Sitting of 20 May 1881

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Thomas Collins, esquire, for Knaresborough.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* [161]; Newspapers* [154].
Committee—Infections Diseases Notification (Ireland)* [40], [House counted out].
Report—Local Government (Gas) Provisional Order* [145]; Local Government Provisional Order (Birmingham)* [144]; Local Government Provisional Orders (Brentford Union, &c.) [149].

NEW MEMBER SWORN.
Thomas Collins, esquire, for Knaresborough.

THE PARLIAMENTARY OATH.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: Mr. Speaker, I rose as the hon. Member for Knaresborough advanced to the Table to take the Oath, intending to take the same course which the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) was permitted to take last month when the hon. Member for Northampton presented himself. ["Order!"]
MR. RITCHIE: I rise to Order. I wish to know, Sir, whether there is any Question before the House?
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I will conclude with a Motion. I presumed, Sir—[Mr. WARTON: Hear, hear!]—I presumed, Sir, to follow the example which you permitted to be set by the right hon.

937
Member for Northampton—[Laughter.]—I mean the right hon. Member for North Devon. You, Sir, on the occasion I refer to, allowed that right hon. Gentleman to move and interpose a Motion when the Member for Northampton came forward to fulfil the statutory obligation, because he had an objection to that hon. Member taking the Oath which the law imposed upon him; and I wish to follow that precedent, because I desire to point out to the House that we have now adopted a new course in this House. Formerly, a person coming up to take the Oath at the Table took it on his own responsibility; and if he did anything wrong in taking the Oath he was liable in a Court of Law to suffer for what he had done. But the proceedings of the Leader of the Opposition have put this question and the House in a totally new position. The House has now assumed to itself the guardianship of the Oath. It has relieved the individual from that responsibility, and taken it upon itself. Now, Sir, I, as you are aware, totally dissent from those proceedings. In my humble opinion, this House had no Constitutional right to interfere with a subject of Her Majesty in performing the duty imposed upon him by the Statute Law, and I had proposed to move that such proceedings were illegal; but you, Sir, decided that that could not be allowed. If not allowed to move that the proceedings were illegal, I concluded that they were legal; and, being legal, I wanted to make them impartial. I wanted, when the opinions of a person coming to take the Oath were previously inquired into, to see that such a proceeding was impartially carried out, and that we had sufficient guarantee concerning the opinions of every Member before he came to the Table. [Laughter.] It is a more important question than some hon. Members seem to think. For the first time for generations this House has appointed a Parliamentary Inquisition to inquire into the opinions of hon. Members before they take the Oath. ["No!"] Hon. Members say "No!" What do they mean? Is there any other reason why the hon. Member for Northampton should not be allowed to take the Oath, except that he holds certain opinions concerning the sanctity of the Oath? My point is that there was no evidence in this House at the time as to what his opinions were. ["Oh!"]
938
There was not the slightest then. There was evidence, perhaps, of what his opinions were some months ago; but there was no legal or official evidence of what his opinions were when he came to the Table to take the Oath. I say, again, that this House has appointed a Parliamentary Inquisition into the opinions of Members. That I object to; but, if decided upon, it ought to be carried out fairly and impartially, and we ought to have a guarantee concerning every man's opinions before he comes to the Table. What I meant to have moved I will read to the House, because it explains what I want to do, and explains why I think I was unfairly treated by having a noise made, and not allowed to move the Resolution, which I think, according to your ruling in regard to the right hon. Gentleman, I ought to have been allowed to move. The Resolution runs as follows:—
"That, having regard to the precedent of April 27, 1881, when this House decided that a duly elected Member should not be permitted to go through the form of repeating the words of the Oath prescribed by Statutes 29 Vict. c. 13, and 31 and 32 Vict. c. 72, Mr. Thomas Collins be not permitted—
["Order!"] I am reading a Resolution Which I had written out before he came up to take the Oath—
"to repeat the words of the said Oath until this House shall, by means of a Select Committee or otherwise, satisfy itself as to the nature of his opinions touching the sanctity of the Oath."
I say that the House, having taken the Oath under its charge, should be most anxious that there should be no profanation of the Oath, and ought to take every precaution against anything of the sort. I have—I think unfairly—not been allowed to move that; but as I should like to hear from some of those hon. Members opposite, who so loudly shouted at me some articulate reasons why they would not allow me to perform my Parliamentary duty, I will conclude with a Motion which I would not otherwise have made—"That this House do now adjourn."
MR. HOPWOOD: I beg to second the Motion. It would be very amusing, if this were not so grave a matter, to see how grown-up men can treat a question of such deep significance as has been done by hon. Members opposite. I am very glad to say that the action of the hon. Baronet has brought us this result

