witness. In fact, in many cases, the tenant had to prove certain improvements for which he would be entitled to receive compensation; and if, under these circumstances, an action of this hind were allowed to proceed in the absence of the defendant, very serious prejudice and harm would be done to the defendant. He was very
    1538
    much afraid that the extensive powers given to the Lord Lieutenant would not enable him to permit a person to appear in Court unless a special clause were introduced into the Act empowering him to do so.
    Another Clause (Any person detained under this Act, if defendant in action of ejectment, may appear in Court,)—(Mr. Leamy,) —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)was afraid he could not assent to the clause. It was no doubt inconvenient that the defendant in an action for ejectment should be detained in prison; but he saw no reason for making the distinction which this Amendment would establish between persons detained under the Bill and other prisoners. Moreover, such a clause was not necessary, as in every case where the attendance of a person imprisoned under this Bill might be necessary in Court, and not merely in cases of ejectment, the only thing requisite would be to apply to the Lord Lieutenant for his consent to an application to the Court of Queen's Bench, and that Court would order the attendance of the defendants at the hearing of any action.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAasked whether he was to understand from what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had said that the permission asked for would be granted as a matter of course, if a writ were issued by the Court of Queen's Bench?
    MR. CALLANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation would lead the House to believe that a writ could be issued by the Court of Queen's Bench for the appearance of the prisoner. He thought that the posed clause, like the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland's explanation, was rather clumsily drawn. The House could not pass the Amendment in the exact phraseology in which it was drawn; but it could relegate to the Queen's Bench the power to determine whether or not a witness was essential in an action, and he suggested that the proposed clause should read—

    1539
    "That notwithstanding the provisions of this Act, or provided always that on the Court of Queen's Bench being satisfied that the defendant in an action of ejectment is a necessary and essential witness in the ease then pending, the Court should be at liberty to issue a writ in such case."
    That would meet all that they asked for, and would take out of the hands of the Irish Executive the power of injuring a poor man who might be very objectionable to them; but still ought not to be deprived of the rights given to him by the Constitution.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, what he had endeavoured to explain' was that the person who wished to be produced in Court as his own witness must get the consent of the Lord Lieutenant to apply for a writ; and this, in all proper cases, would be so obtained, as a matter of course.
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYthought the Amendment was so reasonable that the House could not, for very shame, refuse to accept it. Many of them knew that an ejectment against an Irish farmer involved absolute ruin, and to refuse a man who might be arrested innocently the liberty of appearing in Court to state the reason why he should not be ejected from his holding appeared to be inflicting a double injury on an innocent man. If this Amendment were rejected, he should feel that the Government were determined to carry to the utmost extreme the arbitrary authority conferred by the Bill. He earnestly hoped the Government would re-consider their determination, as it appeared to him to be very unfair.
    THE O'DONOGHUEsaid, there could be no doubt that this was a vital Amendment; and he was of opinion that, unless the Government acceded to it, great injustice and irreparable injury might be inflicted on large numbers of persons in Ireland. They might assume that persons in custody would receive information that these proceedings had been taken against them; but what he wished to point out to the Government was that the person against whom the ejectment might be brought might be a very poor person, without the means of taking the necessary proceedings to enable him to appear in Court. He respectfully urged on the Government to take this into consideration, and to provide that poverty should be no impediment to the tenant
    1540
    in custody being enabled to assert his right.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the case had been put entirely on a false issue. The terms of the clause were to the effect that a person who was imprisoned should be allowed to appear as a witness in person in Court during the hearing of the action. That was exactly his position at present. If any person who was in custody under any circumstances were required as a witness, the ordinary course was to satisfy the Court of Queen's Bench that he was a necessary witness; and then he was brought up, as a matter of course, under a writ issued by that Court for the purpose. The only thing the Act did was to prevent an application being made to the Court of Queen's Bench with that object before the consent of the Lord Lieutenant had been obtained. If a certain witness was necessary, the application would be made in the ordinary way—first to the Lord Lieutenant for his consent, and then, that consent being-obtained, to the Queen's Bench Division for the usual writ; and the witness would be brought up as a matter of course.
    THE O'DONOGHUE: Would his coming up entail any expense?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Under this Act he would be brought up in the custody of the gaoler and at the expense of the prison authorities, not at his own expense; therefore most ample justice was done.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, they were aware that a writ would bring a man out of any prison in the land; but what his hon. Friend aimed at was this —that the unfortunate prisoner would, unless the Amendment were agreed to, have to take an additional legal step, which meant additional expense. He argued that the Amendment was drawn in a way that was open to the objections urged against it; and he would suggest that some clause be inserted in the Bill empowering the issue of a writ in the case of ejectments.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought it would be much better to leave that to the Executive. It would be impossible to frame a clause now such as the hon. and learned Member

    1541
    suggested. The course he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) thought the Lord Lieutenant would be advised to take upon application being made to him was to direct his Law Adviser to be instructed to apply for a writ of Habeas Corpus if he considered it necessary.
    MR. LEAMY: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman give that assurance?
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Certainly.
    Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANmoved the insertion of the following new Clause:—
    "No person discharged from detention under this Act shall he so discharged at a greater distance than five miles from the place whereat he was first arrested under the Act, unless he shall himself prefer to he discharged at a place nearer to the prison wherein he was last detained."
    The object of the clause was to prevent persons being discharged at such a distance from their homes that it made it a matter of great difficulty for them to get to their homes. It would be a gross injustice, for instance, to dicharge a person arrested in Sligo, or in any other part of the West of Ireland, in the streets of Dublin, after being liberated from Mountjoy Prison, without giving him the means of travelling home.
    Clause (Discharge of Prisoner), — (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), —brought up, and read the first time.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause be read a second time."
    MR. SEXTONsupported the Amendment, on the ground that it would be adding inhumanity to the punishment inflicted by the Bill not to give prisoners an opportunity of returning home without very great inconvenience.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW),while partly concurring with hon. Members opposite, called attention to the fact that the hardship, which might in certain cases be very great, was met by the Prisons Act, which provided that persons discharged should receive each a sum not exceeding £2 to pay the expenses of their journey homo. That grant of money, however, was permissive, and not invariable.
    MR. DALYobjected to the Governor of any prison having it in his power to say whether aid should be given or not. He thought it would be far better, if a person were assured he would have a certain sum, to take him to his home.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought that was a matter which might well be left to the Prisons Board.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he quite saw the point, and felt it would be advisable that persons should receive 12s., 15s, or £1, as the case might be, to take them to their homes; but in the case of persons arrested on suspicion it should be made compulsory, and not permissive.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, taking the proposed clause in that light, he saw no objection to it, and would accept it— the clause to be introduced after subsection 4 of Clause 1.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Clause added to the Bill.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, in accordance with the arrangement that was come to in Committee, he begged to move an Amendment fixing September 30, 1880, as the day on which the Act should come into operation. The point having already been discussed at some length, he would not now repeat his arguments.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 6, to leave out the words "either before or after the passing of this Act," in order to insert the words "at any time since the thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty."—(Mr. William Edward Forster.)
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'at any time since the thirtieth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty' be there inserted."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that not a single concession to mitigate the severity of the Bill or its retrospective action had been made by the right hon. Gentleman. Every Amendment with that object, whether coming from the Liberal or Conservative side of the House, had been met with the same relentless hostility. The responsibility for the Bill rested, therefore, with the right hon. Gentleman alone. If the right hon. Gentleman had shown the least desire to meet the views, even of

    1543
    Liberal Members, he would have gained for the Bill a certain amount of support from Members on both sides. The right hon. Gentleman now proposed to limit the retrospective action of the Bill to the 30th of September, 1880; but he might as well have gone back to 1848. The Government intended to make the measure so sweeping as to catch within its net every act done and word spoken during the Land League agitation. When the Chief Secretary rejected the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Stansfeld), who for years sat side by side with him on the Treasury Bench and in Opposition, he would not be likely to pay any particular attention to proposals coming from those Benches. The right hon. Gentleman might as well be brought face to face with his own conscience at once. The right hon. Gentleman might say he only wanted to get at a certain number of "dissolute ruffians;" but he might as well take off the mask and tell the House that he meant to rise the Bill to the utmost, and for the next 18 months to establish a reign of terror over the Irish people. He had now got beyond the first stage of the Bill, when he thought it necessary to give those melodramatic pictures of the condition of Ireland, which bore the same relation to the state of things actually existing as a drama at one of the transpontine theatres to the realities of life. When the right hon. Gentleman said that he did not mean to confine the operation of the Bill to the future, he distinctly declared that he intended to make the measure not preventive, but punative and vindictive. ["Oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh!" or laugh, as the Treasury Bench might direct them; but the fact remained that the Bill was necessarily punative and vindictive. He did not believe it was of any use for him to say more; but he felt it his duty to denounce the infamous, the criminal, and the unprecedented cruelty of the Bill.
    MR. SEXTONwished to give a brief example of what might happen if the retrospective action of the Bill were carried back as far as the end of last September. The editor of The Sligo Champion had been brought before the magistrates under the White boy Act, because a paragraph appeared in his paper recommending that a person should give up a farm from which another had been
    1544
    evicted, and it was attempted to show that that was an act of intimidation. The Crown Prosecutor brought the charge at the instance of the Attorney General for Ireland; but not only the mayor of the town and five unpaid magistrates, but the resident magistrate himself laughed the law of the Crown Prosecutor out of court. If this Bill were made to go so far back as last September it would be in the power of the right hon. Gentleman to console himself for the defeats he had experienced at the hands of the magistrates. The right hon. Gentleman had himself admitted that there had been a rapid decrease of crime in Ireland; in face, therefore, of the diminution of agrarian outrage his retention of the retrospective character of the Bill proved it to be vindictive. He appealed to the Government to let the Act run from the date of its introduction, or from the 6th of January, when the people of Ireland were informed by the Queen's Speech that it would be brought forward. Such a course would be candid and consistent, and would save the Bill from appearing to be vindictive.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he trusted the hon. Member who had just sat down was generally more accurate in his facts than those with which he had favoured the House on this occasion. He had been good enough to charge him himself with colluding with another Law Officer to bring about a prosecution which he knew to be unfounded. It was quite enough in that House to state that charge to vindicate himself.
    MR. DALYsaid, he did not think there was much good in addressing the House on this subject, as, notwithstanding the opposition the Government had received on certain points even from their own supporters, they had not altered the Bill in any one important point. He, however, still protested against the retrospective character of the Bill. It had also a longer prospective duration than any previous Coercion Bill. It was intended to last two years, being antedated from the end of September, 1880, and extending to September 31, 1882. The retrospective provisions of the Bill rendered it an engine of vindictive punishment. Crime in Ireland had greatly diminished; and he appealed to the Chief Secretary to accede

    1545
    to the wishes of hon. Gentlemen sitting on those Benches.
    MR. SPEAKERpointed out that the hon. Member was not speaking to the Amendment, which related to the duration of the Bill.
    MR. DALYsaid, a law could only be successfully administered when the people recognized its justice. The fact that, in addition to its stringency, it was retrospective conveyed the impression to the minds of the people that it was not a measure for the deterrence of crime, but for punishment for past deeds.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANthought the Government were bound, in acknowledgment of the improved condition of Ireland, to abandon the retrospective portion of the Bill, more especially as they were themselves largely responsible for its previously disturbed state, by their neglecting to put in force the ordinary law of the land.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAhoped the Government would forego the retrospective action of the Bill, which, as this clause stood, would only apply to the crimes of treason and treason-felony.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONwas of opinion that the Bill laid down a very dangerous principle—namely, that persons could be punished for offences committed before the existence of the Act. He did not object to the Bill solely in the interest of the people arrested, but in the interest of the great body of the people. They were often finding out that certain persons had been acting unjustly; and it was quite possible that during the next two or three days they might find out that a great many landlords in Ireland had been receiving rents very unjustly. If they carried the Amendment of the Chief Secretary they would be breaking through the good old maxim of English rule, that "Bygones should be bygones." The precedent they were attempting to create might be fraught with great danger— in fact, it might be said that even Members of the House were not safe from such dangers as that involved in the present legislation.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, the words "prescribed district" referred to a district prescribed at the time when the offence was committed. The Government for a long time appeared to have been unaware of the character of their own Bill. They had overlooked this point, and they only contemplated
    1546
    that they would have legal power under this Bill, when it became law, to arrest a man in a district which they proposed hereafter to prescribe for an act which was committed before that district was prescribed. He was sorry his hon. Friend had pointed out this blot on the Bill. He should have been very glad to see the Bill become law with the clause as it originally stood in it.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he rose to Order. Was it proper for a Member of the Irish Party to propose to bring in another penal clause?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was very sorry the hon. Member misunderstood his remark. He proposed to amend the Bill in this way—to leave out the words,"30th day of September, 1880,"and insert,"31st January, 1881."
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
    To leave out the words "thirtieth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty," in order to insert the words 'thirty-first day of January one thousand eight hundred and eighty-one.—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'thirtieth day of September one thousand eight hundred and eighty,' stand part of the proposed Amendment."
    MR. LEAMYremarked that until after the Bill passed there was no such thing as a prescribed district. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would agree to the compromise proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for Galway.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, some hon. Members seemed to suppose that it was the intention of the Government, in dealing with the retrospective portion of the Bill, to make it possible that it should only apply to treason and treason-felony, and not to agrarian offences; but that was not the intention of the measure, and he should propose, later, some lines dealing with the latter class of offences. With regard to the Amendment for the 31st of January, hon. Members must really not suppose that he was not paying attention to their arguments if he did not stay in the House to reply to them, because the question had been thoroughly debated. Certain hon. Gentlemen seemed inclined to throw the entire responsibility for

    1547
    this Bill on his shoulders; but the fact was it had been very carefully considered by his Colleagues, not only in general principle, but in detail; and, also, which was of very great importance, it had been assented to by a very large majority of the House after a long discussion of this very particular matter. Again, the argument had been brought forward that they had turned this Bill into a vindictive instead of a preventive proposal by making it retrospective. They sought also power of arrest, on reasonable suspicion, of those they believed to have done certain acts in past time. Why did they do that? Because it gave them the power to arrest those people, and prevent them committing similar acts again. He again apologized to the House for re-asserting what had been so much dwelt upon. In his speech the senior Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) said a good many of the men who had committed offences had gone. They would not have gone if the Bill had not been retrospective; and if the Committee of the House wore to change its mind and not make the Bill retrospective, he very much doubted whether these gentlemen would not come back again.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether a person could be arrested, under this measure, for a crime committed in a district subsequently proscribed, and at a time when the power to prescribe districts was not in existence?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES): That matter has been discussed. I have not the least doubt myself that under the power conferred by this Bill a person may be arrested, if a district has been prescribed, for a crime committed before the district was prescribed.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 1.64; Noes 41: Majority 123.—(Div. List, No. 72.)
    Words inserted.
    MR. PARNELL,who had given Notice of an Amendment to leave out, in line 8, the words "treason-felony or treasonable practices," said, he would only move the first portion of his Amendment—to leave out "treason-felony." In explanation on the course he proposed to take in dividing his Amend-
    1548
    ment into two portions, he said he thought it probable that many hon. Members of the House might be prepared to support one portion who might not support the other. He had read with some interest the debate which took place on this question during the passage of the Bill through Committee. He had not yet been able to understand why the Government had included these words "treason-felony" in the Bill. He did not think that the Fenian conspiracy was at all more active at the present moment than it had been at any time during the last eight or nine years; and he was disposed to believe that the Government were acting under the influence of some panic originated by some false or erroneous information. There were, he was aware, a great number of reports and rumours of various kinds flying about with regard to the intentions of the Fenian Brotherhood in America, and also in Ireland. He had been told that the Government had received information as to an intended movement by the Fenians in Ireland or in this country; but, knowing as he did something of what was going on in England and Ireland among his fellow-countrymen, and of their feelings and sentiments, he was utterly at a loss to understand the reason why panic should have taken possession of the Government. He did not wish to say that the Fenian Brotherhood were opposed to the Land League movement. It was true that a section of them had openly, and in the public prints, expressed disapproval of the Land League movement, on the ground that it was a movement of a social character, calculated to draw the people away from their object of national independence, and to set up the idea that they were to become possessors of their own farms, instead of building up a nation in Ireland, which had been the object of the Fenian Association. But it was also true that individual members of that Association in America had given the Land League a full and independent support, not as a revolutionary movement, not because they supposed that the Land League at any time intended to resort to violent or revolutionary methods to attain its end, but because they looked upon landlordism as the chief English garrison in Ireland—as one of the pillars of English mis-rule in that country; and because

    1549
    they thought that, when the exceptional privileges and unjust rights of that class were taken away, one of the chief obstacles to attaining the separation of Ireland from England would be removed; but to say that the Fenians were active in Ireland, America, or England in support of a purely separative movement was to say that of which none of the evidence before them afforded them the slightest tangible ground whatever. On the contrary, he knew that many leaders of that Association had complained that the Land League movement was diverting funds, which would have been received for revolutionary purposes, into the coffers of the Land League. He supposed that at no time was the Fenian Association less active in Ireland than it was at the present moment. It had always been so; whenever the minds of the people wore diverted by a Constitutional movement and agitation they lost that desire to participate in secret organizations, to which the Irish people had been driven from time to time, in default of other outlets for their opinions. The Bill as it stood would empower the Lord Lieutenant to put into prison any person suspected of "high treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices." He could only account for the introduction of those words by the supposition that the Chief Secretary desired to arrest men who had obviously committed no offence against the law of the land. Treason-felony was an occult offence, committed secretly in a secret organization, and of late it had not consisted of overt acts; and therefore it occurred to the Government to obtain power that, if there was any individual that they had a particular objection to, this power of arresting on reasonable suspicion of treason-felony would afford them a short cut for effecting their purpose. The late Government had to deal with the Fenian agitation; but they did not suspend the Habeas Corpus Act for the purpose of dealing with anything but a state of actual rebellion in the country; but there was no state of actual rebellion now. Never were the minds of the Irish people further removed from any desire to resort to violence against the established Government of the country, and he believed that this frame of mind extended not only to the Irish people in Ireland, but also in this country, and to
    1550
    the far more numerous, greater, and better nation that existed in the United States of America. He thought they were entitled to ask for some better reason for the retention of these words than the panic about Fenians got up during the last few days. Garrisons had been doubled, the rifles of Volunteers had been deprived of their locks, and immense precautions taken for the purpose of guarding against a Fenian attack in this country. The only reason for this panic was that a tin can containing dynamite was exploded at Salford; but the circumstances pointed to it being meant as a practical joke. He imagined that a Fenian conspiracy would not suppose that they could blow up the British Empire by means of a can of dynamite, or make war against the Government with a few pounds of gunpowder; but that was the only excuse for this panic. They had also been told, in the awe-inspiring tones of the Home Secretary, that Mr. James Stephens had arrived at Paris last week, although Paris was his place of residence; but last year Mr. Stephens had Simply gone to America in order to induce the Irish people not to support the Land League. He would ask the Government whether it was a dignified course to take to attach importance to matters of this kind? There was no evidence whatever of the existence of an extensive conspiracy, or one which was likely to break out in a way which would cope with the forces of the Government. He admitted that the Land League organization was a powerful one; and, if the Government desired to suppress it, they could not do better than propose to suspend the Habeas Corpus Act. He was confident, however, that their efforts to put down the Land League would fail; hut, as to the Fenian movement, he did not believe that at any time during the past seven or eight years it had been less powerful than it was at the present time. In conclusion, the hon. Member moved the omission of the word "treason-felony."
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words"treason-felony."—(Mr. Parnell.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'treason-felony' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, they had not had the advantage in their discussions in Committee, except for a very

    1551
    short time, of the presence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. If the hon. Member had taken part in those discussions he hardly thought he would have thought it necessary to repeat, on the present occasion, arguments which were then used. The hon. Member had given an interesting account of the relations of the Land League to the Fenian body.
    MR. PARNELL: Not to the Fenian body, but to individuals.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: To what the hon. Member described as Fenians generally. The Fenian Brotherhood, I think he said.
    MR. PAENELL: No; I said individuals composing it.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the hon. Member had given them interesting information; and he dared say, to a great extent, it was correct. He admitted there was very little in the published accounts of either one body or the other to cause the introduction of these words; but as he had stated, on introducing the Bill, and on other occasions, they were inserted not on the ground of anything that publicly had appeared, but on information which the Government were in possession of. He did not want the House to take an exaggerated view of that information. They did not believe there was danger of any dangerous rebellion, or any armed rising in Ireland or elsewhere, especially in Ireland, that would cause any real danger to the Empire; but they included in treason-felony and treasonable practices any attempts, more or less atrocious, which ought to be prevented. He was surprised at the manner in which the hon. Member had alluded to what occurred at Salford, when he described the explosion of a can of dynamite as a practical joke. That explosion had caused the death of a poor child, and might cause the death of another person. He did not form any interpretation with regard to that act; but he would state that it was an act which obliged the Government to look very carefully to see how it might have come to pass. He could not say there was proof; but, on the other hand, there was ground for suspicion, that it was connected with treasonable action with Irish objects. That was one, among other acts, to which the Government had to give their serious consideration.
    MR. PARNELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman be kind enough to state on what ground?
    MR. W. E. FORSTERdid not think the hon. Member could imagine for a moment that he would state the ground. If the hon. Member's remark had not been answered, it might have gone forth that the belief of the Government was that the affair at Salford was a mere practical joke. The hon. Member had made a strong charge against the Government. The charge made by the hon. Member was this—that an arrest might be made under cover of a reasonable suspicion which, after all, had no real existence in the minds of the authorities. Of course, if that was his opinion, he was entitled to hold it; but it was hardly an opinion which would obtain much credence in that House. If it did obtain much credence in that House, certainly neither he nor his Colleagues would remain in power for one day longer. The hon. Member had stated that if the Government wished to take action against the Land League, they could not have adopted a more effectual mode than by bringing in this Bill. He thought it might fail; but he thought it very possible that—
    MR. PARNELL: Yes; I am sure it will fail.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: The certainty of failure came rather in contradiction to the success that had preceded in such matters. This, however, he would say-that in so far as that organization might be an organization for intimidation, and for attaining its object by intimidation and the help of outrages, this Bill would succeed. In so far as it was an organization for attaining a Constitutional change by Constitutional methods, this Bill was not intended to be directed against it; and if it was directed against it, it would fail.
    MR. DAWSONsaid, that no sufficient reason had been given in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman for retaining these conditions in the Bill.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYthought that the reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman were very extraordinary, and differed considerably from the line of argument he had adopted on a former occasion. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) felt bound to vindicate the hon. Member for Cork City from the charge of having treated the Salford outrage as a practical

    1553
    joke. It did not occur until after the introduction of this Bill into Parliament, and therefore it could not be taken as an excuse for it. Besides, he did not see what an offence committed in England had to do with agrarian crime in Ireland.
    MR. HEALYheld that sufficient grounds had not been laid before the House to justify them in giving the Government the power which it now sought for dealing with treason-felony under this Bill. If the Home Secretary was in possession of any secret information as to the existence of any danger from a Fenian conspiracy, he should remember that the persons from whom such information was obtained were generally men of a class who sought to make money out of the Government, and who did not scruple to earn their wages by the most unblushing falsehoods and perjuries. They were men of the type of the infamous Titus Oates.
    MR. SPEAKERrequested the hon. Member to confine his remarks to the Amendment before the House.
    MR. HEALYobserved that, if anything happened in England which did not admit of easy explanation on any ordinary hypothesis, it was at once put down to the Fenian conspiracy. The recent alleged outrage at Salford had been so represented, although there was nothing in its circumstances, as far as the published accounts of it went, which forbade the supposition that it might have originated in an accidental explosion of gas. However, a groundless panic had been created, and the Government had not attempted to check it, as it afforded them a convenient means of helping to carry this Bill.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down says the Government are dependent for their information upon informers, and that is the only ground on which it can be suggested that there is any danger to fear from Fenian conspiracy. I desire entirely to contradict that, and to say there is ground of a totally different character for believing that a Fenian conspiracy exists—that it professes the same treasonable and unlawful objects, and pursues them by the same detestable means, as Fenian conspiracies have done in the past. Nobody who is acquainted with the American Press can doubt for a moment that that
    1554
    conspiracy exists, and that in countries where it is safe to avow its objects these objects are avowed. A paper was sent to me a few days ago, belonging to a man who is perfectly well known—a man who was a Fenian convict, but who received the mercy of the Crown by being released before the expiry of his sentence. He was subsequently elected Member for an Irish constituency; but he was unable to take his seat, being a convict felon. I refer to O'Donovan Rossa. He has a paper called The United Irishman, a copy of which was sent to me the other day. That paper stated that the objects which were pursued by the Party to which the editor belonged were to overthrow the English Government by the sword, and by Constitutional agitation. Then there was a speech reported in that paper by a man well known in this country, a man who certainly received the grace of the Crown—John Devoy, who was a convict, and, unfortunately, allowed to go at liberty before the expiry of his sentence. The speech of Devoy was made on behalf of a body called the American Land League. I wish to say distinctly that I do not charge the Irish Land League with complicity with the American Land League, or that it is responsible for what is said. I am only stating facts. Speaking on behalf of the American Land League, Devoy said the time was come for action in Ireland; that there would probably be a collision, or something of the kind in Ireland between the authorities and the people, and that then he and his friends were prepared to reply to that by assassination. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members might be shocked; but this is the statement of the man himself, not that of an informant, but published in this paper by O'Donovan Rossa. He begun naturally with some interesting matters. He says he will assassinate a single Minister, and then he will assassinate the whole Cabinet. That is what they desire, and then he says he and his friends intend to accomplish a conflagration of the whole of London and other cities in England. Then he used a phrase which is very remarkable, no doubt, connected with practical jokes—that he would "have recourse to modern science." I think we know what the resources of modern science are connected with the conflagration of the towns. Do not let me be told

    1555
    that this is the perjured information of an informer. It is the object of a detestable conspiracy which, in places where it is safe, does not hide its object. Then the author of this statement goes on to say he is not advising anybody to follow this course who is not prepared to follow him, when the proper time comes, in Ireland. Would any Government, or any civilized society, not take precautions to protect themselves against the objects of such detestable violence as this? If Mr. O'Donovan Rossa and Mr. Devoy, and the people whom they subsidize, collect money for this object, do you mean to say the English Government is to disarm itself against projects such as these? Ought it not rather to arm itself to the teeth? Has the hon. Member never heard of "the Skirmishing Fund." That is a fund—
    MR. HEALY: The Skirmishing Fund no longer exists. It has been displaced by a more reputable organization.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The hon. Member seems to know something about the Skirmishing Fund. Will he, or some of his Friends, be good enough to tell me what O'Donovan Rossa means when he talks about the Skirmishing Fund, if it no longer exists? It is perfectly idle to say that there is no evidence except that of informants of these detestable plots. It is the duty of every Government and every society to protect itself against men whose principles are the principles of the Nihilists, and whoso practices are the practices of the Petroleurs.
    MR. SEXTONasked if the speech of Devoy was to be used as an argument for the suspension of the liberties of the people of Ireland? He had not had the advantage of seeing the paper to which the Home Secretary had referred; but he had for many years studied the writing in American papers, and he could assure the House that if the expressions of hostility to English rule in Ireland were to constitute a sufficient reason for the suspension of public liberty in that country, such an argument might have been found any day in the course of the last generation. The Irish people were not responsible for Mr. Devoy's sentiments. His object in rising, however, was to offer a few words of protest against the unfair manner in which the Chief Secretary for Ireland had criticized the remarks of his hon. Friend the
    1556
    Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell). His hon. Friend deplored as much as any Member in the House the death that was occasioned by what took place in Salford. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of his (Mr. Sexton's) hon. Friend as if he knew that there were secret relations between the Land League and the Fenian Brotherhood. But his hon. Friend was not open to the charge that he knew of there being relations between them. The Land League was a political body, having no relations with any other body, open or secret. The Land League did not desire to carry out its objects by acts of intimidation; but it relied decidedly and entirely upon the action and sympathy of the people, and upon the public organization, for the bringing about a unity of sentiment to that end. He indignantly denied that the Land League was an intimidating body, or was in any manner connected with illegal or unconstitutional conspiracy. He had heard with satisfaction the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman that the provisions of the Bill would only be used against the Land League when it showed itself to be an intimidating association; because, in that case, he felt sure that the Land League, which rested upon the confidence of the people, would be re-established on a firmer footing than ever.
    MR. CALLANridiculed the fears that had been expressed by the Home Secretary of personal violence being offered to the Ministry. He himself had been threatened; and he had read in some American paper of a proposal to throw a ball containing some dreadfully explosive material upon the floor of that House, which should have the effect of destroying them all at a blow. However much he might deplore the extinction of that House collectively, he should still more deplore the extinction of himself individually by such a process. He considered that the Homo Secretary had taken an unfair advantage in referring to the ravings of the O'Donovan Rossa and the writings of the American Press as a justification for bringing treason-felony and treasonable practices within the scope of the Bill. The evident purpose of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was to arouse a hostile feeling against certain Irish Members. When the right hon. Gentleman told the House that there were

    1557
    other grounds than the information of spies and informers for believing that a treasonable conspiracy existed, he supposed he was about to detail some of the secrets of the Cabinet now which had lately been introduced into British statesmanship, and to lay bare some of the secrets of the dark chamber in the Post Office, where, under his warrant, the letters of Irishmen and Irish Members were opened. The principles enunciated by the O'Donovan Rossa, as the right hon. Gentleman had conveyed them to the House, were as abhorrent to the Representatives of Irish constituencies as would be any action on the part of the Communists of Paris.
    THE O'DONOGHUEexpressed his regret that the Home Secretary was not in his place when the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) spoke, because he might have thought it necessary to withdraw a statement he had made a few days ago, when he evidently wanted the House to infer that Mr. Stephens had arrived in Paris for the purpose of having an interview with the hon. Member for the City of Cork. It now appeared that the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards Ireland was to be shaped by what took place in America; and they were to be held responsible for newspaper articles which they had never seen, and for suggestions to which Her Majesty's Government were quite as likely to agree as the Irish Members were. He could confirm the statement of the hon. Member for the City of Cork—that there never was a time when the Irish people looked so little to a violent solution of the Irish Question as they did at present. The Constitutional turn which the mind of the Irish people had taken was, however, solely owing to the Parliamentary policy of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, who had given them a faith in Parliamentary action that they never had before. The Chief Secretary had alluded to what he considered was the likelihood of this measure suppressing the Land League. It was true that it was the most oppressive measure of the kind that ever had been passed; but, notwithstanding that, he was perfectly confident that it would utterly fail to interfere with the action of the Land League; and that, on the contrary, it would arouse a spirit of indignation and a re-action
    1558
    which would give the Land League a fresh force and increased vitality.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANthought it was a curious coincidence that, just at the time when the Government chose to put in a Bill having reference to treason and treason-felony, a number of scares, to which a political and treasonable aspect was given, had been got up in the country. Great precautions were taken at various barracks, and the arms of Volunteers were put in places of safety just at the very time when it suited the Government to have excitement and alarm with regard to treasonable plots created in the minds of the British people. No sooner, however, was the second reading of the Bill reached than these scares entirely ceased. Of course, all Governments while they existed were perfectly innocent of having recourse to such artifices; but when their secret history came to be written years afterwards, it generally turned out that they had availed themselves of many discreditable stratagems to carry out their objects. If the Irish people were to be kept out of their liberties until Fenianism was at an end in America, they would have to wait a very long time. As long as the Fenian ranks in America were recruited by the sons of evicted tenants, and evicted tenants themselves, there would be such projects and such organizations. In times of excitement they would have writings and speeches made in America which were indefensible. The Irish Members had no responsibility for those things, and they protested against deprivation of the liberties of the whole Irish people because O'Donovan Rossa and Devoy published threatening letters and made threatening speeches in America.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) in restoring in Ireland faith in Constitutional and Parliamentary action, had conferred a great blessing upon the people; but he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) warned the Government against attempting legislation which was wholly unnecessary, and endeavouring to force such legislation through the House by resorting to tactics of the kind which had been so lately witnessed. The course now being followed could only tend to undo the good work which had been attempted by his hon. Friend the Member for Cork City, and on the heads of the Government would rest the respon-

    1559
    sibility if the Irish people were driven back into the vicious circles of secret societies, followed by conspiracy.
    MR. SPEAKERcalled the attention of the hon. Member to the fact that he was not keeping to the Amendment.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid he was endeavouring to reply as closely as possible to the observations which fell from the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the Bill would not affect the land movement so long as it was conducted in a Constitutional manner. There was, however, a want of clearness in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. It was the duty of the right hon. Gentleman to tell the House what he meant. Irish Members objected to such ambiguous views, which were merely traps to seduce—
    MR. SPEAKERagain pointed out that the hon. Member was travelling beyond the Question.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he had no intention of doing so. The right hon. Gentleman said the Act would only interfere with proceedings likely to lead to violence and intimidation—a definition which might be accepted if it were only itself defined. He desired that the House should be called upon to admit the existence of conspiracy to a large extent in Ireland on the mere ipse dixit of the Chief Secretary, based solely upon quotations from American newspapers, and unsupported by any evidence which would be accepted in an English Court of Law. It had been said that this legislation was necessary in order to put down revolutionary ideas; but he contended that no legislation could possibly have that effect. The course of the Government was wholly unprecedented, in that it was based on no tangible evidence, and was unjustifiable, for the reason that the Bill was only intended to construct a legal net, the meshes of which should be sufficient to catch all sorts of people, whether they happened to be innocent or guilty of the crimes which the Executive chose to impute to them.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 126; Noes 33: Majority 93.—(Div. List, No. 73.)
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANmoved the omission of the words "treasonable practices," which followed in the clause the words the subject of the last Amendment. He hoped the House would not
    1560
    agree to the retention of the words in question until they were interpreted in the Bill. No indictment had ever been prepared for treasonable practices, and he looked with suspicion upon words which were of so loose and novel a character. If there was a political offence committed in Ireland which was peculiarly displeasing to the authorities in Dublin Castle, and which was not treason-felony or inciting to commit an indictable offence, they would, no doubt, pick up the offender under the classification of having been guilty of treasonable practices. The retention of the words would increase the danger which every law-abiding citizen would run when the Bill became law. No one would be heard on behalf of a man who was accused and arrested under this measure, and therefore the Lord Lieutenant would be allowed to adjudge a man guilty of an offence which was unknown to the law. Possibly the phrase might be found within the limits of an Act of Parliament; but that was not the question. The point was whether any Judge had ever had the chance of saying that an indictment would or not lie for "treasonable practices." He moved the omission of the words.
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "or treasonable practices."— (Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That the words 'or treasonable practices' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. WARTONwas astonished to hear a Member of the same Profession as himself speak of the phrase as a novel one, as he did in the beginning of his speech. The hon. and learned Member afterwards admitted it was to be found in various statutes, perhaps because his hon. and learned Friend saw him referring to a big book of statutes. The truth was the phrase might have been made much more wide if precedent had been followed, for he found the words "treasonable and seditious practices and attempts." This expression occurred in 36 Geo. III., c. 7, made perpetual by 57 Geo. III. c. 6. The original Act, besides containing the phrase, gave a description of what was going on which was applicable to the present time. It spoke of the continued attempts of wicked and evil-disposed persona to dis-

    1561
    turb the tranquillity of the Kingdom, particularly by a multitude of seditious pamphlets, and speeches daily printed, published, and dispersed, with unremitting industry and with transcendent boldness, in contempt of His Majesty's Royal person and dignity, and tending to the overthrow of the laws and Government and happy Constitution of the Realm.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton) had quoted merely the Preamble of the Act, and not the enacting clauses; but he had not shown that a man could be arrested or imprisoned for treasonable practices. The other day, at Newcastle West, a man posted a cartoon from a Dublin paper outside his house. The police seized the cartoon, and took it to the constabulary barrack, where the owner recovered it. He put it up again, and again it was captured. He supposed the man would, under the Bill, be guilty of "treasonable practices." If the Government would insist on making a new offence, they ought, at least, to let it be defined.
    THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that from 1794 down to the passing of the Treason-Felony Act, the terms used were "treason" and "treasonable practices," and since 1848 "treason-felony" had also been used. No Judge would allow an indictment for "treason" or "treason-felony;" the averments in the indictment must state the facts which constituted the offence. The evidence might fall short of proving treason or treason-felony, and yet might be sufficient to prove "treasonable practices," as, for instance, in the collection of ammunition, or the manufacture of torpedoes for purposes which could not be legally established in evidence, but of which there was no moral doubt. There must be words embracing the offence co-extensive with human ingenuity in devising the offence.
    MR. FINIGANsaid, this Bill did not pretend to adduce any evidence or to give any proof whatever of treason, treason-felony, or treasonable practices, but merely required that the person should be reasonably suspected of having committed a crime. Therefore, it was the most absurd thing possible to compare the wording of this Bill with what would be stated before a jury in any
    1562
    real Court of Law; and to ask the House to pass these words was to ask it to stultify itself. They had been told that there were precedents for this and that with regard to certain parts of the Bill; but he contended that the Liberal Party ought to be guided by reasons and principles, and not by precedents. He maintained that under the present law the Executive had quite sufficient power to enable them to cope with the condition of affairs in Ireland without introducing words which, although technically legal, wore vague and illogical.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 165; Noes 29: Majority 136.—(Div. List, No. 74.)
    MR. HEALYmoved to omit in page 1, line 8, the words "wheresoever committed" and to insert "in Ireland," in order to limit the arrests to offences committed in Ireland. The object of this Amendment was to do away with the wide scope of the Bill as it stood. If the Amendment was not adopted, every emigrant coming to Ireland on a visit or on business would be liable to arrest under this Act, whether he came from America, from Hong Kong, or from India; and what means had the Government of knowing what individuals had said or done in these countries?
    Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 8, to leave out the words "whenever committed," in order to insert the words "in Ireland,"—(Mr. Healy,) —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words 'whenever committed' stand part of the Bill."
    MR. FINIGANhoped the Government would make no serious objection to this Amendment. Any American citizen who had said things which were not, perhaps, exactly correct in reference to the English Government, might be included under this Act when he came to Ireland; and as Americans were not subjects of Her Majesty, or amenable to the English Constitution, he did not see what injury could be done by leaving out the words.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that this point had been previously debated for some time and decided, and therefore it could not be expected that he would repeat the arguments he had already used. He did not wish to express any complaint against hon. Members for

    1563
    their persistent opposition, because they felt deeply on the matter; but he must remind the House and those Members that it was not very usual on the Report to bring up precisely the same questions as had been disposed of in Committee, unless there was some probability of the House changing its opinion, which was not the case at present. The Bill was intended to be a preventive measure, and it appeared to him that nothing could be more preventive than to take the power, if a man planned treason or treasonable practices in England, or elsewhere out of Ireland, and then went to Ireland, to shut him up and prevent him from carrying those plans out.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that under those circumstances he would withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER,proposed in page 1, line 9, to insert after "committed," the words "at anytime since the thirtieth day of September, one thousand eight hundred and eighty."
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose to move in page 1, line 12, after the word "order," the insertion of the words—
    "Not being a publication in any newspaper, the printer or publisher of which may be prosecuted at common law or otherwise for such publication."
    The reason he proposed this Amendment was because the crimes and offences dealt with by this Bill were those of which the Chief Secretary said it was difficult to detect the perpetrators; but in the case of publications in a newspaper the very same resources of prosecution and punishment that wore at any time open to the Government would still be open to them. For such offences there could be no reason in the world for bringing in this Bill. A newspaper editor in any part of Ireland who published reprehensible articles was open to criminal prosecution, and the paper and the man were there to be found. There could be no pretence that the publication of a news paper was surreptitiously done, and that it was impossible to bring an offender of that character to justice.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 12, after the word "order," to insert the words "not being a publication in
    1564
    any newspaper, the printer or publisher of which may be prosecuted at common law or otherwise for such publication."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsupposed that the Government would have no objection to accept this Amendment. If there was anything of which they should be proud in this country it was the liberty of the Press. The whole object of the Bill was to enable them to detain suspected persons against whom they could not obtain evidence, and anything which went beyond that object could not commend itself to the House or to the friends of the British Constitution. Editors and publishers of newspapers could be made responsible for the articles appearing in? their publications.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERobserved, that the effect of inserting this Amendment in the Bill would be to inform the editors of all newspapers that they had, in fact, letters of licence to incite to acts of violence or intimidation. He believed that there were very few newspapers—he hoped there were none in Ireland—that would do it; but he strongly suspected that if this Amendment were accepted there would be newspapers which would take the opportunity of inciting to acts of violence or intimidation. [Mr. A. M. SULLIVAN: They could be prosecuted.] Yes, they could be prosecuted; but the hon. and learned Member was fully aware that it was a notorious fact that it was difficult to get juries to do their duty.
    MR. FINIGANthought it was a most unjust reflection on the Irish Press for the Irish Secretary to say than an Irish newspaper would incite to an act of violence. The argument of the right hon. Gentleman against the Amendment was weak and miserable. It was evident the Government were determined to strike at not only the freedom of the people, but to extinguish the sole voice that in Ireland could be heard after the passing of this Bill.
    MR. HEALYobserved, that the Chief Secretary, by refusing to accept the Amendment, simply told the editors and writers for the Press in Ireland they were men not to be trusted with the ordinary Constitutional liberty enjoyed by