939
—that we now have it on your high authority, Mr. Speaker, that if any Member rise when a newly-introduced Member is about to take the Oath, he shall not be listened to—that he shall have no right to interfere with the taking of that Oath. I must congratulate the House upon that result—proved by the way in which you have treated this matter. I am sure it is your deliberate judgment upon it, and we shall always be able in future to cite your demeanour on that occasion as a precedent. It cannot be road otherwise. When my hon. Friend rose, the Gentleman referred to and the Opposition side of the House knew perfectly well what he was about to do. They raised a clamour, they raised laughter, and they took care that my hon. Friend's words should not, Sir, reach you. And I have no doubt, Sir—I am sure I say it with all respect to the Chair—that you knew, by rumour or direct Notice, what my hon. Friend was about to do; but you were of opinion that my hon. Friend had no right to interrupt in the taking of the Oath, and that no one can question any hon. Member upon any views he may entertain. In seconding this Motion, I, therefore, congratulate the House that we have now a decision and a ruling—by the demeanour of yourself, if not by express utterance—to which no exception can be taken.
MR. STAVELEY HILL: I rise, Sir, to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Member is in Order in calling in question the authority of the Chair?
MR. HOPWOOD: I have not in the least, Sir, called in question the authority of the Chair. I have pointed out what is the inevitable conclusion to be drawn from the manner and action of the highest authority we have in the House.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Wilfrid Lawson.)
MR. H. B. SAMUELSON: I beg to ask you, Sir, wherein the position of the hon. Member for Knaresborough, in regard to being sworn, before he took the Oath, differed from that of Mr. Bradlaugh, neither of them since their election having made any statement respecting their religious opinions, or as to whether they considered the Oath binding
940
upon their consciences, and both of them having been equally willing to complete their election by taking the Oath and their seats?
MR. SPEAKER: I may state to the House that the hon. Member for Knaresborough presented himself at the Table of the House to take the Oath of Allegiance, as required by law, and according to the usual practice of this House. It had been reported to me, no doubt, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle intended to interpose; and I had determined that if any such interposition was attempted by the hon. Baronet or by any other hon. Member of the House—either to put any question to the hon. Member for Knaresborough, or to interfere in any manner—it was my duty not to allow such interposition. I wish to point out to the House that the case of the hon. Member for Northampton was essentially different. That hon. Member himself raised questions which demanded the consideration of this House, and led to those proceedings with which the House is familiar. Had he, in the first instance, presented himself at the Table to take the Oath, as the hon. Member for Knaresborough has done to-day, I should not have permitted any Member to interpose; and I am persuaded that in so doing I should have taken a course which would be consistent with my duty to this House.
MR. GLADSTONE: I am not sure whether it may not appear officious on my part to say one word after what has fallen from you, Sir, as to the opinion of the Chair. But I may, perhaps, go as far as this—to say that I think the distinction to which you have adverted is an obvious distinction. My own opinion, if it be of any value, and the opinion, I think, of the great majority of those who sit on this side of the House, is very well known. It is that there ought to have been, ab initio, no interference whatever with Mr. Bradlaugh, or with any other person, in the performance of what he deemed to be his statutory duty. But that is not the question now before us. My hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle founds himself on the fact that such interference was permitted from the Chair on the former occasion, and he argues that the two cases are parallel, and that such interference should in consistency be permitted

941
by the Chair on the present occasion. Now, the House will recollect that when the interference took place on the part of the right hon. Baronet opposite, it was permitted by you, Sir, not on any technical grounds, but on the distinct and separate ground of the prior proceedings of the House. There are no prior proceedings in this case. Therefore, I submit that the two cases stand to be judged as separate matters and on their separate merits; and I do not think that my hon. Friend can justly contend that there is any kind of parallel, the one with the other.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I only wish, Sir, to add one word to what has fallen from yourself and the Prime Minister, which, I think, will further illustrate the difference between the two cases. In the case of the hon. Member for Northampton, when he presented himself for the purpose of taking the Oath, I rose, not for the purpose of putting any question to the hon. Gentleman, I rose for the purpose of objecting on the grounds known to the House, and which I was prepared to state and did state. I rose for the purpose of stating the objections that I felt, and which the majority felt, and ultimately showed that they felt, to his going through the form of taking the Oath. I did not rise to put any question to him. But the hon. Member for Carlisle rose, not for the purpose of objecting to the hon. Member for Knaresborough taking the Oath. He had no grounds—good, bad, or indifferent—for objecting to the hon. Member taking the Oath, as I conceived I had on the occasion of the hon. Member for Northampton presenting himself; but he rose to put a question. [Sir WILFRID LAWSON: No, to move for a Committee.] Well, he rose to move for a Committee without any grounds whatever upon which that could be founded. Of course, it was a matter of discussion on the occasion of Mr. Bradlaugh's admission whether or not the right course was taken. The majority of the House affirmed it and maintained their decision. It is open to the hon. Baronet to move to have that Resolution rescinded if he thinks good so to challenge it. But I maintain it is not open to him, and is not consistent with the decency or dignity of the proceedings of this House, that objection should be made to the hon. Member for Knaresborough taking the Oath
942
by a side wind and in a manner intended to cast ridicule over the Oath. The question is one of a very serious nature, whatever may be the opinion of the hon. Gentlemen on the other side.
SIR WILFRID LAWSON: May I ask leave of the House to withdraw my Motion? But I would desire to make a personal observation. I made the Motion for adjournment because of the interruption with which I was greeted on rising; and if you, Sir, had risen when I rose, and told me what you have told the House now, of course I should not have interfered; but in consequence of the disturbance, and not getting any information from you, I considered I had a right to move the adjournment of the House.
MR. R. N. FOWLER: I wish just to say one word in reference to what has fallen from my hon. Friend opposite. My point is that there was no interruption. The hon. Member for Knaresborough is an old friend of a great many Members on this side the House; and considering the cordial way in which he was received by several right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench, I apprehend he has the personal regard of hon. Members opposite. In those circumstances, he was received with great pleasure, not only by political friends, but by other Members, and it was owing to this circumstance that the hon. Baronet was unable to be heard.
MR. CALLANsaid, he had a suggestion to make. Sometimes there was a difficulty about a good Party cry. At one Election, if he recollected right, the cry was "Beer and Bible." He would suggest to the hon. Member for Carlisle that he should go to the country with the cry of "Bradlaugh and Local Option."
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—"BOYCOTTING," CO. ANTRIM—MR. NOBLE.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that at the end of January or beginning of February last, a sworn information of Mr. Noble, a shopkeeper of Randalstown, county Antrim, as to a conspiracy on the part of curtain persons to "Boy-