    1565
    nations over the whole world. He had thus conveyed an insult to the most intelligent people in Ireland. His argument was a most regrettable one, and calculated to cause much pain in Ireland. The Bill, they had been told, was to apply to village tyrants and dissolute ruffians; but now, when it was proposed that the Bill should not apply to newspaper editors, the Government, through the Chief Secretary, said that the Bill was to apply to them.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member was not speaking to the Question.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he was simply anxious to show the class of persons to whom the Bill was intended to apply. No doubt, the Radicals opposite would vote for it, and then the Irish people would see who were the English champions of their liberty.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORchallenged the right hon. Gentleman to mention a single ease in which an Irish editor brought before a Dublin jury by the Crown for an offence against the Crown had not been convicted. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) was brought before a Dublin jury, who, with a slavishness which characterized Dublin juries in past times, convicted him, though he had committed no offence, moral or legal. They had also convicted John Mitchel, Kevin O'Dogherty, and others. He was delighted that the Government declined to accept the Amendment, because their refusal showed that they desired to take away, not only liberty of the person and of meeting, but also even the liberty of the Press. How hypocritical was the action of the Government with regard to the Press of India! He understood that orders were sent to-day to India to revise the rules of the late Government with reference to the Vernacular Press of India. But this Liberal Government, who were so anxious about the Vernacular Press of a country thousands of miles away, were the very men who came down to the House to muzzle the Press of Ireland. He had never heard of such an act of political hypocrisy in his life. The Amendment proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Meath was enough, if the Government intended to use this Bill honestly. As the Government came near the end of this Bill, they were throwing off all masks and pretences.
    1566
    This Bill struck even at the poor remnant of the liberty of the Press of Ireland.
    MR. DALYobserved, that the people of Ireland would understand the refusal of the Government to accept this Amendment to mean that the English Cabinet, legislating for the conquered people, regarded them as a nation of perjurers, who, on their oath in the witness box, would not convict for any offence in Ireland. The Amendment simply provided that the question whether an offence had been committed should be submitted, as in England, to a jury of 12. The right hon. Gentleman wished, instead of that, to refer the case to the mercy of two men. He (Mr. Daly) objected to surrender one's liberties to two men, even though they were the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, the Liberal Party denounced oppression everywhere, provided it were only at a sufficient distance from Her Majesty's Dominions; but they did not know how to condescend, or to make a concession to weakness at home. He was not surprised to find that they were determined to add to the other Liberal institutions which they were about to confer upon Ireland a censorship of the Press, although the Press, he contended, would be the sole corrective of the numerous errors into which the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who was totally ignorant of the country, was likely to fall. At the same time, it should be remembered that the Liberal Party, out of power, were in favour of the Press being allowed to degenerate into licentiousness rather than that its freedom should be suppressed.
    MR. ARCHDALEsaid, that this was an exceptional Bill to meet exceptional circumstances. He would be sorry in ordinary times to restrict the freedom of the Press, for he was as great an advocate of freedom as any of those hon. Gentlemen who had just spoken could be; but, in the face of the fact that juries could not be found to convict in Ireland for political offences, he hoped the Chief Secretary would not assent to the Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYpointed out that upon every occasion for the last 42 years on which there had been a newspaper prosecution a conviction had followed, and contended that there was no fair reason

    1567
    to suppose that what had so frequently happened before would not occur again. He really thought that the Chief Secretary would have accepted this Amendment; but it now appeared that the right hon. Gentleman would not allow freedom of the Press, or, indeed, freedom in any form, in Ireland.
    MR. CALLANdid not see why Irish newspapers should be included in the Bill and English papers left out. There were a number of English publications which had had offensive cartoons on the subject of the Bill before the House. A. short time ago an Irish paper had issued a cartoon which represented the Chief Secretary for Ireland maintaining law and order. He was represented in martial array, keeping guard over poor Michael Davitt, while poor Davitt laboured for a happy Irish home. The cartoon brought home the entire facts to the Irish people. It was published by The Freeman's Journal, a paper owned and conducted in a masterly manner by a Member of that House. Were they to place that hon. Member's liberty at the discretion of Her Majesty's Liberal Chief Secretary for Ireland? He was not in accord with the Irish National Press. For many years he sincerely wished for the charity of silence. He enjoyed their writing, but still more their cartoons, because in their cartoons they displayed much more ability than in their writing; and if he got some assurance from the report of the Government now on the Treasury Bench that for those cartoons the editors of the National Press would not be put into prison a great deal of his objection would be withdrawn.
    MR. PARNELLsaid, he trusted that the Government would re-consider their refusal to accept this Amendment. The statement made by the Chief Secretary as to the reasons for bringing in the Bill was that they desired to put a stop to outrages in Ireland, which they believed to be the main support of the Land League. But this Amendment asked for what was practically the freedom of the Press; and he could not suppose the Government were serious in their determination to take powers under the Bill to take up any newspaper editor and put him into prison for 18 months for articles published in his newspaper. In Ireland, from time to time, they had had laws directed against the freedom of the Press. They
    1568
    had had provisions in Acts of Parliament of this kind—that after a certain number of warnings a newspaper might be summarily suppressed; but he thought they had never had the power to put an editor into prison until now under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Any editor, the conduct of whose journal offended the Government, was liable to be placed in prison under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Now, any speaker from a public platform whose speech offended the Government was also to be placed in prison, and kept there under the Suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. Well, now, was it fair that the Bill should have as wide a scope as that? Was it right that the whole of the Press of Ireland should be placed practically at the mercy of the Government? If the Government did not desire to put down public opinion in Ireland, and the free expression of public opinion, why did they refuse this Amendment? He did not believe in the pretext that the Bill was directed against outrages at all. He believed that the Bill had been brought in because the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant found that he had failed in his mission in Ireland, and he wanted to revenge upon the people of Ireland, and upon the leaders of public opinion in Ireland, that failure and that loss of reputation as a statesman. The right hon. Gentleman wanted to control public opinion; he wanted to control the Press. It was evident he wanted to control the Press. If he did not he would agree to this Amendment. Under the pretext of putting down agrarian offences, he sought, in reality, to obtain control over expression of any public opinion in Ireland that he did not approve of. He saw a movement which he knew was a national movement, and he could see no better way to control the movement than by controlling the expression of public opinion in Ireland. Now, he (Mr. Parnell) thought that the Amendments that had been from time to time attempted to be made in this Bill had effectually thrown aside the cloak which the Government attempted to put over their intentions and designs when first introducing it. They had a great deal of mock philanthropy and mock humanity with regard to the suffering of animals, and with regard to the Queen's Writ not running in Ire-

    1569
    land, and so on. But it was now evident that the real design of the Government had been to destroy public opinion and freedom of discussion in Ireland; for, as they saw, that was the result of the refusal to accept this Amendment, the object of which was to protect the liberty of the Irish Press.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANconfessed that until the refusal of this Amendment he did not believe that the Government were contemplating, in an underhand manner, to strike at the freedom of the Press in Ireland. The Government had been, from time to time, asking the House to give them credit for good intentions in connection with this measure; but what they had learnt during its progress showed them that they should give the Government credit for the very worst intentions. The proprietors of the Irish newspapers were liable to the ordinary law of the land for what appeared in their columns; and it was most unfair and dishonest to attack them in that underhand and fraudulent manner. In England the fullest liberty was allowed the Press, pictorial and otherwise, and that was found to be the best plan to act upon. But, henceforward, they dare not touch their masters in Ireland. They dare not represent any of them in any attitude, except, perhaps, in the distribution of some benevolence. They should be careful as to their features; they should make them beauties even if nature did not intend them so. If the artist did not do justice to their features, the proprietor would find himself in Mountjoy Prison. Freedom of speech might be restricted, but freedom of thought would not; and freedom of action would result from it in one shape or another, and in a manner that might not be agreeable to those gentlemen who were now so tender of their persons and character.
    MR. BARRYsaid, that the Government, by their refusal to accept every proposition made, however reasonable it was, would be known hereafter as the Government of Coercion. There was not, he might state, a single instance on record, save one, within the last 40 years of a Press prosecution in Ireland failing. As they approached the close of that long and dreary discussion the scope of the Bill had gradually widened, and now newspaper editors were to be
    1570
    included within it; whereas a short time since they were told that it was meant to be directed only against dissolute ruffians. He was glad that the Government had shown themselves in their true colours, as they had now proved the utter hollowness of English Liberalism.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 45; Noes 250: Majority 205.—(Div. List, No. 75.)
    MR. SEXTONmoved to insert, in page 1, line 13, the following words:—
    "Provided such person is in Ireland of his own free will, and has not been recently brought to Ireland in legal custody."
    The object of the Amendment was to make the operation of the Bill practical, as in form it was literal. It was possible that a man might be taken to Ireland from England or Scotland on some charge not connected in any way with the Act, on a charge, say, of bigamy, and after it had been shown that he was innocent of that crime, and he had been released from custody, it was competent under the clause that they should keep him in prison on reasonable suspicion. He did not think the Chief Secretary would be willing to assent to anything like that, and therefore he wished the right hon. Gentleman to make it plain that was not the intention of the Bill.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 13, after the word "Ireland," to insert the words "Provided, That such person is in Ireland of his own free will, and has not been recently brought to Ireland in legal custody."—(Mr. Sexton.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERreplied that it is not in the least likely that the police would take advantage of this bigamous man getting off, to arrest him under this Act. If the Lord Lieutenant and the Irish Government were likely to sanction such an arrest as that, they ought not to have this power; but he saw no reason why they should actually put in an Act of Parliament, that because a man happens to be lot out of custody in Ireland for some other crime and was suspected as one of the offenders under this Act, therefore he should get off.
    MR. HEALYsupported the Amendment, and quoted the case of the murder

    1571
    of Lord Mountmorres. Persons might be apprehended in England on that charge, conveyed to Ireland and, being there released, be detained without having any opportunity of returning to the place where they were originally arrested. There might be other murders besides that of Lord Mountmorres. Murders under this Act would be very likely to occur. ["Oh!"] Persons would not be likely to see their friends put into gaol without trying to have some revenge. He maintained that the arguments of the right hon. Gentleman did not apply.
    MR. BARRYhoped the Government would give some assurance that any person taken into Ireland to answer a particular charge should not, when acquitted, be liable to be arrested, under the provisions of this Bill, upon an entirely different charge, and detained in custody for a period of 18 months. It would be terribly harsh and severe that a man taken against his will into Ireland, and tried and acquitted for' one offence, should then be arrested, under this Act, for another. He hoped the Government would give some assurance that nothing of that kind would be allowed to take place; but that a man, upon his acquittal under such circumstances, would be allowed to return to the place at which he was originally arrested.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, that when an hon. Member remarked that there had been some cases in Ireland in which the jury had refused to convict, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland called out "the City of Cork." He hoped he was not wronging the hon. and learned Gentleman. [The SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND (Mr. W. M. Johnson): I did not say so.] He (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) apologized for having attributed the expression to the hon. and learned Gentleman. Someone certainly made the remark. A case did actually occur at Cork in which a man was arrested and put on his trial for an offence which he had never committed. The jury returned a verdict of acquittal, on the ground that the wrong person was in the dock and that the real culprits were the stipendiary magistrate and the inspector of police. If this Act had been in force, although the jury acquitted the man of the offence with which he was charged, the Crown would have been able to say,
    1572
    "No doubt the jury have acquitted you; but we suspect you, and, therefore, in you go again." That really appeared to be what the Government wanted. They were sporting with a double-bar-relled gun, and if one of the barrels would not bring down the bird, the next might have a better chance. They, therefore, said, "You have already satisfied one tribunal of your innocence; but if we suspect you, down you must go." He was willing to admit that no responsible official in Dublin Castle would lend himself to any such transaction. He did not say this by way of compliment to the right hon, Gentleman the Chief Secretary; but he said it in common justice and fairplay towards the right hon. Gentleman. He did not think that any responsible official in Dublin Castle would lend himself to such an unworthy transaction, and would bring a man over from England for such a purpose. He did not believe that any Member of the Government would tolerate such a proceeding "as that of bringing a man over to Ireland from London, to trepan him in this way, and bring him under the Act; but, at the same time, he did believe that some of the subordinates of the Irish Government under them, and probably even unknown to them, would do things which they would not for one moment defend on the floor of that House. He was about to name a very discreditable transaction which actually occurred in Ireland, and he did so without having the slightest desire to fasten a slur upon the official who did it. He had no doubt that the hon. and learned Solicitor General was well acquainted with the case, and it was about one of the most exquisite bits of sharp practice he (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) had over heard of. An Irish Judge, in 1868, ordered Richard Pigott, who was under two indictments, to be removed from the custody of the Sheriff of the City of Dublin. The Sheriff accordingly released him with the right hand, but immediately arrested him with the other, on a second warrant, as Sheriff of the County of Dublin. It was a beautiful bit of sharp practice. He was ordered to release the man, and he did so as Sheriff of the City of Dublin; but he happened also to be Sheriff of the County of Dublin, and he held him in that capacity. This would show the House that in Ireland, if gentlemen filling the important position of

    1573
    Sheriff had such ideas of official duties that they would do things unknown to those who breathed the more wholesome atmosphere of English Constitutional official procedure—things entirely unknown and not dreamt of on this side of the Channel—even worse things might be expected from the more subordinate officials. He was afraid that his countrymen in that House opposed the Constitution of this country, as they were doing now in connection with this Amendment, because they really knew very little about it. Such things as they were deprecating here could not be done in England. He would, therefore, advise his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) to withdraw the Amendment, in order to add a Proviso, "That the Lord Lieutenant may, if he thinks fit, order the man to instant execution."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwished, before the Amendment was put, to submit a few observations to the attention of the Committee. His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) as he increased in years, seemed also to increase in the simplicity and ingenuousness of his character. His hon. and learned Friend stated that he did not think that any responsible official in Dublin Castle would bring a man over to Ireland on one charge, and keep him in prison on another. Now, he (Mr. O'Connor) was of opinion that the officials in Dublin Castle, and the officials on the Treasury Bench, were quite capable of arresting a man in England, taking him over to Ireland, bringing him to trial there, and, in the event of his being acquitted of the charge for which he was tried, arresting him under the provisions of the present measure, and imprisoning him for 18 months. ["Oh!"] Hon. Members opposite were accustomed to raise somewhat inarticulate objections to every statement they disliked, and, therefore, he was content in this instance to pass them by without further notice. Personally, he had very little doubt that subsequent events would show that the fear now entertained upon this matter was not exaggerated. He was afraid it would be found that many persons would be taken over to Ireland on trumpery charges who would never be brought up for trial in a Court of Justice; but Her Majesty's Government having got them over there in this tricky kind of
    1574
    way would immediately place them in prison under the present Bill. The thing had been done before. An hon. Member of that House was arrested in 1867 on a charge that was palpably false, and could not be supported by evidence. [Cries of "Name!"] The curiosity of hon. Members on the other side of the House for names appeared to have increased enormously since the Chief Secretary brought in this Bill. If he recollected rightly, the cries of "Name!" which were raised when the right hon. Gentleman quoted instances in support of his statement were met in every case with an indignant repudiation on the part of hon. Members opposite. In this instance he declined to mention the name. ["Oh!"] The name was well known to hon. Members. If the hon. Member were within the House, and he (Mr. O'Connor) had his permission, he would willingly give the name; but the case was very well known within the walls of that House, and he saw an hon. Member sitting opposite who was thoroughly acquainted with it. He (Mr. O'Connor) did not know what the precise nature of the charge against the hon. Member was—["Oh!"]—but he was arrested on a charge that was entirely false. Either he was never brought in Court to answer the charge, or, when brought up, the charge was of such a flimsy character that the authorities never proceeded with it; and the champions of freedom who now graced the Treasury Bench were the same who graced it when this despicable act of tyranny was committed. He was quite willing to judge the right hon. champions of freedom on the Treasury Bench upon their own indictment. If, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act, they were guilty of the meanness of arresting a man on one charge, and not daring to bring it in open Court, they were, nevertheless, capable of keeping him in prison—a Government that would condescend to commit an act of such meanness were capable of any similar act of meanness again. There was no necessity for going back to what happened 10 or 14 years ago. Within the last few weeks two or three batches of prisoners were taken from this country on charges of crime to Ireland, The evidence against them was of so paltry a character that they were discharged; but when this Bill became law, Her

    1575
    Majesty's Government might take over batch after batch upon some charge, which, if brought against them in open Court, would utterly break down, because there was really no ease. But, having taken them over from this country, which did not suspend the liberties of the people, to another country, where the liberties of the people were suspended, Her Majesty's Government would take care that they were kept in prison. Under any miserable pretext they would take over obnoxious persons from this country with the sole object of bringing them under the operation of this Act. He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) would persevere with his Amendment. The conditions sought to be enforced by it would not accomplish much in the shape of changing the intentions of Her Majesty's Government; but the Amendment itself, and the discussion which had taken place upon it, would perform a very excellent part in exposing, in all their enormities, the harsh and tyrannical features of the measure now before the House.
    MR. SPEAKERthen put the Question, "That those words be there inserted?" and declared that the "Noes" had it.
    This decision having been challenged,
    MR. SPEAKER(in accordance with the New Rule) said: I must ask the "Ayes" to rise in their places.
    The "Ayes did so, and being more than 20,
    The House divided: —Ayes 45; Noes 244: Majority 199.—(Div. List, No. 76.)
    MR. HEALYmoved, in page 1, line 1, to leave out the words "such person in Ireland as may from time to time be directed by the Lord Lieutenant," and insert the words "may be nearest to the place of arrest." He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary would not object to this Amendment, which would simply provide that prisoners in custody under the Act should be detained in the local prison nearest to the place where they wore arrested, and would enable them to be visited by, and have communication with, their friends and relatives. He quite saw the force of the argument that some of these prisons might not
    1576
    be fit for the reception of such prisoners; but, on the other hand, wherever it was practicable, some opportunity should be afforded to these unfortunate persons of being able to give directions as to the conduct of their business while they were under arrest. This could be done if the place of detention were a local prison near at hand. But, as the clause was now worded, the Lord Lieutenant might send a man to a prison at Mallin Head, whose usual place of residence might be at Cape Clear. It was probably the intention of the Government to send the prisoners to Dublin as far as it was possible, that being the place where central prisons were provided with ample accommodation. But, in the event of all the prisoners being taken to Dublin, some of them might be 200 miles away from their friends. This would be a serious matter to a man engaged in business, who would find it difficult, if not impossible, to conduct his business transactions at a considerable distance from his usual place of residence. Under these circumstances, he trusted that the Chief Secretary would feel that there was really something in the proposition he made. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman could not accept the Amendment, he hoped he would give the House some guarantee or assurance that the matter would receive attention, and he (Mr. Healy) would be perfectly satisfied with such an assurance. It would be sufficient to promise that the Lord Lieutenant would use a wise discretion in the matter, and not insist rigidly on having every man sent to a prison in Dublin. The representations of the prisoner and of his friends ought to be listened to, and if they said that the nearest local prison was suitable, both from its proximity to the prisoner's place of residence and business and from other considerations of the same kind, then, in the event of the accommodation being of an adequate nature, that the man should be detained there instead of being sent to Dublin. If the right Gentleman would give such a promise, he would be quite satisfied and would not press the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 14, to leave out the words "in Ireland, as may from time to time be directed by the Lord Lieutenant," and insert the words

    1577
    "may be nearest to the place of arrest,"—(Mr. Healy,)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not imagine that the hon. Member means to press this Amendment. If it were passed the result would be that the prison nearest the place of arrest, whatever its want of accommodation or safety, must be the place in which the prisoner must be put. I had thought that in previous discussions hon. Members had expressed themselves content to have those prisoners confined in a central place. I trust that it will not be necessary to make these arrests in any large number, and I certainly think the best course will be to provide accommodation for them in some central prison in Dublin.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAbelieved that proper accommodation could be best provided in Dublin, and was in favour of every indulgence and consideration being paid to prisoners arrested under the Act that was compatible with their safe detention. He had no doubt that the question of proper accommodation had been carefully considered by Her Majesty's Government, and he therefore hoped that his hon. Friend would withdraw the Motion and not put the House to the trouble of a division upon it.
    MR. PARNELLtrusted that the Chief Secretary would give the House some information as to the plan they proposed to pursue with regard to the detention of these prisoners—whether he proposed to imprison them in Dublin, or in various gaols throughout the country. It stood to reason that a man largely engaged in business in the country would find it exceedingly inconvenient and detrimental to his business if he was removed to a prison that was a considerable distance away from that business. Unfortunately, he was not present in the House when the previous discussion took place upon the subject; but it seemed to him, from what he had heard, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had not formed much idea of what these regulations were to be, or where he was going to put the prisoners when they were arrested under the Bill. Were they to have one central
    1578
    prison in Dublin? This was really a point upon which he thought the House was entitled to some information. Did the right hon. Gentleman propose to confine the prisoners in their own counties, or in some central prison in Dublin? Was he going to put them into one prison, or into a number of prisons? It was a matter of considerable importance, and one upon which the Government ought to have decided before now. Were they going to bring the prisoners from all parts of Ireland up to Dublin and place them in one prison, or to set aside prisons in several parts of the country for their accommodation? His own view was that the prisoners who would be detained under the operation of this Bill were entitled to be near to their places of business, so that they might have an opportunity of communicating with the persons who would [have to manage their affairs during their absence. At any rate, they were entitled to have the chance of remaining as near as possible to their place of business. Otherwise, a large expense would be entailed upon the prisoners owing to the long journeys that would be necessary in order that there might be a communication between the prisoner and those who would have to manage his business. He hoped the Chief Secretary would give some indication to the House as to what his intention was in this matter. Did he intend to have one prison for all the prisoners, or to have several prisons in different parts of the country?
    MR. O'DONNELLdid not think it was desirable for the Home Rule Members to push this Amendment to a division. He understood that it had only been brought forward simply for the purpose of affording the Government an opportunity of doing what he considered they might very well do, and, indeed, what they had already declared it was their intention to do—namely, act towards the prisoners with the utmost humanity compatible with their safe custody. For instance, Her Majesty's Government had engaged to frame rules for treating the prisoners more humanely than untried prisoners were treated under ordinary circumstances. They had engaged to grant fair facilities for visiting the prisoners; but it was quite clear that a poor man arrested in his native place at a considerable distance from Dublin,

    1579
    and kept in custody at some central prison 60 or 100 miles away from his usual residence, would have very few facilities granted to him by the Government for being visited. Such facilities as were promised by the Government would be of no use to these unfortunate men, because their friends and relatives would be too poor to travel 100 miles or more once a week or once a month to see them. He did not suppose that the Government merely intended to keep the promise to the ear and break it to the hope. It was quite clear that if a man was to be kept in some central gaol 100 miles from his friends, there would be no power of carrying out the promise they had made. There was no question of political principle involved upon which the Government might go wrong. It was a mere question of ordinary humanity, and if the promise was to be kept which Her Majesty's Government had already given, the argument with regard to the possibility that the local prison would not be a place of safe custody would not hold, because every one knew the solidity with which the gaols were built in Ireland. In point of fact, the gaols and the poor-houses wore the most palatial monuments of British rule in that country.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the reason why he asked his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) not to press the Amendment was this. He thought the observation of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had great weight — that the prison nearest to the place of arrest might be unsuitable. It might be much too small; it might contain no provision for exercise; and it might be defective in many other important particulars. He had no doubt that in calling attention to the question his hon. Friend would have secured all the amelioration in the condition of the prisoners which he desired. If his hon. Friend would withdraw the Amendment, he (Mr. Sullivan) would then move, after the words "such person in Ireland as may from time to time be directed by the Lord Lieutenant," the insertion of the words
    "and previously certified by him, by notice in the Dublin Gazette, as specially fitted and appointed for the detention of prisoners under this Act."
    He thought that a provision of this nature at the end of the clause would
    1580
    answer every purpose. It would be altogether a mistake to put the prisoners who might be arrested under the Act in the village Bride well. He would, therefore, ask his hon. Friend to accede to the request of the Chief Secretary and withdraw the Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in taking care of the safety of the prisoners, but he would be glad to have some information as to whether it was the intention of the Government to confine persons arrested under the Act in one prison. For his part, he doubted that one prison would hold them all; but if it were the intention of Government to confine them in one or even two central gaols, it would be quite impossible for their friends living, say, in the North of Ireland, to come to Dublin for the purpose of seeing them. He therefore asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, whether the Government had made up its mind to confine persons to be arrested under this Act in one or two central gaols, or in prisons near the place where they might be arrested, taking into consideration, of course, the strength of the gaol?
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORwished to remind the Chief Secretary for Ireland that Dr. M'Donnell, whose Report he had quoted, had laid great stress in his remarks upon the condition of the Fenian prisoners, in the fact that many of them were imprisoned at such great distances from their friends as to render-it impossible for their friends to come to see them, and he added that the idea of seeing their friends for a quarter of an hour a day was, therefore, a perfect illusion. The right hon. Gentleman had promised to extend the existing rules so as to allow prisoners under this Act to see their friends for a much longer period than a quarter of an hour a day. But that rather increased than removed the difficulty complained of, for, although the hours were extended, it would still be impossible for the friends of arrested persons to visit them from long distances.
    MR. HEALYwas ready, with the permission of the House, to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, the Amendment he was about to propose had for its object to provide that the

    1581
    Lord Lieutenant should name certain prisons as being fitted for the reception of prisoners under this Act,
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 15, after the word "Lieu" tenant, "to insert the words" and previously certified by him, "by notice in the Dublin Gazette, as specially fitted and appointed for the detention of prisoners under this Act."—(Mr. A. M. Sullivan.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. FORSTERcould not understand what useful purpose the Amendment would serve. It would, if adopted, oblige the Government to certify a large number of prisons which would very likely have nobody in them, and thus create considerable inconvenience. He could not pledge himself as to what prisons persons arrested under the Act would be sent to, because he was as yet ignorant of the places where they would be arrested, and also of the number of persons who would be arrested. The feeling now expressed by hon. Members below the Gangway was rather in favour of local prisons, but the opinions expressed before were that there would be better accommodation in the central prisons. All he was able to say upon the subject was that the best would be done to prevent hardship and suffering to the prisoners consistently with their safe custody.
    MR. NEWDEGATEpointed out that the two last Amendments contravened the principle of the Bill, which was that the House should entrust to the Executive the arrest and safe-keeping, upon humane conditions, of certain persons.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had extended the principle of the Bill. It was true that the Bill provided for the safe-keeping of prisoners, but there was nothing in it providing for their safe-keeping upon humane conditions. He was sure that every hon. Member must wish that in carrying out the Act in Ireland prisoners should receive humane treatment; but it was a fact that Irish political prisoners had never received humane treatment in prison. For that reason, Irish Members were endeavouring to have it inserted in this Bill that they should be so treated. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that expressions in favour of central prisons
    1582
    had, during the course of the debates, come from those Benches. That was perfectly accurate. He (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) had ventured to suggest that he should put as many persons as possible into the Central Prison in Dublin, because the accommodation there was far superior than in the smaller towns. He still adhered to that opinion, and thought it would be far better that the majority of prisoners should be confined in Dublin than in local prisons, which were conducted on the most antiquated and inhuman principles, and which were under the supervision of a Visiting Committee of local landlordism. But an hon. Member had pointed out that if these persons were imprisoned in Dublin they would be deprived of the consolation of visits from their friends, and also of the power of carrying on their business which would be afforded them in a local prison. For that reason, he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) suggested that the right hon. Gentleman should give them the choice as to which prison they should be sent—that was to say, the choice between a local and a central prison. He himself might be placed in the disagreeable position of making such a choice, and, for his part, he should certainly prefer to be in Dublin than in the tumble-down structure belonging to his constituency, where he was sure the local landlords would wish to keep him as long as possible.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERthought it would be a perfectly new principle to give prisoners a choice of the prisons to which they should be sent; but in the very improbable event of his having anything to do with the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor), in connection with the Act, he could assure him that he would do his best to secure his comfort.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORwas much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman; but he would endeavour to prevent his having an opportunity of dealing with him.
    MR. HEALYunderstood, from the answer of the Chief Secretary, that the right hon. Gentleman was willing, in some degree, to entertain the local view of the case, and, therefore, suggested that his hon. Friend should withdraw his Amendment.
    MR. PARNELLasked if the right hon. Gentleman would extend to other

    1583
    persons the same consideration as he had promised to the hon. Member for Galway? If he was willing, as far as possible, to restrict the inconvenience of one person who might be detained under the operation of the Act, he could see no reason why he should not do so in all cases. This was a matter of considerable importance to all persons, many of whom might be detained in prison at a distance from the little trades which they carried on, and who, in consequence, would not be able to carry them on, nor communicate with the persons they had left in charge of them during their detention. He thought it was not too much to ask the Chief Secretary to say that he would, as far as possible, in choosing the prisons where such persons might be detained, see that no unnecessary inconvenience was inflicted upon them.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the Government would, of course, consider how to cause the least suffering and hardship consistent with safety.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. SPEAKER: The next Amendment is in the name of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor); but as it is an Amendment upon a subsequent Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, it would be well to put it after that Amendment.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 18, after the word "shall," to insert the words "for the purposes of this Act."—(Mr. W. E. Forster.)
    Amendment agreed to.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have another Amendment to propose, which I promised to bring forward when we were in Committee—namely, at the end of sub-section 1, to insert an Amendment to provide that the warrant declaring anyone reasonably suspected of any crime other than high treason, treason -felony, or treasonable practices, shall state the character of such crime, and to provide that a copy of the warrant shall be given to every person arrested. The Amendment is the result of our long discussion as to the warrant. I stated, the House will remember, that the Government were quite willing—in fact, that we should be glad—to make it per-
    1584
    feetly clear, and that it had always been our intention to make it clear to the person arrested, what was the character of his crime. I stated that a copy of the warrant should be given to him to show whether his crime was murder, incendiary fire, firing into a dwelling, or anything else.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 1, line 21, at end of sub-section (1), to add the words"(2.) Every warrant whereby any person is declared to be reasonably suspected of any crime other than high treason, treason felony, or treasonable practices, shall state the character of such crime. A copy of the warrant of arrest shall he given to each person arrested under this Act on the occasion of his arrest."— (Mr. William Edward Forster.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that, in obedience to the suggestion of Mr. Speaker, he was very glad not to press his Amendment, part of which was met by that of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary. The Amendments in their entirety, however, were very different. His was as follows:—
    Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "main prize," 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."
    The difference was, that the right hon. Gentleman confined the information of the warrant to the statement of the "character of such crime;" 'whereas he (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) wished to add, after the word "crime," the words "with particulars of time and place." He would put it seriously to the Chief Secretary that he should accept this Amendment; and if the right hon. Gentleman would give him his attention for a moment, he would prove to him that his (Mr. T. P. O'Connor's) Amendment would be an improvement of the warrant. The great object of the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment as to the "character" of the crime, was to really let the prisoner know something about what he was charged with. He supposed the reason the right hon. Gentleman would like to give the prisoner some information as to the character of his crime was to enable him in the tri-monthly revision, which the right hon. Gentleman's next Amendment provided for, to clear

    1585
    himself of the charge specified in the warrant. He took that to he what was running in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman when he consented to state the character of the crime in the warrant. Then the warrant, as the right hon. Gentleman by his Amendment would have it, would either state too much or too little. It stated too much in giving the "character" of the crime, if the object of the right hon. Gentleman were to give no clue whatever with regard to the source from which he got his information against the prisoner, because if the character of the crime with which a man were charged were made known to him, he would have a clue to the person who must have given information to the Government under which he could be suspected. Accordingly, the warrant stated too much; but it stated too little, if the right hon. Gentleman was willing to face that danger; because what was the use of telling a man that he was charged with committing a murder, an incendiary fire, or with firing into a dwelling, or anything like that, if they did not tell him also the time and place of the crime? If they told him the character of the crime, but did not tell him the time and place, they did not give him an opportunity of clearing himself of the crime. For instance, when a man was charged with an incendiary fire, he might say, "Why, to my knowledge there was only one incendiary fire during this period, and the person who committed it was So-and-so, and he has left the country since, because he was afraid of the operation of this Act;" but the Government might say, "There were two or three incendiary fires committed, and if you were not guilty of No. 1, you were guilty of No. 2; and if you wore not guilty of No. 2, why the probability is you were guilty of No. 3."But if they gave a man the particulars of time and place, he might be able to obtain the particulars of every incendiary fire, and, at the tri-monthly revision, satisfy the right hon. Gentleman that he was not guilty. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would see his way to accepting the Amendment, which was a very unpretending one, and he had submitted it, he hoped, in a very humble manner. He would give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity of getting rid of the non possumus argument he had adopted.
    Amendment proposed to said proposed Amendment,
    In line 3, after the word "crime," to insert the words "with particulars of time and place."—(Mr. T. P. O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I really cannot accede to this Amendment, as the hon. Member calls it, the reasonableness of which he said he thought he should be able to convince me of in a few moments. He and other hon. Gentlemen have debated the question over and over again, and I could have stated his arguments before he uttered them; I have heard them so often. The House has fully considered the matter, and has come to a conclusion upon it by an overwhelming majority. No new facts have come up, and I should have to apologize to the House if I detained it any longer on such a subject.
    MR. CALLANsaid, it was true the Committee had decided this point by a large majority, for all the majorities were large. Even the most reasonable propositions which had been made by the Irish Members had been rejected by largo majorities; and if the "overwhelming majority" was an argument at all, it was an argument in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newcastle that when a Bill was declared urgent they should go to a division on it at once, and that no Amendment should be tolerated. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary did not condescend to give to the House one single valid reason why, on Report, he should not accede to the proposed addition to the Bill. Backed by a large majority, he had refused to alter the Bill one iota, or one tittle, up to a certain stage; but then, convinced by arguments, either in the House, or outside of it—convinced, perhaps, by a growing feeling in the country that his conduct was too dictatorial to be endured by Liberals, he had made Amendments himself. ["Question!"] That was the Question—that the Chief Secretary should condescend to assign some reason, however trifling, for the rejection of the proposed Amendments. The right hon. Gentleman's addition was to the effect that the warrant should state the character of any crime other than treason; but that was by no means satisfactory,

    1587
    as it would not give the prisoner the information he required. He would suggest to his hon. Friend (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) to withdraw the words "with particulars of," and leave merely "time and place." He (Mr. Callan) had been to Ireland twice this year. He should go to Ireland again—["Hear, hear!"—and state what he had stated in this House. He heard a "Hear, hear!" from the right hon. Gentleman, and, in reply to it, he had to say he was very glad that the right hon. Gentleman had commenced the operation of the Act with his own advent to Ireland—and his own advent to that country was contemporaneous with the outbreak of crime there. ["Question!"] One and the other occurred at the same time. ["Question!"] This was the Question. He was in Ireland in October—["Question!"]—he begged that he might not be interrupted in making his arguments by cries which showed a contempt for law and order in that House—
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address himself to the Chair, and to the Question before the House.
    MR. CALLANsaid, the question he wished to address himself to was as to the necessity of specifying "time and place" in the Act. He was personally interested in the question, for he was in Ireland in October and December, and should be there again towards the end of this week. He might, when he got there, be arrested for language he used in October or December; and he desired, if he were so arrested, that the warrant should state, not only the "character," but the "time and place" of his offence. It was essential that he should know the time and place, so that if he were charged with having used language calculated to bring about certain results, he could appeal to the persons amongst whom he mixed at the time, and to the words he used, to show that he was not inciting to the disturbance of law and order. In December last he delivered a speech in the presence of a policeman-reporter and a reporter of The Freeman's Journal. The Freeman's Journal published an accurate report, so far as it went; but it was not a third, or a fourth, of what he had said. If he were told he was arrested for what he had said to his constituents at a public meeting in December, he wished to see in the warrant the day on which he had used the language, so that he
    1588
    could appeal to the independent reporter, to show that he did not use the words attributed to him. Nothing could be more disregardful of law and order on the part of the right hon. Gentleman than to say that he would not condescend to declare when and where a person had offended, when he had ordered that person's arrest. Under the misguidance of the right hon. Gentleman, the House seemed dead to all justice fairness and argument.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that in Committee his hon. Friends had urged on the right hon. Gentleman that he should, at least, furnish a man who was taken up on suspicion with a bill of particulars of the crime of which he was suspected; and he was merely expressing the feeling of those hon. Members who were then present, when he said that the Chief Secretary promised to comply with their request. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had understood the right hon. Gentleman to that effect; and he further understood that the right hon. Gentleman now purported to give effect to whatever arrangements he entered into in Committee, which had put an end to the discussion for the time. Now, lot them examine what the Chief Secretary proposed to do. He proposed that the warrant of every person arrested should state the "character" of his crime. What could be more illusory than to give a man, when he asked for the particulars of the crime of the commission of which he was suspected, a statement as to the "character" of the crime? What was the meaning of the word "character?" He ventured to say that it had no legally determined meaning that was applicable in this case. "Character" meant something by which a thing could be characteriezd, however loosely or widely. Take the letters of the alphabet — each was different, yet each "letter" was a character. A man who was taken up on suspicion—who was deprived of his liberty under the warrant of the Lord Lieutenant—asked"for what is it that I am to be imprisoned under this special Act?" and he was informed "for violence." "Was not that nonsense? He had no sympathy with the crime on suspicion of which a man might be arrested, but he had great sympathy for the men who would certainly be arrested without real cause. He did not mean to say that there would not be some

    1589
    cause for suspicion in most cases; but, no doubt, many who were arrested would not be criminal. He knew something about the operation of these Acts in former years. A great number of people had been taken up without there being the slightest real ground for suspicion against them, and he know cases in which suspicion had been fostered by the very men who were most guilty. The real criminal, who went about hacking cattle, burning houses, and doing mischief all round, was always very anxious to escape justice. He was not only a criminal during the present exceptional period, but at all times; he was more active when crime was stirring and when public opinion was excited on some particular point. What he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) wished to say was that this criminal was the man who, in numerous cases, would go to the police and point to somebody else loss criminal than himself, though not above suspicion, as the guilty party. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members must not say "No, no!" to him, because he was speaking about something he perfectly understood. He knew more about Ireland than did those who cried "No, no!" What he asked was that the Lord Lieutenant would not issue his warrant until there was placed in his possession—not by the informers, for they were persons of another class, but by the people, his informants, who gave the information—the particulars of the offence suspected to have been committed by the man whose liberty he was going to take away, and so that the the offence committed or suspected should not be stated in general terms. "Violence" would be quite sufficient to answer the conditions prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. So far as he was concerned, he did not wish any division to take place on this matter. He had no object to serve in stopping late at night in this way, but he did not want to let a point like this pass without bringing to bear on it all the animadversion he considered necessary. He wished to see the particulars of the crime a man was suspected of having committed given in the warrant, so that the prisoner could clear himself if it were possible.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he would not interpose at that late hour to say a
    1590
    few words, only that he considered this a very important Amendment. A man was arrested on suspicion of having committed a crime. If there had only been a solitary offence of that kind committed in the district for a considerable period, then he might know, or might easily guess, the crime of which he was suspected and put into prison. But let them suppose a case that the Bill was alleged to be intended to meet, a case of a crime prevalent in a certain district. Suppose 10 or 20 crimes of a certain class had been committed in a limited district, then the man, in order to prove his innocence, would have to prove himself innocent of every one of them. That was surely requiring too much, and surely the way ought to be made easy for a man to prove himself innocent of an offence. It was only fair and reasonable that a guiltless man should have an opportunity of establishing his innocence. Though he put the matter briefly, still he thought there was great force in the argument; and if an innocent man was to have a chance at all, notwithstanding that the Chief Secretary had spoken on the subject before and the House had voted upon it, it was never too late to mend, and while the Bill was still before the House he could not consider that the case had been met that it was too late to mend it. The Chief Secretary had stated that arguments had been used so often that he was quite familiar with them, but they seemed to have produced no impression upon him; and as to the House having voted upon the Question, he believed the House would have voted equally readily for whatever the Government might have asked. What would they not have voted for? Late as it was, he urged the House to consider whether there was not force or reason in the argument that the innocent would get no chance so long as the nature of the offence, and the time and the place of the offence, were not specified in the warrant. If the Committee would accept the Amendment, a guilty man would not be able to acquit himself, while an innocent man would have a chance of doing so; but if they persisted in associating him with all the crimes of a district he would have no chance and must suffer, innocent as he might be. MAJOR NOLAN thought the Government were running a certain risk of

    1591
    imprisoning a number of men in order] to guard against a contingency that would very rarely occur. The only reason which the Chief Secretary had advanced against the Amendment was that witnesses might be intimidated in favour of an accused person. He admitted that in some cases that might be possible; but it was a very remote possibility in the general run of cases. By stating the time and place, they would only be giving a distant clue to the persons who had given information; witnesses would not necessarily be known, and only in rare cases could a connection be established between the man who gave the information and the statement of the time and place. Ho, therefore, thought the objection to acceding to the Amendment, or the objection to putting the time and place on the warrant, was really a very slight one. He did not say there was no ground for it; but, on the whole, it was very slight. He pointed out that it was not proposed by the Act to suspend the ordinary action of the law in Ireland, and, therefore, there would be witnesses coming forward in open Court during the operation of the Act. Why, therefore, in working one form of the law, under which a man would actually swear in open Court, should they, at the same time, take such extreme precautions for preventing any clue to informers? He thought the Government were jumping from one extreme to the other. They would have witnesses coming forward under the ordinary law, and yet they were permitting what would be a great injustice in an ordinary trial in order to prevent a clue to informers. He thought there were already too many precautions in favour of witnesses. It might easily happen that a man in course of conversation, or in a speech, said some things which could be misrepresented by the words or the sentences being misinterpreted or misplaced. If that man were arrested, he would never know with what particular act he was charged or for what particular speech he was arrested; but if the time and the place were stated, and the matter was brought before the Chief Secretary, it might turn out that there were circumstances which would lead the Chief Secretary to take a different view of the case. The Chief Secretary seemed to think that he would arrest no innocent man; but it was an
    1592
    acknowledged fact in Law Courts that a certain number of innocent men were imprisoned, and he might mention a well-known case, in which a man was arrested and convicted, and was only released through the accident of a notorious prisoner confessing two or three years afterwards that he had committed the offence. It was inevitable that a certain number of innocent persons, even under the ordinary law, would be punished; and he did not believe that, no matter what safeguards there were, while there was carelessness on the part of juries, and one Judge, perhaps, too much disposed to acquit, or another, perhaps, too much disposed to commit, that this could be avoided. When the Chief Secretary had to try men without safeguards, how many more innocent men would be likely to be convicted? If the Chief Secretary were sitting in open Court, and had all the opportunities of cross-examination and testing the character of witnesses, he still might occasionally convict an honest man; but the Chief Secretary was now proposing to deal with crime under every possible disadvantage, and how would he convince Irishmen that no innocent man would be imprisoned? At all events, he might give prisoners the one advantage of knowing the time and place, in order to enable these men, if they could, to prove an alibi, or to show that their accusers were not of a character to be relied upon, or that, even, if he was not entirely innocent, that there were still circumstances which the Chief Secretary would be glad to take into consideration. He thought the Government might grant that concession, and that there might be exceptional cases in which the time and place could not be given. He might give every possible opportunity to a prisoner of proving his innocence.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, this was the most important Amendment that had been proposed, in the sense that it involved the question whether an admittedly innocent person was to be punished. It was an Amendment the refusal of which would hereafter bring the most severe censure on the Government. Although the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act might be necessary, the Amendment did not touch in any way the grasping and the holding of a prisoner if he should be guilty. The Government had assented to an Amendment that the Lord Lieute-