  943
  cott" him, or, in other words, to ruin him in his business, was duly made; and, whether it is true that such information was laid before him, but that no proceedings were taken thereupon?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. Law): No, Sir; I am not aware of any such information having been sworn. None such was ever laid before me.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CO. ANTRIM—APPOINTMENT OF MR. BLACK.
  MR. LEWISasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether Mr. Samuel Black, of Randalstown, county Antrim, has recently been appointed a magistrate of the county; whether such appointment was not made by the Lord Chancellor after the refusal of the Lieutenant of the County to recommend the appointment; whether it is true that the Lord Chancellor in the first instance refused to make the appointment on the ground of Mr. Black's alleged connection with "Boycotting" shopkeepers in Randalstown who would not join the Land League; whether Mr. Black was a Liberal Candidate for the County at the last Election; and, whether he will state upon what grounds this appointment was ultimately made?
  MR. GIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is a fact that out of one hundred and twenty-six magistrates in county Antrim there are only sixteen Presbyterians and five Roman Catholics, although the Presbyterians constitute more than one-half and the Roman Catholics constitute a large proportion of the population; whether it is the case that the Lord Lieutenant of the County is an habitual absentee, and has not been in the county for seventeen years; and, whether much dissatisfaction does not prevail in consequence of the condition of the magistracy; and, will the Government take any immediate steps to remove this grievance, which seriously affects the confidence of the people in the impartial administration of justice?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir; it is a fact that Mr. Samuel Black has recently been appointed a magistrate for the county of Antrim. As to the second Question, I cannot answer as to communications which have passed between the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Lieu-
  944
  tenant of the county relative to the appointments of magistrates. These communications must be confidential, and I do not think I ought to answer Questions with regard to them. As to the third Question, it is wholly untrue that the Lord Chancellor, in the first instance or at all, refused to make the appointment of Mr. Black on the ground of Mr. Black's alleged connection with "Boycotting" shopkeepers in Randalstown who would not join the Land League, or on any other ground. But I think it only due to Mr. Black, with regard to this Question, to say that he himself has informed me that there is no branch of the Land League in Randalstown, consequently there could not be any "Boycotting" by, or in connection with, the Land League; that he has never had any connection with the Land League in any shape or form; and, he adds, that he has never been connected with "Boycotting" shopkeepers in Randalstown. Mr. Black was the Liberal candidate for the County Antrim at the last Election, being selected as the candidate owing to his position, and he polled several thousand votes. With regard to the last part of the Question of the hon. Member for Londonderry, I hardly think I should be called on to reply to it. The grounds of the appointment were perfectly satisfactory to the Lord Chancellor, who thought that if high intelligence, unstained integrity, and large experience, and a large stake of property in the county were sufficient to qualify a gentleman for the magistracy of Antrim, Mr. Black was duly qualified. In reply to the hon. Member for Monaghan, I have not been able to ascertain the accuracy of the statistics; but I have no reason to believe they are inaccurate. I am not aware that any complaints have been made as to the constitution of the Bench; but my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor of Ireland is always ready to remove any magistrate against whom just cause of complaint is made out.
  MR. BIGGAR: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will state how often the Lord Lieutenant of Antrim has been in the county for the past 30 years?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I have not that acquaintance with the Lord Lieutenant of Antrim to be able to say.
  MR. CALLAN: Is he not aware, as Chief Secretary for Ireland, that it is notorious that the Lord Lieutenant of Antrim is, and has been for 20 years, an absentee?
  [No reply was given.]

  STATE OF IRELAND—SHERIFF SALES IN KERRY.
  THE O'DONOGHIJEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been drawn to the report in the "Cork Examiner" of the 13th instant, of the sale at Killarney on the 12th instant of the interest of a tenant on the estate of Lord Kenmare, named James Flynn; and, if so, whether the sheriff acted legally in rejecting the higher and accepting the lower offer for the farm, even though the amount in notes was actually handed to him by the person who had made the higher offer; and, if it be lawful for the sheriff to distinguish at sales between offers made by emergency men and representatives of the Land League, or to show a preference to bidders in the actual employment of the landlord?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW): In consequence of the Question, I have read in The Cork Examiner the report of the sale referred to. Of course, my hon. Friend knows that it is not any part of my duty to pronounce any opinion upon the course taken by sheriffs on such occasions; but I infer from the statements in the newspaper that in this case the sheriff regarded what is called "the higher offer" as merely illusory. So I infer, because I find it stated that the difference was only ls., one bid being £30 and the other £30 ls. In answer to the last part of the Question, I have to say that at a public auction no distinction should be made between real bidders, to whatever classes they may respectively belong. The highest bonâ fide bidder should be declared the purchaser.

  SUPPLY OF FISH (METROPOLIS)— BILLINGSGATE.
  MR. FIRTHasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is aware that the Corporation of London claim to have a monopoly of fish markets over the Metropolitan area, and that the only existing fish market in London is at the river-side at Bil-
  946
  lingsgate; whether he is aware that persons who control this market prevent enormous quantities of fish coming to London, by telegraphing to the ports of supply, whenever there is a risk of prices being unduly lowered, thereby depriving the London poor of an important article of food; whether it is the fact that three-fourths of the fish supply of London comes by rail, and has to be carted down to Billingsgate; whether it is not the fact that Billingsgate is difficult of access, destitute of unloading accommodation, and utterly unfit for the purpose of a land-borne fish market; whether the facts as to Billingsgate are not confirmed in a recent Report made by Mr. Spencer Walpole to the Home Department, and whether he does not further state that the risk of fish going bad
  "is increased by the delays, constantly extending for hours, and occasionally extending over days, which are due to the inadequate approaches to and want of room outside of Billingsgate;"
  and, whether (in the absence of any representative government in London) he will take any means to protect the interests of Londoners in the matter of an important article of food supply?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The facts stated by my hon. Friend on this question are substantially true. There is no doubt that the market of Billingsgate is entirely inadequate for the supply of the Metropolis. That, I believe, is not denied on any hand, and is not denied by the Corporation or by the Fishmongers' Company. But the great evil is the want of access to the market, which leads to a deficiency of supply in one of the most valuable articles of food. I forwarded a few days ago to the Lord Mayor the Report by Mr. Spencer Walpole on this subject, asking that the Corporation would give me advice as to what measures they intended to take to obviate this great public evil. I have not yet received an answer to the question; but when I have received a Report I shall have to consider what further steps require to be taken in this matter.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—PROCLAMATION OF THE KING'S COUNTY.
  MR. MOLLOY: I beg to draw the attention of the Chief Secretary to the