    1593
    nant should, every three months, review the case of every man arrested. What would the Lord Lieutenant review? What was the object of review? The object of review was to test whether or not a mistake had been committed in a particular ease. How would the Lord Lieutenant give a man a chance of proving that he had been arrested under a mistake unless he afforded the unfortunate prisoner some clue to the specific thing which constituted his crime? The romance of criminal trials in this country afforded abundance of cases in which circumstantial evidence had confused the identity of one man with another, and it led to men being executed on the scaffold who were perfectly innocent; and yet in those cases the accused men knew the particular time and place, and had the advantage of a Judge and a jury. Nevertheless, mishaps had occurred; but how would that be if a man accused of murder were allowed no other particulars than the simple charge, "You committed a murder;" and when he asked for the time and place, he was told that he should not know? Would it not be a farce, even though he would still have the protection of his counsel to cross-examine witnesses, and a jury to hear the case? Would not that man be denied justice in a public Court who was refused information as to time and place? He would assume that the case in which this was most likely to occur was in regard to acts of intimidation committed in a county in Ireland. A man who was at home and in bed might be arrested under the Act. What was he arrested for? Because someone had been intimidated in the county. He would not be told what was the act—he would not be arrested on any charge of intimidation, but on suspicion of intimidation; but what the intimidation consisted of he would not be told; he would not be told who was intimidated, or where. It might turn out that the act of intimidation was that in some shop in the village of, say, Ballyhaun is, he had said—"I agree with John Bright that the landlords would be exterminated if Ireland were removed a few miles Westward." The village policeman might declare that the man had said that the landlords would be exterminated if Ireland had a chance. He would not be able to carry in his mind that the man was simply quoting someone else, and the man him-
    1594
    self would not have a chance of saying to the Lord Lieutenant that what he had said was purely a quotation from one of the inflammatory speeches of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. If he had a chance, he might bring the charge home to the real criminal; but he would get no chance. The Chief Secretary, in regard to this Bill, affected to be a Pope —infallible—when he sat in the chair in Dublin Castle. Infallible—ho could do no wrong. He credited the Chief Secretary with the best intentions; but he would ask the right hon. Gentleman to induce any of his Colleagues to state where, within the four corners of the Bill, was a prisoner, an innocent man, offered a single chance of satisfying the Lord Lieutenant, at the three-monthly examinations, that an error had been committed. It must be tedious to hon. Gentlemen to come clown there and sit silent. Nothing in the world was more trying to hon. Gentlemen than to come there and not speak, but simply to be docile voters; and he invited any of them to get up and defend the Government whom they followed in such docility, and point out where, in the Bill, there was an offer, or a chance, given to an innocent man to satisfy the Lord Lieutenant that the charge was unfounded. Was it in the Bill? What opportunity was given? He would never be heard; there would be no trial; he would not be brought to the Council Table at Dublin Castle. And he urged the Chief Secretary, not that he should give a man a chance of escaping if he was guilty, but that he should enable it to be pointed out irrefra gibly, and in a way that should satisfy his own judgment, that he had been misled, and that the original information upon which he acted was wrong. In refusing this Amendment, Her Majesty's Government showed that they were bent upon retaining the cruelty of the Bill. They wore planting a sting in the minds of the Irish people much worse than the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; and long after the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act was forgotten it would be remembered with indignation and bitterness, that this small measure of justice to an innocent man was refused by a Government that claimed to be the advocates of liberty, freedom, and justice. He confessed himself to be accountable, in a

    1595
    small way, for the fact that right hon. Gentlemen opposite were sitting upon the Treasury Bench; but no act of his would fill him with more poignant shame, indignation, and sorrow, than that he should have had any act or part in placing them there in view of their refusal of this Amendment. While he should concede to a Ministry acting under a sense of their responsibility to the Crown the duty of holding fast bound men whom they suspected of crime, he could view with no feeling but that of shame the refusal of Her Majesty's Government to give to an innocent man the chance of proving to them—not to a Judge, and not to a jury —but to them, and even allowing them to be the sole judges in their own case that he was really innocent. Would they not allow an innocent man, who might be arrested by mistake, some slender chance of proving to the Lord Lieutenant that by erroneous information he had been led into a mistake? It was most regrettable that a great Party like that of the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite should refuse this small measure of simple justice. ["Oh!"] It was a great trial to him to speak closely, under the New Rules, to the subject before the Chair. It required a man to keep himself cool; but it required a very slight effort of intellect to say "Oh!" or to make any other interruption. If this Amendment would induce the Government to part with any of its hold upon a prisoner, he would not so strongly support it; but it was because he believed it was an entirely unnecessary act of cruelty to refuse the Amendment, and because he should regard its rejection with shame, sorrow, and indignation, that he so strongly urged upon Her Majesty's Government the propriety of acceding to it.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he had endeavoured to arrive at an exact knowledge of the principles which governed Her Majesty's Advisors in refusing the Amendment which was now proposed; and he would ask the House with sincerity, whether they really accepted the role of justice and morality which was recommended to their acceptance by Her Majesty's Government? The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary refused to state in the warrant more than the character of the offence for which a man arrested under the Act was sus-
    1596
    pected. He refused to give the slightest clue by which the truth or falsehood of the suspicion could be proved. He would ask the House to look at the question from three points of view. In the first place, from a point of view which involved the necessities of the suspected man. The innocent man was to have no clue afforded to him of time or place by which he could disprove the suspicion that weighed upon him, that took him away from his family and friends, from life and its occupations, and shut him up in a prison cell for 18 months. This refusal to an innocent man could only be based upon this principle in the mind of the Chief Secretary, "Better that a hundred innocent men should suffer than that one possibly guilty man should escape." Looking next at the question from the point of view of the accuser. A man was falsely accused, and the information was so cunningly planned that even a man of the remarkable astuteness of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was led into error, and a warrant was signed in Dublin Castle which placed a falsely-accused man in gaol. Such conduct, on the part of the Chief Secretary, could only be justified on the principle, "Better have a hundred falsely accused men than that a single perjured informer should be discouraged in his official trade." Looking at the refusal of the Chief Secretary from the third and concluding point of view, the Chief Secretary had, in words, promised the House to place before it the means of controlling this highly irresponsible responsibility. Yet, the right hon. Gentleman deliberately declined to give the House any clue to enable them to ascertain whether he had exercised his responsibility in accordance with the facts of particular cases. He could only understand the refusal of the Chief Secretary to present no knowledge to that House of Parliament on the grounds upon which he acted, upon the principle, "Bettor that all notions of law and justice should be overridden and degraded in Ireland than that the in competency of the Chief Secretary should be exposed on the floor of this House."
    MR. O'KELLYmoved the adjournment of the debate. He hoped that, at that hour (half-past 1), it was not an unreasonable proposal, and he trusted that the Government would accede to it.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. O'Kelly.)
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he certainly could not consent to the adjournment of the debate, and he hoped the House would not accede to the proposition. They were now very nearly at the end of the first sub-section, and after they had disposed of it it would be time enough to adjourn the further consideration of these Amendments.
    MR. HEALYsaid, that whether the Government agreed to the proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Eos-common (Mr. O'Kelly) or not, he wished to disabuse the mind, of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government of any idea that they had now reached the end of the first sub-section. He, himself, had an Amendment of very considerable importance to propose, and it would probably involve a discussion of some hours. He, therefore, asked the right hon. Gentleman not to go into the Lobby with the idea that the sub-section was likely to be summarily disposed of.
    Question put.
    The House divided: —Ayes 34; Noes 165: Majority 131.—(Div. List, No. 77.)
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
    The House divided: —Ayes 32; Noes 164: Majority 132.—(Div. List, No. 78.)
    Original Question again proposed.
    MR. HEALYrose to move an Amendment.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, I have to point out to the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) that the Amendment placed in my hand is inadmissible, inasmuch as it is not consistent with the provisions of the Bill dealing with the same subject, which have been already passed.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, if the Chief Secretary would not grant even a general description of the treasonable Practices alleged, the warrant would simply be a sort of common form upon which informers would fall back when they had no case.
    MR. T. C. THOMPSONpointed out that there was a little obscurity about the Amendment. The words were "that a warrant should be given to a prisoner on the occasion of his arrest;" but there was no mention that the warrant was
    1598
    to be left with the prisoner. He had heard it stated that all papers were taken away from a prisoner during the time of arrest; and, if that were to happen in the present case, the warrant would be of very little use.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, the intention was that the warrant should be left with the prisoner.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Words inserted.
    Further Proceeding on Consideration, as amended, deferred till To-morrow.

  FREE LIBRARIES BILL.— [BILL 43.]
  (Sir John Lubbock, Lord George Hamilton, Sir Charles Reed.)
  FREE LIBRARIES BILL.— [BILL 43.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the object of the Bill was to consolidate and digest the present law relating to Free Libraries. It was proposed to raise the number of requisitionists necessary to obtain a preliminary meeting from 10 to 50, because it seemed unreasonable that so small a number of ratepayers as 10 should be permitted to raise so large a question. If those who wished to adopt the Act could not secure a fair amount of support, they certainly could not carry their Resolution. Secondly, it was proposed that after a Library had been opened five years it should be possible to disestablish it. If it were unsuccessful it had better be closed. At present, those who opposed the opening of Free Libraries doubtless argued with some force when they said that such a Library, even if useless, when once opened could never be closed again. It was proposed, moreover, that boroughs should be allowed to combine for the purpose of having a Free Library, even if they did not actually touch each other. Beyond that, it was proposed that the voting in such cases should be by means of voting papers, which would be much less troublesome to everyone, and give more satisfactorily the real feelings of the ratepayers. In the case of Museums, it was proposed to legalize lectures, which would certainly render them much more useful and instructive. It was not proposed to raise the present limit of a penny. The

    1599
    question of rating was left exactly in its present position. The Bill also removed some doubts which had arisen as to procedure. Most persons would agree that Free Libraries were a great boon to the poor. If anyone doubted the demand for cheap literature — a demand which the spread of schools would certainly increase—let him go into the poorest quarters of any great town, and he would find ample proofs. Unfortunately, the literature supplied was far from being of a satisfactory character. Thus, Free Libraries contrived "a double debt to pay"—they provided a supply of useful and ennobling literature, and saved the young and the poor from what was degrading and injurious. He would give an illustration of the enormous number of volumes distributed by these lending Libraries. According to the Return for 1876, the total issue of books for the year was—in Sheffield, 316,000; Birmingham, 505,000; Leeds, 377,000;Manchester,750,000; Liverpool, 800,000—the total number of books for England and Wales being in that year no less than 5,000,000. But since then even these large numbers had considerably increased, and last year the volumes issued in Liverpool alone amounted to no less than 1,300,000. He hoped the House would admit the advantage that would be derived from consolidating the law, and thought he need not enlarge on the desirability of facilitating the establishment of Free Libraries in the many important towns which, it was to be regretted, had not yet adopted the Acts. He had a large number of Petitions in favour of the Bill, signed by members of Free Library Associations throughout the country, and the managers of Libraries. In conclusion, thanking the House for having permitted him to make these few observations, he would merely repeat that the measure did not touch the question of rating, and only touched points upon which he did not think there would be much difference of opinion amongst hon. Members on either side of the House. If the Bill had proposed any alteration in the law on which there was likely to be a substantial difference of opinion, he should not have moved the second reading at that late hour; but he trusted that, seeing the great advantage there always was in a Consolidating Act, hon. Members would allow the measure to be read a second
    1600
    time. If it was thought desirable to have a Committee to consider how far these Libraries were as he described them, he should be happy to meet hon. Members opposite on the point; but, considering how little time they had had this Session, he trusted the House would consent to the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed. "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTwas exceedingly sorry that his hon. Friend had thought it necessary to ask the House to read this Bill a second time that morning. The hon. Baronet had made use of the word "unreasonable," and he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) would adopt it, and characterize it as most unreasonable to ask them to deal with such an important Bill as this at such an hour —2 o'clock in the morning. He would move the adjournment of the debate.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    MR. HEALYhoped that the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. He could say for himself and his hon. Friends that they were quite in favour of the measure; but they observed, on reading the second part of it, "This Act shall not extend to Scotland or Ireland." He would not refer to that matter more than to say that when Bills of the excellent character of the present one were introduced, they should be ex-tended to Ireland.
    MR. MUNDELLAsaid, there were some clauses in the Bill to which he had special objection, especially those that referred to the appointment of an Inspector by the Education Department. He thought the local authorities could manage these things very well, and he should certainly object to any increase of the inspecting power of the Education Department. At the same time, so far as this was a consolidating measure, it was a very good one, and it was very desirable that the Acts should be consolidated. There was nothing in the Bill to take increased power of rating, and whatever the details were, they might be very well considered by a Select Committee. It was not as though the House were asked to consider a largo and comprehensive new

    1601
    measure, the hon. Baronet only wishing to improve the initiatory step for the establishment of Free Libraries. Everyone knew how they were established now, and how difficult it was in large constituencies to get meetings to consider the matter fairly. Meetings were called, and 500 or 600 people were got together to consider whether or not a Free library should be established; the rooms were packed, and very often packed by those persons who were most bitterly opposed to Free Libraries, so that the subject was not at all fairly considered. This, however, was not a time for discussion. They could not possibly go into the question at this hour; therefore, as the hon. Baronet might never have an opportunity of bringing on the measure at a more reasonable hour, he would appeal to hon. Members opposite to allow it to be read a second time and referred to a Select Committee. So far as he (Mr. Mundella) was concerned, he certainly should oppose anything like increased cost to the State, central control, inspection, or any connection with the Libraries at all in the matter of supervision on the part of the Department. The local authorities, he thought, did the work very well. The Corporations had the power to appoint the best men in the town, and he did not believe any branch of our local business was much better managed than our Free Libraries. Under the circumstances, he would appeal to the hon. Member not to press the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
    SIR B. ASSHETON CROSSwas, and always had been, an advocate of Free Libraries; but he protested against being asked to go into the consideration of a Bill of this kind at this hour in the morning. They had come there for a special purpose, at the special call of the Government, to consider an urgent matter; and he, in common with his hon. Friends, had been sitting there night after night to assist the Government, and with no other object, and on the implied and tacit understanding that no other Business would be taken. The right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Mundella) had shown that one part of the Bill was to be opposed by the Government, and there were other parts to be opposed by hon. Members sitting behind him (Sir E. Assheton Cross); therefore, he considered it unreasonable to go on with the measure at
    1602
    this hour. He deprecated the practice that had grown up of late years of allowing a Bill to be read a second time on the understanding that no principle was affected. He objected to such a violation of the Orders of the House, and appealed to the hon. Baronet not to press on the second reading to-night.
    MR. A. M. SULLIVANsaid, he heard with the greatest astonishment the obstruction, based on the ground that this was no hour to discuss the Bill; and he was the more astonished that this argument came from Englishmen, who had declared 4 o'clock in the morning to be an excellent hour to discuss a much more important Irish measure. He and hon. Friends around him had remained in the House to support this Bill, notwithstanding that for the past six weeks on them had fallen the brunt of the work. They had vindicated their conduct by remaining in the House to support a Bill designed for the good of the English people; and they were ready to continue sitting there to help forward that measure designed for the benefit and advantage of the English people, no matter at what personal inconvenience. What had he heard from the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Assheton Cross), an ex-Minister of the Crown? Why, that that was no hour to go into such a Bill? He (Mr. Sullivan) would put his argument in favour of the second reading on the ground that it did not come well from English Members to object to the stage at 2 o'clock in the morning, when they had said at 4 or 5 o'clock on other mornings, in reference to another measure—"Oh, this is a convenient hour; an excellent hour to continue the discussion." He hoped the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) would receive the support of the House, and that hon. Members would be consistent and declare, at least, 2 o'clock "an excellent hour" for the transaction of Public Business. He was glad that he saw hon. Members put to the blush—that he saw exposed the hypocrisy who had said that 5 o'clock in the morning was an excellent hour for suspending the Constitution of Ireland, and yet objected to giving Free Libraries to the people of England at 10 minutes past 2.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERwould remind the hon. and learned Member who had just sat down that the Irish measure to which he had referred had been discussed

    1603
    at all hours of the day from 4 o'clock in the afternoon, before it was proposed to continue the discussion at 5 o'clock in the morning. The present was a different question, inasmuch as the measure came on for second reading for the first time at 2 o'clock in the morning. Though he was in favour of the Bill, and should vote for its second reading, he would put it to the House whether such an important matter could be properly discussed at such an hour in the morning.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORcould not, on the present occasion, agree with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Sullivan), seeing that the hon. Member had supported the Motion for the adjournment of another debate on the ground that they had to come down to the House again at 12 o'clock to-day. If there was any force in that argument before, there was a great deal more force in it now. The Bill contained provisions which were very excellent in their character, but which were very important, and deserving of full and careful consideration. There were provisions in it so useful that he should like to see the measure extended to Ireland; and though he was disposed to support the Motion for adjournment, he should be very willing to agree to the second reading, if he could obtain from the hon. Baronet in charge of the Bill an assurance that he was willing to extend it to Ireland.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCKsaid, he did not know what view hon. Friends around him would take of the matter; but, after the appeal made by hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, he thought it would be better not to press the Bill that evening. He was very anxious to carry hon. Members with him; and as he gave way now, in deference to their views, he trusted that those hon. Gentlemen would kindly assist him in bringing the measure forward on some future occasion.
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 36.]
  (Mr. Ashton Dilke, Mr. Barran, Mr. Burt.)
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES) BILL.— [BILL 36.]

    SECOND READING.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Order for the Second Reading be read and discharged."—(Mr. Ashton Dilke.)
    MR. CALLAN: I object to that.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot object to this Motion being put, by reason of the hour. The hon. Member asks leave to withdraw a Bill and bring in another; and the new Bill, when brought up, will be in the same position that the other Bill occupied before.
    MR. CALLAN: If I remember right—
    MR. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That the Order be discharged."
    Motion agreed to.
    Order discharged.
    Bill withdrawn.
    Leave given to present another Bill, instead thereof.

    PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (EXPENSES AND SECOND ELECTION) BILL.
    Bill to amend the Law relating to Parliamentary Elections, by providing for the payment of necessary expenses out of the rates, and for a second election in certain cases, presented accordingly, and read the first time. [Bill 93.]

    RAILWAYS.
    Ordered, That it be an Instruction to the Select Committee on Railways, That they do inquire into the passenger fares charged by Railway Companies, and report thereon. — (Mr. Monk.)
    House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUULIC BILL—Second Reading— Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Clonakilty, &c.) * (31).

ARMY ORGANIZATION—LORD AIREY'S COMMITTEE.—QUESTION.
LORD STRATHNAIRNasked, Whether, as the Committee on Army Organization, over which Lord Airey presided, was a purely Special and not a Departmental one, and composed exclusively of military officers of high standing and great experience,
"In order that by their advice steps might be taken to remedy the practical defects which are found to have occurred in Lord Card-well's schemes,
Her Majesty's Government were not of opinion that the Reports of this Committee should be presented to Parliament before the Army Estimates were presented or any new military reforms were suggested?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that at a late hour that afternoon he received Notice
1478
of the noble and gallant Lord's Question, and though he was not in the Department of the Government to which the inquiry ought properly to be addressed, he thought he could give a proper answer to it. As had been before explained, the Report was one of a Committee appointed to consider a particular question with the view of affording information on it to the Secretary of State for War. The Committee had made a very valuable Report, which was not yet printed in its entirety; but it would be laid before Parliament, so that it should be in the hands of the Members of both Houses on the morning after his right hon. Friend made his Statement in introducing the Army Estimates.