  947
  Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the following extract from a memorial dated the 10th instant, signed by the vicars generals and priests of the deanery of Birr, and forwarded to the Lord Lieutenant, viz.:—
  "May it please Your Excellency,—We, the priests of the deanery of Birr, have been surprised and pained by the proclamation of the baronies of Ballybrit and Clonlisk, in the King's County, under the Act for the Preservation of Life and Property in Ireland. As your Excellency must know, we are more intimately acquainted than others with the real state of the Country and the feelings and conduct of the people, and we have no hesitation in stating that nothing has occurred in the aforesaid baronies to justify the Government in the extreme course they have taken. Reports of outrages have, indeed, been industriously circulated by newspapers opposed as well to Her Majesty's Liberal Government as to the public opinion of the Country. In nearly every instance these reports, to our knowledge, were either totally without foundation or grossly exaggerated;"
  and to ask, If he will inform the House of the cause of such proclamation; and if he will now make strict inquiries into the truthfulness of the reports upon which such proclamation was made?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can only state that the Government, after grave consideration, and acting on their own responsibility, for the prevention of crime and outrage, thought it necessary to take the course they have taken with regard to the two baronies mentioned.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—SPIKE ISLAND PRISON.
  SIR R. ASSIIETON CROSSasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can now state what course the Government intend to take with regard to Spike Island Prison, in consequence of the Report of the Penal Servitude Commission?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The only answer I can make is that I am in communication with the Treasury in reference to it; but I am not yet in a position to state what course the Government intend to take. I hope to be able to do so before long. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the matter is a very important one, and there are many difficulties connected with it which require consideration.

  SOUTH AFRICA—THE TRANSVAAL (ADMINISTRATION).
  MR. CARINGTONasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Who is at present responsible for the administration of the Law and for the maintenance of order in the Transvaal, and before what tribunal it is intended to try the murderers of Captain Elliot, in the event of their being brought to justice?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: So far as any Government can be responsible in a vast and disturbed country, Her Majesty's Government is responsible. The persons accused of the murder will be tried by the existing High Court of the Transvaal, according to the existing law.
  LORD EUSTACE CECIL: Have they been apprehended yet?
  MR. GRANT DUFF: I think so; but the noble Lord had better give Notice.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF OFFICERS—EX EMPTING APPOINTMENTS.
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary of State for War, If he will lay upon the Table of the House a list of the various appointments which will exempt the officers of the Army, who may, at ally time hold them, from the operation of the proposed rule for compulsory retirement after five years non-employment; and, if he will state how long such appointments will require to be held in order to enable the holders to claim exemption from the non-employment rule?
  MR. CHILDERS: I really must appeal to my hon. and gallant Friend to take the answer which I have already given on this subject. He will find when the Warrant appears that we have fully provided, in the interest of the Public Service, and of the officers themselves, for the eases of Colonels now holding five years' appointments; and I have already explained that the aggregate cost of retirement is estimated at within the sum which I named in moving Vote 3 of the Estimates.

  JAPAN—INTRODUCTION OF DRUGS AND CILEMICALS.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have made any communication to the

  949
  Government of Japan in regard to the introduction of drugs and chemicals into that Country?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires in Japan was instructed, in July last, to take such action as might be necessary for the protection of importers of drugs, in case there should be proper grounds for the intervention of Her Majesty's Government, and no further complaint has boon received since that date.

  WESTMINSTER ABBEY—MONUMENTS.
  MR. MACDONALDasked the First Commissioner of Works, If he will lay a Return, in the form of which Notice has been given, upon the Table of the House, giving an account of all the Slab Memorials, Tablets, Busts, Statuettes, and other Monuments that have been erected in Westminster Abbey in recognition of the dead since 1800?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: I have no right to call upon the Dean and Chapter for any such Return as the hon. Member asks for. I have, however, communicated with the Dean on the subject. He informs me that all the information which the hon. Member asks for as to the tablets, busts, and monuments which have been erected since 1800 is to be found in published histories of the Abbey, and in a small popular account of it sold outside the Abbey for 1s. If the hon. Member prefers to examine these monuments on the spot, the Dean will undertake to show them to him, and to any other Members who may accompany him, in the course of half-an-hour, at any time he will name. With reference to the information required as to the fees, the Dean says that the fees for private monuments vary from £200 for a bust upwards, according to the size of the monument. The fees go entirely to the maintenance of the fabric, and not to the private emolument of the Dean or any other member of the Chapter. He adds that the space in the Abbey is very limited, the honour of a monument being very much coveted, the disfigurement occasioned by disproportionate monuments very incongruous, and the expense of the fabric of the Abbey very great. I would suggest, therefore, to my hon. Friend that, as his Motion is blocked by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. Warton), he should accept the Dean's offer. He will spend a moat delightful
  950
  half-hour, under the guidance of a man who, beyond all his predecessors, has exercised a wise and generous discrimination in offering a place in the Abbey to the memorials of distinguished men.
  MR. MACDONALDfurther asked the First Commissioner of Works, If he is aware that the bust erected to the memory of the late Sir Rowland Hill within the Westminster Abbey cost £200; and, whether he is further aware that the fees for allowing it to be placed there amounted to the sum of £201 1s. and to what purpose is such money applied under the term "fabric?"
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that this Question had been already answered.
  MR. MACDONALDgave Notice that when the Estimates of the First Commissioner of Works were proceeded with he should move their entire rejection, and call the attention of the House to the scandal of selling places in such a venerable Institution.

  TUNIS (INTERNATIONAL ENGAGE MENTS).
  MR. MACIVERasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government has already taken or intends to take such steps as will insure to our Maltese fellow subjects resident in Tunis a continuance of those commercial advantages which, under Turkish Suzerainty, they have hitherto enjoyed; or if, under French Protectorate, their trade, which to some exent is in British manufactures, will be subjected to disadvantages similar to those under which our trade with the French Republic is already subjected by our system of one-sided Free Trade, and which conditions do not seem likely to be much ameliorated so long as we continue to receive Foreign manufactures free of taxation, while demanding no similar privileges from foreigners in return?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he should answer the Question in general terms in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Portsmouth.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked, Whether any steps have been taken to secure for British subjects in Tunis all the rights, liberties, exemptions, and privileges obtained for them by the Conventions between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis, concluded on 10th of October 1863 and the 19th of