SUNDAY—OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS AND GALLERIES.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,in rising to propose the following Resolution, of which he had given Notice on the subject:—
  "That inasmuch as all opposition to the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the National Museums and Galleries in the suburban districts of London and in Dublin has entirely ceased owing to the good results which have followed such opening, this House is of opinion that the time has now arrived for extending this action to all institutions of a like character, it having been most conclusively shown that large numbers of the people rejoice at every opportunity that is afforded them of spending Sunday intelligently, and with due regard for its preservation as a day of rest and cessation from ordinary work and amusement,"
  said, before addressing himself to its exact terms, he should like to say a few words about the general questions of the advisability of opening certain public institutions and places of innocent recreation on Sundays. It was a subject concerning which many erroneous opinions were entertained. He should not occupy the attention of the House at any great length. The matter was very fully gone into and explained in an admirable speech by his noble Friend (Lord Thurlow), in a debate which had taken place two years ago, and the arguments he used were, doubtless, still fresh in the memories of their Lordships. There appeared to be a fallacious idea prevalent that it was contrary to religion and detrimental to the proper observance of Sunday that the pub-

  1479
  lie should be allowed an opportunity of availing themselves on that day of certain forms of recreation, which not only were harmless in themselves, but which might be legitimately enjoyed on Sundays by all those who were rich enough to procure them in their own homes, thereby constituting, as it seemed to him, a distinct difference in the moral code as applicable to the rich and the poor man. This view of the case was very distinctly put forward not long ago by the noble and learned Earl the late Lord Chancellor (Earl Cairns). The noble and learned Earl was stated, in The Glasgow Herald and The Scotsman of December 1, 1880, to have said, in a letter to the Glasgow Working Men's Sabbath Protection Association, that the Sunday Society, one of the associations whose object it was to procure for the public the boon he was about to crave at their Lordship's hands, was not
  "Directing its efforts to a consideration of the most fitting and beneficial mode of spending Sunday;"
  but to
  "An attack on that body of Scriptural and revealed truth which is our authority and guarantee not merely for our days of rest here, but for those priceless hopes and promises of which our Sunday is but the type and emblem."
  Now, he was not there to defend the action of any society; but being connected with the association alluded to, he might be permitted to take exception to that statement of the noble and learned Earl. He would have nothing to do with any organization such as the noble and learned Earl described the Sunday Society to be. The ends and objects of the society were entirely, though, doubtless, unintentionally, misrepresented by the noble and learned Earl. That some supporters of the movement for opening certain public buildings on Sundays might entertain very different views on religious subjects from those held by the noble and learned Earl might be very true. That did not affect the propriety of the movement. As for himself, he (the Earl of Dun-raven) wished it to be distinctly understood—and he believed he should be reflecting the opinion of those among their Lordships who would support the lie-solution before the House — that his object, and his only object, was that Sunday should be observed in a more fitting and beneficial manner than it
  1480
  was at present, and in a manner more conformable not only to what the noble and learned Earl described as "the teaching of Scriptural and revealed truth," but also to the precepts and opinions of the best men in the Church in every age. He was not going to enter upon a theological discussion. He had no intention of investigating the two distinct reasons assigned for the institution of the Jewish Sabbath, or of founding any arguments on the resemblance or difference between that institution and the Christian Sunday, or of showing the impossibility of carrying out some of the injunctions of the Jewish law of Sunday observance. He felt a deep and, he thought their Lordships would allow a pardonable, reluctance to intrude a theological discussion on the notice of the House. He preferred to deal with the more practical and political aspect of the question. He submitted that if the Sabbath was made for man, and, if as was certainly the case, the circumstances and requirements of human life were constantly changing, it might become necessary, from time to time, to modify and somewhat alter the details of Sabbath observance, in order that it might continue to be useful for man. He further submitted that, in making the desired alteration, they were not embarking on a new course, but were merely reverting to a better state of things that formerly existed. He did not wish to argue the case. He would rather leave it to their Lordships' consciences to decide whether the principle he advocated was not in accordance with the spirit of Christianity, whether it was not strictly in accordance with all that they knew of the original doctrines and teachings of that religion, and whether it did not agree with the examples and writings of all the most eminent men in the Early, the Mediæval, and in the Reformed Church down to the time of the great Puritan movement in this country. There, he granted, they came into collision. He admitted that the principle be spoke for was opposed to the opinions of many eminent Puritan divines, as expressed more than 200 years ago in the "Westminster Confessions." Here, also, he should abstain from discussion of a controversial nature. He took his stand on the ground that the Puritan ideal had proved visionary and unattainable, and their method of Sunday ob-

  1481
  servance had been tried and failed, and that failure had resulted in very evil consequences to the country. The idea of those very earnest and religious divines was that hard-worked men, tired, dispirited, disappointed men, could attain all the rest they required for mind or body by absolute inaction or religious exercises. They deemed it possible to bind the very thoughts of men. Their theory was summed up in the sentence that—
  "The Sabbath is kept holy when men not only observe a holy rest from their own works, words, and thoughts, but are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercise of worship."
  They thought that men could be refreshed sufficiently to enable them to encounter cheerfully another week of toil without turning for an instant, even on the Day of Rest, to any of those innocent and pleasurable occupations to which the good sense of the English people applied the very significant word "recreations." He had nothing to say against Puritanism. It did much good in many ways. It swept away many abuses, purged the nation of much that was evil; but as far as Sunday observance was concerned it went too far. It strove for the unattainable; it laid a burden on men too heavy for them to bear. It mistook human nature, and asked from it impossibilities, and the result had been bad. There was nothing to be said against the Puritan ideal, except that it was impracticable. It was a very lofty and a very noble one; too noble and too high for ordinary human beings. The Puritans had tried to make men climb to heights which men could not reach, and the result had been that they had ceased to climb at all. If it was so difficult for men to attain that high standard 200 years ago, it was infinitely more difficult now, when the struggle of life was becoming harder, and the necessity for true rest and recreation was becoming more and more apparent. Let their Lordships but consider the circumstances of the life of a hard-worked man, who could have but few resources in his own home. He (the Earl of Dunraven) was not one of those who imagined that what were called the "upper classes" led lives of indolence and passed through this world free of care. Probably many of their Lordships worked as hard as any men, and much harder than most men.
  1482
  He appealed to them to consider what the value of Sunday as a day of rest would be without the opportunities of enjoyment afforded by comfortable homes, without the facilities they enjoyed of obtaining change of scene, of varying their employment, of distracting their thoughts from harassing subjects, and resting the brain—not by absolute inaction, which was intolerable, but by a change of occupation, which was real repose. What was the poor man to do? How was he to break the monotony of his life? Whore could he go on Sunday? It might certainly be said that in summer he could occasionally make an excursion into the country, than which nothing could be better for him; but summer time was short, and even in simmer how many Sundays were there in this capricious climate that did not invite them to the enjoyment of a ramble in the country? And they must not forget that to get into the country from the heart of this gigantic city was a matter involving considerable time, trouble, and expense. But in winter, on wet and miserable Sundays, what was the poor man to do? He could tramp about our dirty and gloomy streets, and if tired of that exhilarating pastime there was not a single place where he could sit down and rest himself in-doors in the shelter, or, for the matter of that, out-of-doors in the wet. True, he could sit at home. That might be well enough for men and women who could remove themselves in their own homes from household troubles and all the thousand petty worries of life; who could have about them all the luxuries and enjoyments that money could buy. But it was not enough for the poor, whose homes were, of necessity, in many cases sordid and wretched in the extreme. They had no resources at home; they could not fill their rooms with flowers or works of art; they could not turn to well filled book-shelves for relief; they could not devote themselves to religious thought, if so minded, in a quiet, peaceful atmosphere surrounded by objects soothing to the senses. The poor could get no variety, no change of thought or occupation at home. Everything reminded them of the inevitable troubles of life. It was a necessity for them to be removed, if only for an hour or two, from the evidences of the hardships of life; to be taken away from the contemplation of their every-day

  1483
  existence. To such men a clay of rest was essential. Now, Sunday might become to them an inestimable blessing if they were permitted to use it as they might wish, properly and intelligently; if they wore allowed to get what rest and comfort, and consolation, and change, and renewed vigour of mind and body, they could from real repose, from innocent recreations indulged in after the hours which ought to be devoted to worship and religious exercises, and not be compelled to spend the day in absolute idleness. But the present Sunday, as it existed, was not the blessing it ought to be to a great number of people, and it was unsatisfactory to the more intelligent of the working classes. As it existed now, it offered a premium on stupidity. The more ignorant a man was the more likely he would be to be satisfied with the present Sunday, and to be contented with absolute inaction, modified by beer. The more intelligent the man the more he would desire to forget his every-day life in some harmless and pleasant occupation. It was the natural instinct of men to do so, and we forbade them. The poor man had nowhere to go, no-whore except the public-house; and we wondered that he availed himself of his only opportunity. Why was it that of all civilized nations we English spent our holidays in the least civilized manner? He was ashamed to say so; but he did say so, for he knew it to be true; and he thought no object was to be gained by shirking such disagreeable subjects. Such of their Lordships as had travelled on the Continent, and he might probably say all their Lordships who had observed the manners and customs of any of their neighbours—say, of those nearest to us in race and religion, the Germans —had, he felt very sure, been forced to contrast unfavourably the conduct of Englishmen with other nations in their method of spending a holiday. Whose fault was that? It was our fault. It was their Rulers, not the people themselves, that were to blame. We English Were not more coarse by nature than other people; but our customs, our mistaken views, tended to make us so. Our climate, especially in winter, compelled us to seek for occupation or enjoyment to a great extent in-doors. On Sundays, on the weekly day of rest, the public-house was the only place in-doors to
  1484
  which the public had access. To be allowed the friendly shelter of the gin-palace they must drink, and drink frequently, and to excess. Drink, strong drink, and too much of it, was the only alternative between the cold and dismal street and, perhaps, an unhappy, certainly a very humble, and, too often, a very squalid home. The consequence was that drink and the Sunday had become so very intimately associated in the minds of the people that the idea of a rest from labour, of a break in the monotony of their lives, of a holiday of any kind, had become identified with drink. He did not intend to expatiate upon the evils of intemperance. No doubt, their Lordships acknowledged the greatness of the evil. As Science taught us more and more about ourselves, we began to see more clearly the truth of the words that the sins of the fathers were visited on the children. We began to recognize that if, generation after generation, a large number of human beings drank to excess, in time a marked effect must be produced upon the physical characteristics and upon the actual brainpower of the people, and, consequently, upon their ability to wield wisely and well the political responsibilities intrusted to them. It might be said that the opening of such places as Museums would do but little to check intemperance. He denied this. He believed it would do a great deal. At any rate, let the experiment be tried. He was not in favour of interference with individual freedom in such matters, but he was in favour of free trade. He did not believe in State interference, or in attempting to compel people to be temperate or to abstain. He was not talking of closing places of refreshment; but he objected strongly to protecting public-houses by insisting that they should be the only places to which a poor man should have access on Sundays. But, even if it were true that it would do but a little good, at any rate let them do that little. Let them give the people an opportunity of obtaining innocent recreation in-doors on Sundays—let them give them the option between public-houses and public buildings of another kind; let them break up a state of things which associated the idea of a holiday with intemperance; lot them take away what ought to be a stinging reproach to us

  1485
  as a Christian people, that the Sunday, which was meant for all, which was most needed by those who worked the hardest and whose lot was the hardest, could be enjoyed as a day of real rest only by the few, only by the rich, only by those who needed it least among us. Let them throw upon the people the responsibility of their actions, that they might not be able to turn upon them and say—"You who ought to direct and advise us, you shut the door in our faces, you drive us into the public-houses, and on your shoulders do the consequences rest." There was another reason why he urged them to look favourably on the Resolution before the House—that was, that in throwing open such buildings as the British and South Kensington Museums on Sundays, they were not only granting a benefit to the people, but giving them their just rights. They were supported by the Public Funds, and all who paid for such institutions had an undoubted, undisputed right to use them. But it was a right from which many of our poorer fellow-countrymen were practically debarred. Sunday offered the only opportunity they had. They left their work too late on week-day evenings, and Saturday half-holidays were useless for such a purpose. By the time a man could get home from his work, had washed and dressed, and eaten his dinner, it was too late and too dark in winter time for him to visit Museums. Besides, there were purchases to be made, and many things to be done on Saturday afternoon which could not and ought not to be done on the Sunday. It was not right that the poor should be called upon to contribute towards the maintenance of an institution which was, practically speaking, reserved for the exclusive benefit of their richer fellow-countrymen. That was a grievance that surely ought to be redressed. What would it necessitate? It would require the employment of a few people on Sundays. That was, he admitted, a difficulty; but it was a difficulty of microscopic dimensions, and one that would kick the beam if placed in the balance along with the advantages to be gained. Whatever their views of Sunday observance might be, they must admit that the question of labour was settled with a view to the convenience of the multitude. Excursion trains were allowed to run on Sundays,
  1486
  and all kinds of work was done because it was necessary, or not even because it was necessary, but because it was for the convenience of the mass of the people. Besides, what was right in one place could not be wrong in another. If it was not wrong for officials to be employed at Kew or Hampton Court, it was hard to imagine how or why it could be wrong in other places of a similar nature. Such buildings would be open only during the afternoon, and the employes would not be prevented from attending Divine Service if they wished. Besides, the consequences to the employes could be largely modified by slightly increasing the number, so as to give them a holiday, if not on Sunday, at least on some other day of the week. There was a good deal of nonsense talked about the extra amount of labour that would be required. Why, one-half or one-quarter of the staff employed by one newspaper on Sundays, to enable it to be produced on Monday morning, would do all that was necessary to enable the hard-worked artizan and working man to enjoy a little well-earned and much-desired recreation on their Day of Best in visiting these places. In fact, the number of cabs employed on Sunday morning in driving ministers of religion from one place to another would very far out-number the employes who would be required to keep open the Galleries and Museums of the Metropolis on that day. He would beg of their Lordships to remember that in agreeing to the Resolution they were not pledging themselves in favour of a system regarding which we had no experience. Look at other Protestant countries, at Germany, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Holland, and Switzerland. We found that in all these countries public institutions devoted to Science and Art were open on Sundays, and the results were good. In Berlin we find a Museum and a National Gallery; Brunswick, a Museum; Dresden, three Museums and a Picture Gallery; Copenhagen, three Museums and a Picture Gallery; Stockholm, a National Museum; Christiania, three Museums and a Picture Gallery; The Hague, a Museum of Antiquities; Amsterdam, a Museum and Picture Gallery; Geneva, two Museums; Berne, a Museum; Basle, a Museum and Picture Gallery. In the United States they had Public Libraries open on Sunday at

  1487
  Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York, Boston, Chicago, and Worcester. But while these privileges wore enjoyed by our neighbours, it was in England alone that we found them withheld from the people. In England we had also to lament a want of artistic feeling and taste among our artizans, which told greatly to their disadvantage, and we would gladly see more of that humanizing sentiment which enabled people to enjoy themselves soberly, quietly, and rationally in their holidays. He did not anticipate any great and immediate change would follow upon granting to England the same privileges that all other Protestant countries enjoyed. But he believed an improvement in the tone and taste of the people would gradually be brought about. The effect on the present generation might not be great; but it would soon show itself on the plastic, impressionable minds of children. The experiment had been tried in England, and wherever such trial had been made the results had been excellent. In London and the immediate neighbourhood the people now had free admission on Sundays to Hampton Court Palace, Kew Gardens and Museum, the Royal Military College, Greenwich, and Free Libraries at Notting Hill and Kennington. In the Provinces we had a Public Lbrary at Birmingham; the National Gallery, Natural History Museum, and Botanical Gardens at Dublin; no less than five Libraries and Reading Rooms at Manchester; and Free Libraries at Middlesborough and Wigan. In addition to these free institutions, we had the following open to subscribers and shareholders, Fellows, or members:—The Alexandra Palace, the Crystal Palace, the Royal Botanical Society's Gardens and Museum, the Royal Horticultural Society's Gardens, the Zoological Gardens; at Belfast, Royal Botanic Gardens; Dublin, Zoological Gardens; Manchester, Royal Botanical Gardens and the Athenæum; Sheffield, St. George's Museum; Stratford-on-Avon, the Shakespeare Museum. The public also had been freely admitted by ticket, procurable from the Sunday Society, to the organ recitals at the Albert Hall, occasionally to the Grosvenor Gallery, and to various private Galleries in London. In none of these places had any complaint been made. The result had been good. The words
  1488
  of the Resolution were perfectly applicable. In one instance only had any public attempt been made to close a Museum that had once been opened on Sunday, which augured well for the success of the movement. This occurred at Maidstone; but the decision was arrived at by the majority of a new committee, who did not raise the question of Sunday opening when seeking election, and gave the inhabitants no opportunity of expressing an opinion on the subject. This attempt was only made after public Notice of the Resolution now before their Lordships had been given; and within three days of the decision of the committee being known, one of the largest meetings ever held at Maidstone strongly condemned the committee for their hasty and uncalled for action in this matter. On Sunday last the Museum was again open, and stops having been taken to count the number of people attending, it was found to be 481 between the hours of 2 and 5. The meeting in Maidstone not only protested against the closing of the Museum on Sundays, but almost unanimously adopted a Petition, which had been presented to their Lordships. The chief reason for granting this boon of Sunday opening of Museums and similar institutions was, that it was ardently desired by a great number of the most intelligent of the working classes. He did not say that great monster meetings had been held, or a vast agitation set on foot; but their Lordships would recollect that on Sunday, May 7, 1876, 25,000 working men marched in orderly array to the British Museum and demanded admission; and, he might remind them that during the last 20 years many Petitions from various working men's clubs had, from time to time, been presented to both Houses of Parliament. Their Lordships would have seen from the public papers that on Tuesday last the Sunday Society decided to issue a letter for signature, asking the Prime Minister to receive a deputation with reference to the expense of opening the British Museum on Sundays. Since the issue of that letter, just one week ago, it had received some 2,000 signatures from members of the Professions of the Law, Science, Art, Members of the Legislature and of learned societies, and including the chief magistrates of 65 towns, and 268 clergymen. It was forwarded to the Prime Minister that day. The

  1489
  best proof that a change was desirable lay in the fact that whenever private institutions, or institutions belonging to municipal bodies, bad been thrown open on Sundays, the attendance had been very good. The Albert Hall organ recitals had secured an average attendance of 3,000. The Royal Manchester Institution was visited on 11 Sundays by 51,000 people, and the Manchester Libraries gave admission during the year 1879 to 125,000 persons, or an average of about 2,500 weekly. There was an average attendance at the Dramatic Fine Art Gallery, New Bond Street, of 550 persons for three Sundays in the summer of 1879, and on the fourth Sunday it increased to At the Grosvenor Gallery Winter Exhibition, March 23 and 30, 1879, 3,000 persons attended. At the Summer Exhibitions, July 27 and August 3, about the same number were admitted, and on March 14, 1880, it was visited by 707 persons. These figures were, in his judgment, amply sufficient to show how much men craved to satisfy what was becoming a necessity of our lives. England was, of all countries in the world, the one in which it was especially necessary that the poor should be provided with the means of innocent recreation in-doors. Millions of Englishmen were absolutely divorced from Nature. Their lives were spent cooped up in large cities, breathing foul smoke instead of pure air, surrounded by dismal sights, and enveloped in a gloomy, dull, depressing atmosphere. They laboured underground in mines. They worked all day in factories. They dwelt in districts grimy, denuded of all natural beauty by foul gases and the smoke of countless chimneys. The lives and occupations of millions of Englishmen tended to sharpen their wits, to make them dissatisfied with mere idleness as a relaxation; and their surroundings were such that they were debarred from the enjoyment of Nature and her works. Our position as a great hive of human beings, as a great trading and mauufacturing nation, entailed this penalty upon us, and we did nothing to alleviate it. On the contrary, we who, of all nations needed it most, alone deprived the population of the privilege of obtaining a little in-door recreation on their days of rest. What harm could the relaxation of the rules regulating Sunday observance which they asked for possibly do? There was not the slightest
  1490
  danger that the Continental method of working observance of Sundays would be introduced into this country. There was no reason whatever for supposing that admission to such places of innocent and instructive recreation as Art Galleries, or museums, or libraries would lead to a clamour for the opening of places of a very different character, devoted to mere amusement. Surely we might place some reliance upon men whom we considered fit to exercise the privilege of choosing their Representatives in Parliament. How could we say that men upon whose shoulders the responsibility for the conduct of the affairs of this country ultimately rested, wore incapable of forming an opinion as to the relative fitness of things, and could not discern the differ-once between, say, the South Kensington Museum and a dancing saloon, as a place to which a man might go with his wife and children to spend an hour or two on Sunday afternoons? Were we to suppose that Englishmen had no sense of decency, no ideas of propriety, no reverence for the Sunday, no self-respect, or respect for the feelings of other people? He should be ashamed to think so meanly of his countrymen. As to labour, he believed on the Continent the tendency was towards less and less work on Sundays; and he was sure they saw no signs in this country of any disposition on the part of working men to increase the number of working hours in the week. On the contrary, the tendency was in the other direction. The workmen did not ask to work on Sundays; they did not want to work on Sundays. Their Lordships must allow people to be themselves the best judges of what they wanted. If there was the slightest danger of introducing a working Sunday, if the working classes showed the faintest desire to labour at their usual avocations on Sunday, be would combat that inclination to the best of his ability, for be held that a day of rest and recreation was absolutely essential to the well-being of the nation. That was what they ought to have, and that was what they had not got. They had not got a day of rest, but only a day of irksome idleness. A day of real rest and recreation was what they asked for, and to say that when a man petitioned for leave to rest himself rationally, he was, in reality, asking for leave to labour, appeared to him to be absurd. The two things were so

  1491
  distinct, rest and work, recreation and plodding labour, so entirely contradicted each other, that he could not understand how any man could suppose that, in allowing the one, there was the slightest danger that a desire for the other might follow. He could fully sympathize with the jealousy with which working men looked upon their Sunday; but he could not symrpathize with them in their groundless fears that their day of rest would be done away with by giving effect to the proposal before the House. The danger lay exactly in the opposite direction. In proportion as people grew more intelligent and were better educated, so did the present Sunday become unsatisfactory to them. So long as Sunday answered the desires of the people, so long would they respect and reverence it, and regard it as a day of rest; but when it ceased to fulfil that condition, then came the danger of a revolt against it which might deprive us of it altogether. The question of working on Sundays was in the hands of the working men; as long as they did not want to work, there was no possibility of their being compelled to do so. He appealed to their Lordships' common sense to say whether there was anything in the Resolution likely to alter the opinions of working men in this respect. Make the Sunday a real day of rest, and they would never see a desire to do away with it. Leave it as it was, and they need not be surprised if those to whom it was utterly unsatisfactory preferred working to doing nothing on what had ceased to be with them a day of rest. He honestly believed that the idea of a working Sunday was a mere phantom of the imagination. The two things—rest and labour—wore so diametrically opposed to each other, that he could not see how anyone should suppose that in granting the one, there was the slightest danger of Parliament being called upon to grant the other. Therefore, the idea that permitting people to rest themselves could eventuate in the abolition of a day of rest, and that the encouragement of innocent recreation would result in the extinction of recreation, was a most extraordinary delusion. He had attempted to show, and he hoped he had succeeded, if over so little, in showing that the concession he asked for was earnestly desired by a great number of the most intelligent
  1492
  members of what were commonly described as the working classes, and by many of those best acquainted with the wishes and requirements of these classes; that the principle involved worked well in all other Protestant countries and had produced good results wherever it had been tried in England; that it did not contain even the germ of any principle hostile to Sunday as a day of rest, likely to lead to the toleration of work on Sundays, or to inculcate in the minds of the people habits and desires incompatible with the sacred aspect of Sunday; that whereas it might do much good, it could not possibly do any harm to anyone. Let them not forget that he was asking them to record the opinion of that House in favour of a purely permissive measure. There was no intention to compel any man to do that which was contrary to his conscience. He merely asked that men should be allowed to do that which seemed right in their eyes and which, in their opinion, contributed to their physical and moral well-being, and which, at the same time, could not be an outrage to the feelings of any other man. He asked them for a slight extension of the principle of toleration, of that great principle which allowed every man in this free country to follow the dictates of his own conscience, and to rule and develope his life according as he thought best for himself, provided that his conduct did not interfere with the well-being of the community. There were, no doubt, many excellent people who were opposed to the principle he advocated; but they could not say that its adoption would inflict any grevious injury upon them. They would not ask their Lordships to suppose that the happiness and peace of mind of those artizans who did not wish to visit Museums on Sundays would be seriously imperilled if those who differed from them were allowed to exercise their right of private judgment in the matter. Was it not hard that men earnestly de-siring this benefit, and feeling that the Sunday did not, under existing restrictions, afford them the rest they needed, or meet the requirements of their nature, should be deprived of innocent recreation, that they should not be allowed to instruct themselves, that they should be forbidden to indulge in perfectly harmless occupations merely because the method in which they wished to realize

  1493
  their day of rest was contrary to the prejudices or, if their Lordships liked, the principles of other men that they should do so? If the change was calculated to benefit those who wished for it, without in any way affecting those who objected to it, he maintained that, if it was desired even by a very few people, it should be granted. All he asked for was an. extension—a very slight extension—of the principle of toleration—that people should be allowed to judge for themselves in the matter. This country had always upheld the right of individual and private judgment in matters of this kind, provided one's action was not prejudicial to the interests or happiness of the people. Such an extension could inflict no injury on any man. It would be hailed as a blessing by many. He asked their Lordships once more to bear in mind the condition of the poor in our huge cities, to think of their dull unlovely lives, and to consider whether a little innocent healthy recreation on their only day of leisure would not be an inestimable benefit to them. He asked them whether taxpayers had not a right to the use of their own National Buildings, and whether they were not practically debarred from the exercise of that right. He asked them to give to the poor an opportunity of enjoying in the contemplation of works of Art and of the mysteries of Nature a form of innocent and instructive recreation now almost exclusively reserved to the rich. He asked them to do away as far as possible with class distinctions in this respect, and to give to the poor, in the way proposed, the benefits and advantages which the rich could secure for themselves in their own homes. He had to thank their Lordships for the patience with which they had listened to him. He felt very deeply his inability to put the matter before them as he should wish; but, after all, his inefficiency did not much signify, for the question commended itself to their Lordships of itself, and the benefits were patent on the face of it. It rested with their Lordships to say whether in their opinion those benefits ought to be granted or withheld. The Members of that House had ever shown themselves most solicitous for the welfare and happiness of their fellow-countrymen, and he left the matter with the greatest confidence in their Lordships' hands. The
  1494
  noble Earl concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Moved to resolve, That inasmuch as all opposition to the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the National Museums and Galleries in the suburban districts of London and in Dublin has entirely ceased owing to the good results which have followed such opening, this House is of opinion that the time has now arrived for extending this action to all institutions of a like character, it having been most conclusively shown that large numbers of the people rejoice at every opportunity that is afforded them of spending Sunday intelligently, and with due regard for its preservation as a day of rest and cessation from ordinary work and amusement. —(The Earl of Dunraven.)
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, many thousands in all the great towns of the country await with anxiety the decision of your Lordships on this question. I entirely deny the very bold statement in the Motion proposed by the noble Earl, that all opposition to the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the National Museums and Galleries in the suburban districts of London and Dublin has entirely ceased, owing to the good results which have followed such opening. Why, this very day I presented Petitions from Hampton Court, Greenwich, and Kew, signed by 2,600 persons, and praying that the Museums and Galleries should not be opened on the Lord's Day. Again, the Motion says that large numbers of people rejoice at every opportunity that is afforded them of spending Sunday in the Museums and Galleries. My Lords, I venture to assert, on the contrary, that never have the earnestness and activity against the movement advocated by the noble Earl been so intense as at present. It was only on the 8th instant that the intention of the noble Earl to bring his Motion forward became known to the public, and since then very many thousands of persons have petitioned against it. Within the last few days I have myself presented to your Lordships Petitions against this proposal signed by 58,000 persons, besides other Petitions lately, which would bring the number of signatures up to 70,000 at least. Those Petitions represented the feelings of millions. There is a very strong feeling both amongst the Nonconformists and Church people in this country against the opening of such places on Sundays. The Wesleyans, comprising a body of

  1495
  3,000,000 or 4,000,000 of people, have intrusted mo with a Petition from their Conference against the proposal of the noble Lord. When it was suggested, some short time ago, that the Bethnal Green Museum should he opened on Sundays, the working people in the immediate neighbourhood, to the number of 84,000, signed a Petition with a directly contrary prayer. So that the first proposition of the noble Lord, that all opposition to the opening of these places on Sunday has ceased, is untenable. The next point of the noble Lord is that the opening of Museums and Galleries in Provincial towns on Sundays, so far as it has been tried, has proved a success. This I dispute. Is it not a fact that, as compared with the number of inhabitants who might have been expected to go to these Museums and Galleries on Sundays, the attendance is very small? But I will not, however, insist upon that point, because I admit that if on Sunday, or on any other day, you open any place of amusement, hundreds and thousands will be found to go there, especially if admission be gratis. But, my Lords, the movement for opening these Museums and Galleries on Sunday has failed altogether in the grand purpose for which it was first started. It was urged by its advocates "Only open these Museums and Galleries and you will fill them, while you will empty the pot-houses and taverns." That was a very taking argument, and many persons were induced to support the movement under the notion that it would wean the people from low haunts. I will undertake to say that all the Returns which can be adduced on the subject will not show that of all the regular tavern-goers one single man has been seduced from his haunts by the opening of these Galleries and Museums. I am certain that it would be perfectly possible to open these Galleries and Museums on Sunday within a stone's throw of the great centres of population without finding the frequenters of one public-house deserting it in order to regale themselves with statues and pictures. Again, many of the persons who visited those Collections on Sunday might have gone on any other day; but they did not choose to do so. Sunday was an idle day with them, and they, no doubt, went there in great numbers; but they were not of the par-
  1496
  ticular class whom you wish to rescue from the temptations of the gin-palace or the pot-house. It is very well to have grandiose ideas about the enlargement of the human mind and the development of the intellectual faculties of the people; but there are other points to be kept in view, because there are other human beings to be considered besides those who desire to go about to see statues and pictures on Sunday. I plead, my Lords, for a very large class of over-worked, toil-worn men; and, if you open your Galleries and Museums on Sunday you will greatly multiply the number of wretched victims—cab-drivers, omnibus men, tram-car men, railway officials, and other men, to say nothing of the attendants at these places of Science—who will have to work on that that Day of Best. Are these classes not entitled to be thought of as well as the people of leisure who wish to indulge their taste for Science and Art? The amount of additional toil which you would thus impose on these men is dreadful to contemplate. But, my Lords, once you enter upon the course which you are now invited to take, where will you stop? You will not open these Museums and Galleries only. You speak of the public instruction which these places will afford. Are there no other places to which that reasoning would equally apply? Look, for instance, at the Aquariums which exist in various localities— the Crystal Palace, for instance. May they not also be called places of instruction? And why should they not be open on Sunday as well as other institutions? It may be said that they are private property, and that admission to them is paid for. But, though paid for, is the instruction to be obtained there less good if it were not paid for? Nay, if purchased it might be more valued. Therefore, on the same ground, every one of these institutions might be opened on Sunday. Neither would it be possible on this reasoning, to close the theatres. You often hear it argued that the theatre is one of the very best schools of public instruction; and I have no doubt it might be made to a great extent a school for education of some sort; and, on this ground, all plea for resistance is taken away. Every other place of public amusement and public resort must follow in the wake of Museums and Picture Galleries. In opening these places of

  1497
  amusement on the Lord's Day, what do you propose to do? You hope thereby to secure for this country an orderly population. Well, go through the City of Paris on Sunday, and what do you find? You will see that which must cut anyone to the heart. The factories, shops, and streets are filled with labouring men as though it were a week-day, and every kind of ordinary employment is pursued on the Lord's Day. Masons, bricklayers, carpenters, are engaged on vast buildings. Well, the Picture Galleries and Museums have been open on Sunday for years and years to the working population of Paris; and yet the very men to whom these places are accessible for the cultivation of their minds, the training of the heart, and the elevation of the human being, are the very class of men who burnt the Hotel de Ville and the Tuilleries, disgraced the Place Vendome, and committed every form of excess. So much, then, for the influence of Science and Art on Sunday upon the cultivation and improvement of the mind of a people. Sunday is a day so sacred, so important, so indispensable to man that it ought to be hedged round by every form of reverence. Its adaptability to the wants and necessities of the individuals of society, the wisdom of its institution, proves it to be Divine; and, my Lords, the working people of this country—the great bulk of the working people—regard it in the light of a Great Charter. They differ, no doubt, many of them as to its origin. Some take a deeply religious view of the matter; others take a more political view of it; but all are of this mind, that the sanctity of Sunday is to them a grand protection. You may hear it from their own lips repeatedly, if you consult them, and they affirm that it is their only protection against being compelled to perform, in times of difficulty, seven days' work for six days' wages. It is a great thing to encourage in these men, particularly in these days of uncertainty and of change, a belief that they can trust in anything that is now established. There is a great change coming over your population. The feeling of reverence is declining very fast. The last spark of reverence with them is reverence for the Lord's Day. Extinguish that spark, my Lords, and you will soon have a generation of men in mind and
  1498
  in action very different indeed from their British forefathers. The noble Earl concluded by moving an Amendment of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment moved,
  To leave out from the words ("inasmuch as") in line one to the end of the motion in order to add the words ("a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions having reported on the 27th of March 1860,' that such Institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should be opened on week day evenings to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week,' this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,who was imperfectly heard, said, that he had no desire to go at any length into the large question which had been brought before their Lordships by the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven). He must say, however, that the present state of things was far from satisfactory to the working classes. New thoughts and new desires were being brought to their minds, and they were told that they should learn Natural History and many other things. But how were their wants met in that respect? The fact was, that on the very day when they could conveniently gratify their desires for knowledge, they found the door shut to them. The noble Earl who had just spoken had said that the working man might go in the evening to these public institutions from 7 till 10. He should like to know how the working man was to go after his work? Was he to go and dress himself and take his wife and children? It was clear that his domestic arrangements would not allow of such a course. But he would do so on Sundays. Wore not the steamers crowded on that day with men, women, and children, in search of fresh air and innocent recreation? In his opinion, it would have been better if the Resolution had been met by a direct negative rather than by such an Amendment as that proposed. He did not see why, with proper precautions, the working classes should not be allowed to visit the British Museum. As a Trustee of the British Museum he could take no official part in opening it on Sundays, The Trustees had no right to take part in such a proceeding, and could express no opinion one way or the other. But he thought the advantage of opening some part of the Museum

  1499
  would be very great—for example, the Natural History Department; he could not see anything irreligious in that. The working men might go there on Sunday afternoon. They liked to go in their Sunday dress. If they were allowed to go in their Sunday attire, with their wives and children, they would do so with great pleasure. What was the working man to do on Sunday? After he had been to church in the morning, what was he to do? He saw no reason why in the afternoon he should not be allowed to see the pictures of the great men of the past, and visit the Natural History and Mineralogical collections in the Museum. There might be some difficulty in details and some extra expense; but these questions could be easily arranged. A few policemen would sufficiently keep order. But the Library could not with advantage be opened, as this would require the attendance of the officers of the Museum, and the work of supplying the readers with books could not be performed by any substituted assistants. Besides, the Library was not the place for recreation, but for hard study. But with that exception he thought that the Museum might, with great advantage, be opened on Sundays. He should vote for the Motion; but if it was carried, he should wish to limit it, so that it might not interfere with the proper functions and duties of the Sunday.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, the noble Duke who has just sat down has made almost precisely the same remarks which I heard on a former occasion. It appears to me extraordinary that the noble Duke should not wish the Library of the British Museum opened on Sunday, if the other departments are opened. I should have thought that the Library, of all places, was that which might most innocently be used by the working classes on Sundays. It seems to me strange that the Galleries which contain so many precious works of Art are to be loft open to be visited by those largo numbers who are supposed to be so anxious to rush into the British Museum while the Library is to be closed. That is my primary objection to the noble Duke's speech. But there is another and greater objection. We are called upon to affirm a number of abstract propositions. They may be true, or they may be false. But it is rather hard that, by a vote of this House,
  1500
  we should be asked to commit ourselves to a number of propositions the truth or falsehood of which is extremely doubtful. Whether the proposition of the noble Earl opposite or that of the noble Earl behind me is correct, between the two it is rather hard that we should be called upon to pronounce that either is correct or incorrect. I must, however, acknowledge that nothing could be more likely to conciliate the votes of those among your Lordships who are opposed to him than the manner in which the noble Earl introduced his Resolution. That what he said was the expression of his own deliberate convictions was evident in every word he spoke, and nothing could exceed the moderation with which he approached this difficult question. But, my Lords, notwithstanding the arguments which he used and the touching way in which he appealed to your Lordships, and pointed out how different was your position in the enjoyment of your comfortable and wealthy homes from the position of the poor, who are called upon to spend their Sundays without these advantages—notwithstanding all this, I cannot but think that I, for one, should act very wrongly in giving my vote in favour of this Resolution. Surely, my Lords, the proper way of settling this somewhat difficult and embarrassing question is to appeal to those who have the management of these various institutions, who know what are the difficulties which stand in the way, to decide this question. It is hardly fair, in my opinion, that the House of Lords should be called upon to pronounce upon a difficult question of this kind without any practical Resolutions being placed before us. If the noble Earl had brought in a Bill, we should have known where we were; but merely to say in the abstract that we should affirm this general proposition, which is very doubtful, is, I think, hardly what we are entitled to expect. My Lords, the lines which enclose religious and moral obligations are always very fine. It is a dangerous thing in any country, even if mistaken views of religious and moral obligation have been widely spread, to tamper with the general sentiment of the country. We cannot possibly know when these lines have been broken through what will follow. The noble Earl has told us that it is a very little request which he makes of us. But if it is so small a

  1501
  matter, why does be come to the highest branch of the Legislature to make assertions in favour of it? Why does he not go to those who have the management of these various institutions? The working men, notwithstanding the disparagement of their position which we have heard, do not seem greatly to desire this boon. I should like to know why the opinion of the 2,000 eminent artists and men of science of which we have heard is to be taken in opposition to that of the 58,000 artizans mentioned by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury). I think the persons who advocate this change should make their sentiments felt in the particular localities where these Museums exist, and the persons who manage these various institutions will be better able to decide than your Lordships how far such a request can be granted. Besides, more or less throughout the country there has been an appeal made to the managers of these various institutions. There has been placed in my hands a list of some eight or ten different places in which the question has been fairly argued by those who know the circumstances of these various Museums and Galleries. As far as I can understand, there are only three places besides Maidstone in which it has been resolved that they should be opened. The noble Earl says that the ease of Maidstone should be thrown aside as of no importance. Maidstone being in my diocese, I have some acquaintance with it. There the Museum was opened on Sundays for several years. But it was found by the people of the town that it was being employed for the most part as a mere rendezvous for the young men and women of the place. The result was that the Museum Committee held a meeting, and by a majority it was determined that it should be closed. That took place in a town which is not generally supposed to be under the influence of any religious sect or body. It is of no use telling us that a large number of persons have petitioned against its being closed; the fact that the opening has been tried for three years, and failed, is a better test. I, therefore, think the case of Maidstone is not to be ignored, and that the example of all those other towns in which an appeal has been made to the governing body that they ought to open their institutions, and in which they have refused to do so,
  1502
  is entitled to great weight, as showing that those who are best acquainted with the circumstances of the case are of opinion that the request of the noble Earl should not be granted. I cannot dismiss from my mind the vast number of Petitions which have been presented by working men. I want to know why these working classes themselves show so little desire to have these places open. I believe that it arises from that which the noble Earl opposite has pointed out—that they are convinced that if in great towns these institutions were opened on Sunday, there would be danger in the future of the Day of Rest being taken from them. And though we may ridicule the idea of there being any connection between persons who desire especially rest to enjoy themselves in a healthful and salutary improvement of their minds on the Lord's Day, and those who wish to grind the poor and force them to work seven days instead of six, yet I think working men have some conviction in their minds that there is a connection between doing away with the present observance of the Lord's Day and introducing a more severe system of work than that which at present exists. My Lords, do we not live in an age in which the struggle for existence is every year becoming more intense? And it is impossible to suppose that there is not a vast number of persons now in the country who would desire to acquire some higher wages, and, therefore, would rather sacrifice this day for the purpose of obtaining higher wages than elevate their minds in the manner desired by the noble Earl. As to the case of Sunday trading, in which a great deal has been done of late years, does not all the evidence show that while there are persons most anxious to close their shops on Sunday and not engage any longer in Sunday trading, they are forced by the exigencies of their position to work as other and less scrupulous people around them; that a few persons who are regardless of their highest interests are the means of forcing those who would gladly rest to engage in work from which they wish to be relieved? These, my Lords, are a few of the very difficult matters involved in this question. I trust no one will think that those who oppose the noble Earl on this occasion are less sensible than he is of

  1503
  the privations to which the poor are liable, or less desirous to lend a helping hand to elevate the many poor families who are at present in a depressed position. But, my Lords, I think there are many ways in which, before we entertain the noble Earl's proposal, we may be of use. There is a large number of places of general recreation in the open air, and to enable a number of poor people to go to open places that are accessible in the summer, at least, is a great help to them. Who can have visited Battorsea Park or Victoria Park without seeing that a great deal has been done of late years for their comfort and elevation? Who, also, that knows what has been done to open places of innocent amusement during the week is not convinced that many of those who are most strenuously opposed to the opening of these places on Sundays are engaged as much as the noble Earl and all the scientifie men and artists who have signed the Petition of 2,000 can possibly be in desiring to elevate the position of the working classes? My Lords, I own the matter is difficult; but I venture to say that a remedy is not to be found in breaking down the barrier which has served us and our fathers for a great many years, and kept this country free from many evils. We do not know what might be the result if it were swept away. We are not to think worse of the English people because they are not capable of enjoying themselves in frivolities like the Parisians. Certainly, I do not think the English people are less happy because they venerate the Lord's Day. What the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) said about theatres I think must be allowed to have great force. If you once admitted the principle of this Resolution, I think it would be extremely difficult, indeed, to say that a well-regulated theatre is not. to be opened as it is in all the countries which the noble Earl has quoted; and yet I feel confident that neither you nor the working men of this country are prepared to approve a step which would so entirely alter the condition of England as the opening on Sunday of these places of recreation and instruction. I, therefore, feel compelled to resist the Motion of the noble Earl.
  THE EAKL OF ROSEBERYsaid, he would not have spoken on this subject had it not been for some remarks which
  1504
  fell from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury). Every opinion upon this or any other subject given by the noble Earl, who had deservedly gained the confidence of a large section of the working classes, must command their Lordships' respect; but throughout his speech, he (the Earl of Rosebery) did not discover that his assertions were entirely supported by any statistics which he brought forward. Any industrious organization could always get as many Petitions upon almost any subject as they desired. But the noble Earl, in alluding to the signatures to the Petition against opening Museums on Sundays in the Metropolis, between the end of January and the present time, only stated the number of the signatures to the Petition as 2,600, which was not a very brilliant result of the success of their organization. But there was one very large Petition from the outlying district of Bethnal Green in favour of the closing of the Bethnal Green Museum, the signatures to which were variously stated by the noble Earl opposite and the most rev. Prelate at from 60,000 to 80,000. But in such a case the remedy was easy. If those 80,000 persons who petitioned for the closing of the Bethnal Green Gallery did not like it they need not go there on Sundays; but he did not see that was any argument for shutting it up against those who did like it. He could hardly believe his ears when he heard it stated by the noble Earl that the opening of Picture Galleries and Museums was likely to end in the opening of shops and the general desecration of the Sabbath. He had visited the Aquarium at Brighton on Sundays, and confessed that he had witnessed none of the evils complained of. The labours of cab-horses, cab-drivers, and omnibuses were expatiated upon if these Galleries were opened on Sunday; but the point seemed to him to be that they would not require more cabs or omnibuses to take the people to Museums on Sundays than were at present employed. He (the Earl of Rosebery) remembered a speech of the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) on this very subject, in which the noble Earl, who said he had just returned from Paris, announced his satisfaction that the opening of shops and the employment of workmen had greatly diminished there of late years. He himself had gone to the Louyre at Paris, on Sun-