  951
  July 1875; whether any communication has been received from the French Government as to the validity of the capitulations in Tunis; and, what would be the position of British subjects in Tunis as to the administration of civil and criminal justice; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have recognised or acquiesced in the state of things established at Tunis by the recent action of the French Government; and, whether they will defer any decision on their policy in this respect until Parliament has been enabled to consider the Papers about to be laid upon the Table on the subject?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I propose to give in a few words what information I can with regard to the commercial side of these Questions. If entered on the political topics to which these Questions refer, I should have to read out the whole of our despatches from Tunis, Nos. 2, 3, and 4. I may state that all existing Conventions are to be maintained and respected; commercial and other rights and privileges will remain undisturbed in so far as they are guaranteed by Treaties, unless new Conventions freely entered into should be substituted for the existing arrangements. The General Convention between the Governments of Great Britain and Tunis stilt remains in force; it secures to British subjects, vessels, and commerce the treatment of the most favoured nation, and we, of course, continue entitled to the privileges of the later Treaties.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I see by the new French Treaty with Tunis, that while the Treaties are to be maintained the French Government are practically to carry on the foreign affairs of Tunis. The Convention of 1875 is limited to a term of seven years; and I wish to know whether the French Government would, on its expiration in 1882, be competent to give notice for its termination in 1882? I have to ask this particularly, because by the Treaty of 1875 an ad valorem duty of 8 per cent was placed on British imports; and in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the present negotiations for a new Commercial Treaty with France, I wish to know whether the French Government would have the power to refuse to renew the Convention of 1875, and to impose on British goods a higher daty?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that he should like to have Notice before answering the Question.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he had already given Notice.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that no Notice had been given of the Question then asked. The Convention of 1875 was undoubtedly in force and remained in force; but the question he was asked to deal with was in respect of a renewal of the Treaty.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that his Question raised substantially the same question.
  SIR. CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the Question on the Paper did not specifically raised the question just asked, which was a question dealing with the future.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFgave Notice that he would call attention to this subject on Monday next, and ask what the Government intended to do with regard to the Financial Commission at present in existence, and which consisted of English, French, and Italian Commissioners.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, that the financial side of the question had not escaped the attention of the Government. The Government had heard nothing from the French Government, except that they had been desirous of maintaining all the existing Treaties. If any desire should be expressed to change the constitution of the Financial Commission, the Government would take the opportunity of expressing their views.
  MR. MAC IVERsaid, that he felt obliged to say something on the subject of Malta and Tunis, and that to keep himself in Order he would conclude with a Motion. The relations between Malta and Tunis were of great importance, and Tunis had been a great resort of the surplus population of our fellow subjects in Malta. He contended that the Maltese had not received fair treatment at our hands. They had petitioned Parliament to redress their grievances; but their Petitions had been disregarded. One of their chief wrongs was that we sent our troops and our war vessels to Malta, and that the troops and Navy were relieved from the food taxation which the people of the Island had to bear. Another grievance suffered by the Maltose was that they were compelled to defray the whole expense of

  953
  the salary of the Governor of the Island, and that the Imperial Government contributed nothing whatever in respect of his military services as Commander of the Garrison. We should be doing the Maltese another wrong by continuing to conduct commercial negotiations in the childish spirit which distinguished the transactions of our present Foreign Office. He had no wish to say anything ungenerous about our French neighbours; but it was a duty from which he could not shrink to urge upon the Government that the trade facilities hitherto enjoyed by the Maltese in their relations with Tunis should be continued in the future. In conclusion, he begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. FINIGANseconded the Motion, his reasons for doing so being the same as those which had influenced the hon. Member who had just sat down. Touching the question of Free Trade, he observed that he had received information from an eminent statistician which showed that while £280,000,000 worth of foreign manufactured goods had in 10 years been introduced into this country, the nations who sent those goods had drawn an immense revenue from the articles exported to their respective countries in return. The charges imposed upon goods by America amounted to between 25 and 60 per cent. He was of opinion that the industry of this country would soon have to be conducted on sounder economical principles than at present.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Mac Iver.)
  MR. ANDERSONsaid, he was as anxious as anyone could be to have the affairs of Malta discussed in that House, because he believed that Malta was not being properly attended to by our Colonial Government at present; but he deprecated entirely its being brought up in this irregular fashion. It was not doing justice to Malta, any more than it was doing justice to the House, and it was because he wished to see some justice done to the subject that he deprecated it. He therefore declined to go into the subject at present, but would be ready to discuss it if brought forward in a regular manner. He wished, however, to appeal to the Government, after the experience they had had to-night, to
  954
  deal with this question of those untimely Motions for adjournment. He had given Notice of his intention to move a Resolution limiting, without abrogating, the power of Members to move the adjournment of the House at Question time. He therefore appealed to the Government to take this matter in hand.
  MR. MAC IVERasked leave to withdraw his Motion, adding that the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson) was one of the Members who had done their best to effect a "count" on the occasions when he had tried in a regular manner to bring forward the subjects to which he had drawn attention that evening.
  MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that this Motion shall be withdrawn? ["No!"]
  Question put, and negatived.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—ROYAL ARTILLERY GUNNERS.
  CAPTAIN AYLMERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, before deciding upon limiting the service of gunners in the Royal Artillery to seven years, he will give due consideration to the fact that it takes at least six years to make a skilled gunner, and to the serious consequences to the Country which would follow the loss of the services of such men?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman I must entirely demur to his statement that it takes at least six years to make a skilled gunner. For such a theory there is in practice no foundation. But we have been carefully considering under what circumstances gunners in the Coast Brigade and in the Garrison Artillery should serve beyond seven years, and I think that our decisions will fully meet the necessities of the Service. The formation, I may say, of a gunner's reserve is most important.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—COMPULSORY RETIREMENT OF COLONELS IN COM MAND OF DEPOT CENTRES.
  MAJOR NOLANasked the Secretary of State for War, How many Colonels now holding the command of Depôt Centres, or equivalent positions, will be compulsorily retired under the new Warrant before completing the period of five years' command for which they were

  955
  originally appointed; what will be approximately the average pension of each of these officers; and, will the total additional cost to the State considerably exceed £20,000 without effecting any compensating saving, or conferring any advantage on the officers in question?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend, I have to state that the Warrant, which will be issued before the 1st of July, will specify the appointments, the tenure of which will qualify officers to remain for specified periods on the active list. As a rule, the tenure of these offices must be two years at least, with special provisions as to service in the field.

  CURRENCY—MONETARY CONFERENCE AT PARIS—BI-METALLISM.
  MR. E. STANHOPEasked, Whether the statement alleged to have been made on Tuesday last at the Paris Conference by Sir Louis Mallet was in any way authorised by Her Majesty's Government or the Secretary of State for India in Council; and, if not, whether such expressions on the subject of Bimetallism by the official representative of the Government of India in this Country will not lead to great misconception abroad as to the attitude of England on this subject?
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked, Whether the reported statements of Sir Louis Mallet at the Paris Conference have the sanction of Her Majesty's Government, and can be construed to imply that the Government approves of the theory which its representative at that Conference has adopted, and in particular the opinion which Sir Louis Mallet is reported to have expressed that, "if law was entitled to impose a single metal as money, it had an equal right to impose two metals at a fixed ratio?"
  THE MARQUESS OF FIARTINGTON: In reply to the Questions that have been put to me, I have to say that, as the interests of India and of the United Kingdom with regard to the silver question did not appear to be identical, it seemed fitting that they should be separately represented at Paris, and that independent instructions should be given to the delegates. The British delegate is instructed as follows:—
  "The delegate of Her Majesty's Government will assist at the meetings of the Conference,
  956
  solely in order to be a medium of communication, and to afford information when the Conference may require it, but with no power of voting."
  The substance of the instructions given to the Indian delegates—Sir Louis Mallet and Lord Reay—was as follows:—
  "You will explain that, in sending a delegate to the Conference, the Government of India must not be held to commit itself to the adoption of the principle of the bi-metallic system in India, and that you are not authorized, without further instructions, to vote on any question raised at the Conference. You will, however, add that, while the Secretary of State in Council is unwilling to encourage an expectation of any material change, at present, in the monetary policy of India, he would be ready to consider any measures which might be suggested for adoption in India as being calculated to promote the re-establishment of the value of silver. It is desirable that you should, as far as possible, avoid giving any pledge on the part of the Government of India which would in any manner interfere with its future liberty of action; but, in the event of your being pressed on the subject, or your seeing reason to think it desirable that such a declaration should be made, you are authorized to agree, on the part of the Government of India, that, for some definite term of years, not exceeding ten, it will undertake not to depart, in any direction calculated to lower the value of silver, from the existing practice of coining silver freely in the Indian mints as legal tender throughout the Indian dominions of Her Majesty. Such a declaration must, however, be conditional on the acceptance by a number of the principal States of an agreement binding them, in some manner or other, to open their mints for a similar term to the coinage of silver as full legal tender in the proportion of 15½ of silver to 1 of gold, and the engagement on the part of India would be obligatory only so long as that agreement remained in force."
  I have received no official information of the speech said to have been delivered by Sir Louis Mallet at the Paris Conference, and, indeed, no information on the subject except that which appeared in The Times of, I think, the day before yesterday, and, therefore, can give no opinion upon the speech until I have received an authentic copy. I may, however, mention that before Coming down to the House I received a telegram from Lord Lyons, dated May 20, 4 P.M., in which Sir Louis Mallet says—
  "Times City Article, Thursday. I distinctly stated that the opinion on abstract question in reply to previous speakers was purely personal and individual, and that English Government had from the beginning absolutely refused to join bi-metallic experiment. Speech not yet received from printer; will be sent immediately."

  THE "PRINCESS ALICE" CATASTROPHE —BURIAL EXPENSES OF THE SUF FERERS—TIDAL RIVERS (INTER MENTS) BILL.
  MR. MONTAGU SCOTTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to a statement in the "Morning Post" that, in consequence of the existing state of the Law, by which the expense of the burial of those drowned in the Princess Alice disaster, and cast or brought ashore at Woolwich and Plumstead, will have to be paid by those two parishes; and, that bodies of drowned persons are now not recovered from the Thames, but are allowed to float up and down in the tide, as in the rivers of India; and, if he will take immediate steps to alter the Law, and thereby prevent so gross a violation of public decency?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that when he was asked if "he would take immediate steps to alter the law," hon. Gentlemen in that House must know that that was no easy thing to do. He, however, quite admitted that there was a distinct grievance in this case, and the hon. Member for Greenwich (Baron Henry de Worms) had introduced a Bill for the alteration of the law in this matter, and that Bill would receive the favourable consideration of the Government.

  CENTRAL AFRICA—FRENCH PROTEC TORATE ON THE UPPER NIGER.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is true that the French Government have concluded a Treaty with the native ruler of the territories on the Upper Niger, placing the Niger from its sources down to the great emporium of Central African Trade, under the exclusive protectorate of France, and excluding all Europeans, except French subjects, from establishing themselves and from opening trading factories within these immense regions, and even from navigating the River Niger; and, whether Her Majesty's Government will consent to the imposition of such disabilities on British subjects?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: We have heard from private sources of the conclusion of a Treaty between France and the King of Segoo through the Go
  958
  vernor of Senegal, with regard to trade upon the Upper Niger above Timbuctoo—that is, some 2,000 or 2,500 miles from its mouth. Similar information has reached Her Majesty's Government from Her Majesty's Minister at Brussels. I am not aware that there are at present any British traders or trade in the country in question.

  LAND REVENUES ACT—THE STAGSDEN CROWN ESTATE.
  MR. J. HOWARDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will cause an inquiry to be instituted into the management of the Crown Estate at Stagsden, Bedfordshire, and the alleged harsh treatment of the tenants since the estate was transferred to the Crown by the trustees of the late Baron Dynevor; and, whether he will direct particular inquiry to be made into the case of George Pettit, an industrious and respected tenant farmer upon the said Crown Estate, who recently committed suicide, and who, according to the evidence adduced at the coroner's inquest, left behind him a memorandum to the effect that he had been driven to the act by the treatment which he had received at the hands of the agent of the Crown Estates?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The matter is one which deserves to be considered with care. The estate to which the Question relates, and which consists of something like 4,000 acres, was purchased for £112,000, and £21,000 has been laid out in improvements. The farms have been let, according to the judgment of those intrusted with the management, in strict accordance with the provisions of the Land Revenues Act. The valuation on which they have been let is that of Mr. Clutton, who is well known as one of the most experienced valuators in England. The total amount of rent is £4,312, at 23 s. an acre. Owing to the bad times allowances have been made to the tenants amounting to 11 per cent in 1878, 17 per cent in 1879, and 22 per cent in 1880. The same reduction has been granted in 1881. This leaves the rent at something like 22 s. an acre, and it will be seen that there is nothing like severity or hardship in the general management of the estate. George Pettit, I am informed, held 171 acres