  1505
  days on purpose to see the operations of this iniquity, and he had seen crowds of respectably dressed working men poisoning their minds — as he presumed the noble Earl would call it— by contemplating the masterpieces in those Galleries. The noble Earl had said that they had gone a little further, and had burnt down the Hotel do Ville and the Tuilleries. He could not imagine how the persons who had burnt down the Hotel de Ville could be identified with those who were in the habit of frequenting the Art Galleries of Paris; and he had not read a single line in the trials of the Communists which even suggested that those who had committed the outrages they were charged with were habitual attendants at those places. If history was to be appealed to, it would be found that there was a word or two to be said on the other side of the question. Some two or three centuries ago the Puritans began to try the remarkable experiment of making Sunday a miserable day; and it had been declared by a high authority that nothing had more largely conduced to the Restoration, and the immorality of the Restoration, than this practice of interfering with the amusements of the people on Sunday. The noble Earl had said that reverence for Sunday was declining fast in this country. He had no means of judging upon that point; but, if such were the case, it certainly was not due to the opening of Picture Galleries on Sundays, and it might be justly concluded that it was brought about by too strict an adherence to the opposite system. The most rev. Primate had said, in accents of anguish which still rang in their ears, that when the experiment of opening a Museum on Sunday was tried at Maidstone, the place was haunted by young men and women, who came there to pass the time. He did not see that they were greatly to blame for doing so, or that there was anything terrible in it; and the course taken by a packed meeting of the Town Council in shutting up the Museum on those days was condemned by a large and enthusiastic public meeting, which recorded an indignant protest against it. The noble Earl had said that, instead of our going to Museums on Sundays, people should go to Battersea Park or to Hyde Park. Well, but people did go to those places now. It was probably owing to our somewhat dreary
  1506
  Sabbath that working men were so fond of attending demonstrations in Hyde Park on a Sunday, and most likely two-thirds of them attended those demonstrations because they had nothing better to do on Sunday. What, however, was to happen to those who lived too far away from Battersea Park or from Hyde Park to walk there? They must either take omnibuses or ride in cabs to get there, and thus the labour of the omnibus drivers and of the cab drivers would be quintupled. Moreover, the suggestion that people should go to Battersea Park or to Hyde Park was scarcely consistent with things at the present time of the year, when the snow was often a foot deep and the atmosphere was in a state of extreme asperity. The noble Earl had asked the pertinent question—"Where are you to stop if you once begin; are you going to open the aquariums, and the theatres, and other profligate places of amusement?" An attentive study of the Resolution, however, would have shown the noble Earl that the proposal was not to throw open all places of amusement on Sunday, but only those which were supported by the State, and thus the theatres and aquariums would not fall within its terms. The noble Earl had said that habitual tavern-goers would not go to the Museums on Sunday even if they were thrown open; but the great mass of the people were not habitual tavern-goers, and he was satisfied that large numbers of people who were now compelled to stay on Sunday all day in their uncomfortable lodgings, or to take journeys by railway, would avail themselves of the opportunity of amusing themselves innocently and quietly in the Museums if they were thrown open. For the reasons he had stated he should give the Resolution his hearty support if it were pressed to a division.
  EARL CAIRNS: My Lords, as the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Dun-raven) has referred to a letter written by me some time since, and not intended for publication, but from the statements in which I have no intention to recede, it is only courteous to him that I should notice the observations he has made. In doing so, my first duty is to acknowledge the feelings of benevolence and philanthropy which have actuated the noble Earl in bringing forward this Resolution. I hope, however, that he

  1507
  will not think me ungracious when I express the opinion that his arguments have failed to support his main proposition. The noble Earl who has just sat down has alluded to the fact that the Museums are the property of the nation and are supported by the nation. That circumstance raises a question of some importance. Undoubtedly the branch of the Legislature which has the duty of providing public money for these Museums is the House of Commons; and therefore it is not immaterial to observe what has been the view which the House of Commons has taken of this subject up to this time. On four occasions during the last quarter of a century Motions similar to the present have been brought before that House, and in each instance they have been rejected by an overwhelming majority. Thus, in 1856, such a Motion was rejected by 376 to 48; in 1869 no division took place, the House being counted out; in 1874 the proposal was rejected by 271 to 68, and in 1877 it was rejected by 229 to 87. No renewal of the proposal has been made during the present Parliament. But let us ask ourselves what would be gained by opening these Museums on Sundays. In the first place, the noble Earl admits that they could not be open during the time of Divine Service, and therefore they could not be opened till 1 o'clock, which is the working man's dinner hour. By the time he has had his dinner and walked to the Museum it will be 3 o'clock, and in this climate it is necessary that these Institutions shall be shut at 4 o'clock during two-thirds of the year. During the summer they might be open later; but during the summer they would be little resorted to. Therefore, to enable the working man to visit these places for one hour on a Sunday afternoon, the whole staff would have their Sunday taken from them. Is it worth while to make the proposed change for the sake of such a result? Then it is said that the great object of this alteration is to obtain a rival to public-houses. But there will be no such rivalry. In London the public-houses are opened at 1 o'clock on Sundays, closed again at 3, and continue shut until 6. Therefore, during the very time that these places of amusement will be open, the public-houses will be shut. But then, again, there will be
  1508
  great danger in bringing 2,000 or 3,000 working men together for a short time on Sunday, as it may have the very result, when the Museum closes, of inducing them to enter the public-houses in the neighbourhood. To show what the publicans themselves think on the subject, I may state that it is asserted that the publicans have petitioned in favour of this proposal in the belief that, if carried into effect, it would increase their Sunday trade. The noble Earl, in the course of his remarks, referred to the experience which had been gained with reference to Sunday opening. Let me remind your Lordships as to what was the experience of the Duke of Westminster on the same point. The noble Duke, as everybody knows, with the greatest liberality, threw open his magnificent Gallery of Pictures for the enjoyment of the people on Sundays; and, as the result of his experience, he felt himself bound to admit, on the last discussion on this subject in this House, that it was not a working class question at all. The working classes did not largely visit his Galleries; but those who did visit them were people of a higher class, not likely to be tempted into intemperance, so that, in his view, the opening of such places was not in any way calculated largely to diminish the evil of intemperance. I venture to suggest that the proposal which has been made by the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Shaftesbury) would, if acted upon, confer a great boon upon the working people of the Metropolis. His proposal is that some of the great National Institutions in London should be opened from 7 to 10 on the evenings of three days in each week, and that proposal is based on the recommendation of a Select Committee of the House of Commons, which inquired fully into the whole subject as far back as the year 1860. I was certainly surprised to hear the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), who is a Trustee of the British Museum, say tonight that the working classes would not be able to go to such Institutions on week day evenings after the fatigue of their day's work. Does the noble Duke know the extent to which these men go to night schools, and sit for hours after the close of a hard day's work for the purpose of improving their minds? And, if he does, how can he say that

  1509
  they would be too fatigued to visit such Institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery within the same hours? In addition to night schools to which working men resort there are also evening concerts for their especial benefit, and these, too, are largely attended. There was a strong objection raised some time ago to the opening of Picture Galleries by night, on the ground that the quantity of gas it would be necessary to consume in order that the pictures might be properly seen would greatly damage the pictures. I believe that objection was well founded; but we are now in a state of transition to a better condition of things as far as lighting is concerned. I have seen very lately a Picture Gallery lighted by electricity with the most perfect success; and I look to the time when it will be possible, by means of the electric light, to see the pictures in our great Collections by night to much greater advantage than they can now be seen by the ordinary light of a London day, and without the slightest injury to the pictures themselves. The noble Earl who brought forward this Motion said he had no fear that the opening of public Museums would be followed by the opening on Sunday of other places of amusement; and he asked whether the people of this country could not be trusted to know the difference between right and wrong? That is the very question; but upon that comes this other question, as to where the right ends and the wrong begins. The noble Earl also said that he was in favour of Free Trade; but he seems to forget that there is no trade in this country larger than the trade in amusements, and what would he have to say to the working men who objected to the Government having a monopoly in this respect and opening the National Galleries and collections, while refusing the same privilege to private institutions which provide innocent amusement for the people? Then, again, let me ask what is the ground on which the legislation and practice of this country have proceeded in regard to the observance of Sunday? My Lords, I maintain that this legislation and practice could not have been maintained for a year if they were to depend upon merely human law. If that were the only sanction, this country would say—"You have no right to
  1510
  take possession of a portion of our time in that way. Every person must judge for himself whether he would like to employ his whole time in work or not." The institution of Sunday has, in my opinion, maintained itself amongst us; and we have reaped from it moral, physical, and religious benefits only because a vast majority of the people, altogether irrespective of Churches or denominations, are convinced that the institution depends, not upon human law, but upon a higher law which we are all bound, in conscience, to obey. If your Lordships by your vote lead the country to think that the institution of Sunday has no such foundation and sanction as those to which I allude, you will shock the consciences of a vast majority of the people of this country, and also lead, in my opinion, to the destruction of Sunday as a day of rest. The noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), I have no doubt, has no such desire. But he is the President of the Sunday Society, of which Society Professor Tyndall, whose great scientific attainments we all honour, is one of the Vice Presidents. Professor Tyndall last autumn delivered a lecture in Glasgow, as the representative of the Society—a lecture which has been published and largely circulated—and it was to this lecture I referred in the letter of which the noble Earl has spoken. I am bound to say—and I say it with the deepest pain and regret—that I look upon the lecture as an attack upon Sunday as a Divine institution, and also as an attack on a large portion of what we regard as Scriptural and revealed truth. Therefore it is I say this Motion will be looked upon throughout the country as a Motion founded on the principles laid down in that lecture; and I cannot but deplore it as a Motion which, if it receive your Lordships' sanction, would strike pain and dismay into the hearts of a great majority of the people of this country.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I will only occupy your Lordships for a I could not improve upon the arguments short time, for two reasons, first -- because advanced by the noble Earl who introduced the Motion; and, secondly, because the Motion is one in which the Government take no part whatever. This attitude on the part of the Government is, I think, perfectly justifiable, as, in these social questions, it is not wise to take action until there is cer-

  1511
  tainty that the general opinion of the country is in favour of such a course. The noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) has reminded your Lordships that the House of Commons, by considerable majorities, have from time to time decided that in the present divided state of public opinion the question is not ripe for settlement; and therefore Her Majesty's Government are, I think, perfectly right in keeping their minds open upon the subject. Any-thing that I say is simply as an individual; and I am not going to repeat the arguments used in favour of the Resolution of my noble Friend. As has been already stated, my noble Friend has stated his argument so clearly that it is not necessary to follow in that direction. But I may be permitted to make a few remarks on the arguments which have been used against the proposal. The most rev. Prelate complimented my noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) on the obvious sincerity of his speech, and I believe that those who oppose the Motion are as sincere in their opposition to the proposed change, if change it be. But, having made that admission, I think that the opponents of the Motion have shown some ingenuity in their mode of doing so, both with respect to the Amendment of the noble Earl and to some of the arguments which they have used. As to the Amendment, I do not say that it is good or that it is bad. I am rather in favour of it; but it appears to me to be merely an ingenious device to defeat the Motion of my noble Friend. The two things do not clash at all, because it would be perfectly possible to light those places in the evening, and to have them open on Sunday as well. Therefore I am not bound to give an opinion in favour of the Amendment; but I must say that the argument against the opening of Museums and Galleries on Sunday does not carry conviction with it. It appears to me that the opponents of the Motion have lost sight of one very important fact—namely, that this is not a novel proposition. The state of things which it is said will be fraught with such terrible consequences exists in the suburban districts. The Picture Galleries and Museums of Greenwich, Hampton Court, and Kew — and not only that, but of Dublin also, and some of the largest towns in England, such as Manchester,
  1512
  Birmingham, Middlesbrough, and Macclesfield—have been opened, as Libraries have also been, and these experiments have been successful. What I should have expected would have been done by those who objected to this Motion was to have shown that the experiment having been tried in these several places had utterly failed, and produced the bad consequences that had been prophesied. I know some of the towns in question, and have made inquiries on the subject, and I am informed that the opposition to the opening of Museums and Picture Gallerieson Sundays has entirely ceased. The most rev. Prelate brought forward Maidstone as an example of where the experiment had failed. The noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) has dealt with that. Maidstone is not a large town, and as for the failure all that was shown was that a certain number of young men and women went to the Library on Sunday evenings to pass their time. I think that was the very best thing they could do, and certainly very much more desirable than that they should have gone to pass their time in public-houses. It is said that if you open the Picture Galleries and Museums, the theatres also will soon be opened. But has any theatre been opened in the towns which I have mentioned? The noble and learned Earl opposite (Earl Cairns) made use of a most ingenious argument — though really the weight which attaches to it is very small indeed—as to the number of hours during which you would give facilities to the working classes for visiting those places. It is true that during three or four months of the year the time at their disposal would be very limited. But during eight or nine months there is plenty of time to open Museums on Sunday. The noble and learned Earl brought forward, at the end of his speech, an argument based on very high grounds. He put aside all those lower considerations, and put it entirely on the question of Divine obligation. The noble and learned Earl made some severe remarks with respect to a lecture, which I have not read, delivered by a gentleman who seemed to deny the Divine obligation of the Sabbath. But is it not true that such distinguished men as Paley, Dr. Whately, and Jeremy Taylor have raised questions as to the Divine obligations of the Sabbath? My Lords, I put that aside al-

  1513
  together and ask, Is it possible to introduce this as a practical argument, when the State has gone so far as to throw open those Institutions in the neighbourhood of London and in the great towns, and has done so without the slightest inconvenience or public disadvantage? As I have said, my Lords, without at all binding Her Majesty's Government, and without wishing to exclude any one of your Lordships from his right to vote against the Motion if he feels so inclined, I shall, as an individual, vote for the proposal of my noble Friend, and with regard to what has been said as to your Lordships' House not giving an opinion on the subject, I must say I think it very desirable that that opinion should be given, for I can conceive no assemblage more competent than this to express an opinion with respect to it.
  THE DUKE or ARGYLL: My Lords, as last year I absented myself from the debate which took place on this subject, I wish to say a few words as to the grounds on which I shall give my vote for the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Shaftesbury). I was very glad to give way to the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) opposite, as he argued the question with his usual ability, and in many of the arguments he used I entirely concur. I cannot help expressing the respect, and I may almost say the admiration, with which I listened to the speech of the noble Earl behind me (the Earl of Dunraven) who introduced the Motion. I never hoard a case put more moderately, temperately, or in a more reasonable manner. But in listening to that speech I could not help detecting in it arguments which went farther than the conclusions to which he pointed. The noble Earl distinctly expressed an opinion in favour of free trade in this matter, and he said that the working men might be thoroughly trusted, and that there was no reason for restricting them as to the mode in which they should spend their Sabbath. Whether that be true or not, I think we are bound to go a great deal further if we adopt the Motion, and to remove all restrictions in the way of what is called recreation and amusement which may be open to the working-classes. I object to that, and on the ground mentioned by the most rev. Prelate. I do not think that this House ought to adopt
  1514
  abstract Resolutions. It is no argument in favour of such a Resolution that the opening of Museums in certain localities has been attended with a certain amount of success. So long as it is legal to open them, they can be opened by those who are responsible for their management. But are we, therefore, my Lords, to pass a Resolution which will compel us to open all National Galleries and Museums? And here I cannot help expressing my surprise at what the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset), my Colleague as Trustee of the British Museum, said. No doubt it is true, as he stated, that we have no official position in the matter. We are servants of Parliament and of the Government, and if Parliament and the country determine to open the Museums on Sundays, we are bound to make the best arrangements we can for doing so. But the noble Duke said that under no circumstances could the Library of the Museum be opened. Well, only the other day I heard from my right hon. Friend Mr. Chamberlain, as an argument in favour of opening those Institutions, that in Birmingham they had done so, and that the most valuable, and that most resorted to, was the Library, to which people went, not only to read amusing, but also religious books. And I must raise a question with respect to what the noble Duke said as to other departments of the British Museum. He said you allow the people to see gardens, why not allow them to see minerals? Well, my Lords, I doubt whether there is any department which would require so many attendants as the Mineral Department, if it were opened, there being there valuable jewels, specimens of inestimable value; and it would be impossible to throw it open unless you procured the services of a large number of attendants. I agree with the noble and learned Earl (Earl Cairns) opposite that the whole system of existing legislation in this day depends upon the assumption that there is a religious obligation attaching to the Christian Sunday. My noble Friend behind me (Earl Granville) alluded to the fact that there have been great questions raised by many Divines as to the relation between the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian Sunday. Such men as Jeremy Taylor and Calvin have disputed whether the obligation of the Christian Sunday is exactly the same as

  1515
  that of the Jewish Sabbath; but that is a very different thing from saying that there is no Divine authority at all for the Christian Sunday. I agree with the noble and learned Earl opposite that while we have legislation which prohibits Sunday amusements for which money is given, it will be difficult to defend the system, unless you keep to the doctrine of religious sanction. Therefore I can quite account for the jealousy with which the working classes look at this proposition—I mean, that portion not specially animated by religious feeling. We know that there is a largo portion of the artizan class who are not attached to any particular Church, and who have no strong or definite theological opinions. Nevertheless, you will find among them the greatest possible jealousy as to all those notions tending to the alteration of the Christian Sunday. What is this instinct-founded upon? It is the feeling, perfectly well-founded, that when you break down the religious sanction of the day the legal sanction would be broken down also. Reference has been made to the way in which Sunday is spent in other countries. In South Germany, the other day, I was much struck by the fact that works of construction were carried on as extensively on Sunday as on other days, and the scaffolding outside one of the finest churches was occupied by men who were at work on the building. The working classes of this country feel that if the regard for Sunday were broken down in one respect it would be broken down in others. I think this is a well-founded jealousy; and on all these grounds I shall vote against, as being inexpedient, an abstract Resolution tending in a direction of which the working classes of this country are justly jealous.
  LORD THURLOWsaid, it seemed to him that all the arguments were on one side. He knew that Petitions could be procured in any number in proportion to the funds expended by societies or individuals in getting them up, and there were Petitions against the Sunday opening of Institutions which were unmistakeable in their character and origin. What could the people of remote country villages know of the requirements of the working classes in London? On the other hand, there was a genuineness deserving of every consideration in the Petitions in favour of opening from the Metropolis, signed by thousands of the
  1516
  members of different trades and occupations, and of working men's clubs and other associations, the majority being men of independent opinions, not amenable to influences like those which produced opposing Petitions from country villages. He should support the Motion, the arguments against which could only be founded on antiquated prejudice; and he maintained that where Galleries or Libraries had been opened there had been no offence against public order or morality as a consequence.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVENsaid, objection had been taken to the statement in his Resolution that opposition had ceased, and to show that it had not ceased reference was made to the Petitions presented. But it was admitted that that opposition had been organized since he gave Notice of the Resolution; and when there was no opposition beyond what was stimulated in that way it was a fair inference that there was no opposition to the Sunday opening of Museums.
  On question that the words proposed to be left out stand part of the motion? Their Lordships divided: — Contents 34; Not-Contents 41: Majority 7.

  CONTENTS.

  Somerset, D.

  Lawrence, L.

  Manners, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Monson, L.

  Derby, E.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  Granville, E.

  Hchester, E.

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Kimberley, E.

  Morley, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Spencer, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Aberdare, L.

  Blantyre, L.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Brabourne, L.

  Strafford, L. (V. Enfield)

  Coleridge, L.

  Sudeley, L.

  Dorchester, L.

  Suffield, L.

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

  Thurlow, L. [Teller.]

  Waveney, L.

  Harris, L.

  Wentworth, L.

  Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) [Teller.']

  Wigan, L. (E. Crawford and Balcarres.)

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Selborne, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Bathurst, E.

  Beaconsfield, E.

  Marlborough, D.

  Bradford, E.

  Northumberland, D.

  Cairns, E.

  Richmond, D.

  Effingham, E.

  1517

  Fevorsham, E.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Denman, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Ebury, L. [Teller.]

  Selkirk, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Shaftesbury, E. [Teller.]

  Foley, L.

  Forester, E.

  Waldegrave, E.

  Harlech, L.

  Cranbrook, V.

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

  Hawarden, V.

  Ormathwaite, L.

  Templetown, V.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Carlisle, L. Bp.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll.)

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  Tollemache, L.

  Byron, L.

  Windsor, L.

  Congleton. L.

  Resolved in the negative.
  Then it was moved to add the following words ("a Select Committee of the House of Commons on Public Institutions having reported on the 27th of March 1860, 'that such Institutions as the British Museum and the National Gallery should he opened on week day evening's to the public between the hours of seven and ten in the evening at least three days in the week,' this House is of opinion that the time has arrived when this recommendation should be carried out.")
  Resolved in the affirmative; and motion, as amended, agreed to.

RULES OF THE HOUSE—RENEWAL OF MOTIONS.—QUESTION.
LORD DENMANasked Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, To what Standing Order or precedent or usage of the House of Lords he alluded when he denied the right to renew a Motion on a subsequent day after it had been withdrawn by the leave of the House?
EARL GRANVILLE,in reply, said, that it was the universal practice not to allow a Motion once put to be repeated in the same Session. There was no precedent in favour of a Motion which had been either negatived or withdrawn being repeated.
LORD DENMANsaid, that as there was no precedent against such a course, he would set the Motion down for the 25th, instead of the 24th, as originally intended.
House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.