  959
  of some of the best land on the estate, on which £2,000 had been laid out in making improvements. He paid 25 s. an acre, deducting the allowances in bad times which I have described. Last Michaelmas he fell into an arrear of £20, of Which no notice was taken until the month of March in this year, when application was made to him for payment. In reply he requested some further time, and no further application was made to him. On the l5th of April the Commissioners visited the farm, and Pettit made no complaint to them, and expressed himself well satisfied with the new buildings and improvements which had been made. He asked that some further works might be carried out, and the application was acceded to and the works put in hand. I may add that there is no doubt this gentleman suffered a good deal from anxiety of mind; but I am informed that he took a second farm by which he lost heavily. I may also mention that I am assured that two months ago, in the course of conversation with his brother, he spoke of the great anxiety which he felt in connection with the farm which he had lately taken; but that he made no complaint with reference to the farm which he held under the Crown.
  MR. J. HOWARDasked whether the information which the right hon. Gentleman had given to the House was supplied from the Department of Woods and Forests, or whether it came from an independent and impartial source? He should also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman had read the report of the evidence winch had been given at the Coroner's inquest, and the comments which had been made ill the county newspapers on the management of the estate in question; also whether his attention had been called to the case of another tenant?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the observations of the hon. Gentleman could scarcely be regarded as coming within the proper limits of a Question, as they involved matter which might lead to debate.
  MR. J. HOWARDgave Notice that when the Motion of the hon. Member for Cardiganshire (Mr. Pugh), with regard to the management of the Crown Lands in Wales, came on for discussion, he should move that the proposed inquiry be extended to the Crown Estates in Bedfordshire.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I may be allowed to say that the information which I communicated to the House was received from the Commissioners of Crown Lands. I would, at the same time, observe that that information turns upon matters of fact, and not of opinion.

  WESTMINSTER SCHOOL AND CHRIST CHTTRCH COLLEGE, OXFORD.
  MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is true that the governing body of Westminster School have agreed to surrender the right of the school to the house in Little Dean's Yard, lately occupied by the Rev. Lord John Thynne, and containing an area of about 10,000 square feet, and to accept instead another house containing an area of about 4,000 feet, after the decease of the present occupier, this house, the acquisition of which is more or less remote, not being so conveniently situated for the proper conduct of the school, and for the necessary expansion of its teaching, and whether in case such an arrangement has been made, there are any means by which it may be rescinded, and the school enter at once into the premises to which it is legally entitled; and, whether, in case the statutes of Westminster School, and the College of Christ Church, Oxford, are revised, it would not be expedient to free the ancient and royal foundation of Westminster from the relations with the two Deans and two Chapters of St. Peter's and Christ Church, especially the latter, since during the last ten years the undergraduates of Christ Church, Oxford, have gained only six first classes in Literis Humanioribus, and only eighteen first classes under Moderators, the college containing 207 undergraduates, while another college, exemptia gratia, now has, in the same period, having now 165 undergraduates, gained twenty-six first classes in Literis Humanioribus, and thirty-nine first classes under Moderators, and that the Westminster students may be left free to choose their own college?
  MR. GLADSTONE: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that, as I am informed, the Governing Body of Westminster School have agreed to surrender the right of the School to which he refers. With regard to the second branch of the first portion of his Ques-

  961
  tion, I am not aware of any means by which such an arrangement can be rescinded. The fact is, that the Legislature has, by a not very old Act of Parliament, made provision, through this body, for the conduct of the affairs of the School; and there are no means of taking the conduct of those affairs out of their hands. With reference to the second Question, I may allude to the inference to be drawn from it, which would lead one to suppose that my hon. Friend is of opinion that the diminution in the number of first classes in the case of the Undergraduates of Christ Church was due to the contaminating influence of the contact between the School and College. The Dean of Westminster gives me this consolatory assurance with regard to the composition of these Governing Bodies—namely, that out of 15 persons the Dean and Chapter have only three places; and, consequently, they cannot well corrupt the other 12 members, or if they do they must do so by some mysterious influence, which evidently testifies to an occult virtue in Deans and Chapters. At Christ Church the case was quite as strong, the Governing Body consisting of 29 persons, and the Dean and Chapter having only seven places; so that only about a fourth part of the responsibility for anything that takes place rests with the Dean and Chapter. My hon. Friend is dissatisfied with the conduct of the Governing Body; and upon that matter I must leave him to form an independent judgment.

  FRANCE—THE NEW COMMERCIAL TREATY (NEGOTIATIONS).
  Mr. W. HOLMSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, having regard to the fact that negotiations are about to begin with a view to making a new Commercial Treaty with France, which will effect some of the most important industries of this Country, he will be so good as to relieve the anxiety which is felt in connection with this question by giving an assurance that no Commercial Treaty will be concluded with France till it has been submitted to and approved of by Parliament?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The Question my hon. Friend asks me is whether we will give an assurance that no Commercial Treaty will be concluded till it has been submitted to and approved of by Parliament? That pledge has never
  962
  been given in any case by any Government with regard to any Treaty. I could not give that pledge. It would involve a fundamental alteration as to the mode of carrying on the Business of the country. I have, however, already formally conveyed to an hon. Member who takes an interest in the matter an assurance that he need entertain no anxiety on this subject. There is every security that there can be—in this case very special security—that no steps will be taken except in the light of day, and within the full knowledge of the commercial community, as well as of Parliament; and I think that when my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs proceeds to present to Parliament information with regard to the arrangements for carrying on the negotiations, it will be seen that no apprehension need be entertained.

  FOREIGN JEWS IN RUSSIA—EXPUL SION OF A NATURALIZED BRITISH SUBJECT.
  BARON HENRY DE WORMSgave Notice that, on Monday, he would ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Protest by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of Russia relative to the expulsion of Mr. Levisohn, a British subject of the Jewish faith, and of the text of the Russian law bearing on the subject, and of the notice said to have appeared in the "Gazette" warning British subjects professing the Jewish faith from visiting Russia or taking up their residence there?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEexplained that he had never said that the notice given in The Gazette warned any British subjects from visiting Russia.

  STATE OF IRELAND—MOVEMENT OF TROOPS AND ARTILLERY.
  MR. HEALYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it was true, as stated in the morning newspapers, that four pieces of artillery in a flying column had been sent against the peasantry of Limerick; and, if so, whether he had yet received any news from the seat of war?
  MR. CHILDERS: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman puts this Question to me seriously. [Mr. HEALY: Yes.]

  963
  Then, all I can say is, that I have not seen the paragraph in the newspapers to which he alludes.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PRO PERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. DILLON.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If it was true that Mr. Dillon had been obliged to return from the infirmary in Kilmainham to an ordinary cell in consequence of the fact that he was obliged to herd with other people in the room which had been set apart for his separate use; and whether, in view of his delicate state of health, steps would be taken to allocate a room in the prison for his sole occupation?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: If the hon. Gentleman gives Notice of the Question, I shall answer it. What I believe is, that it was found necessary to put other people who were ill in the same room with Mr. Dillon on account of the want of accommodation in the infirmary.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS OF REV. FATHER SHEEHY AND OTHERS.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it was true that that morning the Rev. Father Sheehy, Mr. Henry Gilbertson, Mr. P. M'Carthy, and Mr. John Cleary were arrested at Kilmallock, in the county of Limerick, under the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act; and, if so, whether he would inform the House on what grounds those four gentlemen had been arrested?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The four persons named by the hon. Member were arrested this morning under the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act. I can only say it is with great regret that we have found it to be absolutely necessary to direct the arrest of a Roman Catholic clergyman. With regard to the exact terms of the Warrant, we shall receive that document by post to-morrow morning, and if the hon. Member will ask me, I will give him the terms of it on Monday. It will be laid upon the Table of the House in the usual course.
  MR. O'SULLIVANsaid, that during the seven years which he had been in that House he had never risen to move the adjournment of the House at that early
  964
  hour of the evening; but he felt that the present was too serious an occasion to be allowed to pass without protest. They knew well that in Ireland arrests were accustomed to be made without any charge being brought against those arrested; but he believed this was the first time since the abolition of the Penal Laws that a clergyman had been arrested for political reasons. Though they had a Tory Government in Office in 1867, and though thousands of persons were arrested in that year, yet amongst that number there was not a single clergyman arrested on that occasion, though the Tory Government were never given much credit for partiality towards Catholic clergymen. How was it that when a Liberal Government was in Office, and that when the number arrested was comparatively so small, that one of them was a Catholic clergyman? He knew the three large farmers who were arrested in his neighbourhood since they were boys, and he knew them to be active and industrious, and believed they would not be guilty of any reckless or illegal conduct to bring them under the provisions of the Bill. It was, therefore, a mystery to him why those arrests should have taken place. One of these gentlemen was an auctioneer in a large way of business, as well as being a large farmer, and he never knew a man more attentive to his business than he was. He (Mr. O'Sullivan) felt that he would not be discharging his duty to his constituency if he allowed this occasion to pass without calling attention to the arrest of these men. The Chief Secretary had declined to tell them the reason why they were arrested; but he (Mr. O'Sullivan) would tell them what he thought was the cause of their arrest. There was in his neighbourhood, and in many other parts of the County Limerick, a great many rack-rented tenants; but there was particularly, on one estate in that neighbourhood, the most rackrented tenantry in any part of Ireland—that was on the estate of a man named Coote. It had been stated in that House that the purchasers in the Landed Estates Court were the greatest rackrenters; but this man was not a purchaser in the Landed Estates Court. He was one of the real old Cromwellian settlers, and he was a man that rackrented his tenantry more than any other landlord in the County Limerick. Writs

  965
  were flying about on that estate for a half-year's and a year's rent. The tenants had paid their rents as long as they possibly could out of the little capital they bad; but in the bad years of 1878 and 1879 they were not able to pay these rack rents. Within the last week there had been an order to evict a man with a large family on that property, named Murphy; and it was feared that if these men were at liberty, they would be able to tell the grievances of these tenants, and that the people there would rise up as one man and try to prevent the eviction of Murphy and others on that estate. He believed that was the reason why Father Sheehy and these respectable, industrious farmers had been arrested. That landlord had an agent named Townsend, and for the last 20 years his conduct had been most tyrannical to the tenantry on several properties round Kilmallock and Kilfinane. There was no opportunity that occurred, whether the death of a father or mother, or the marriage of a son, that he did not try to advance the rent, and the consequence was that the rents on the estates in many cases were double what they were 20 years ago. Another of his tenants had been served with notice to quit, so that between Mr. Coote and his agent, Townsend, the neighbourhood was unfortunately in a disturbed condition. The trouble had been brewing for many years, for there was no occasion that had not been taken advantage of to raise the rent, until at last the rents were beyond what the tenants could pay. Then they revolted against the agent. He had known a case where the rent had been raised three times in 25 years, so that what was only 19 s. 3d. per acre at that time was now—2 1s. 9d. per acre. He knew the neighbourhood in which the arrests had been made; he knew the persons who had been arrested, and he knew their history; and he challenged the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to show that any of the persons arrested had committed any act which brought them legitimately within the scope of the Coercion Act passed by Parliament a short time back. The truth was, that a farmer named Murphy was to be evicted in the course of a week or two; and it was thought dangerous by the Executive Government to leave in the neighbourhood certain men of intelligence and knowledge who
  966
  would be able to explain to the people the glaring injustice that was being inflicted upon ads unfortunate man. There was no Court before which the question could be raised that would not reduce the rents on this rack-rented property; and this was the explanation of the fact that writs were being numerously served on the tenants occupying farms on the estate, for they knew the Land Bill would stop their hand. Feeling that, he would not be doing his duty if he allowed the arrest of four respectable constituents of his to take place without any sufficient reason to pass unchallenged. He therefore begged to move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. SYNANsaid, he was reluctant to interfere with the ordinary Business of the House by supporting Motions of this eccentric character; but the circumstances of the present case rendered the course which had been taken a proper course. It had never been known in the course of the last century that a clergyman in Ireland had been arrested and put into prison without trial. He could only suppose that the reason for the arrest of the Rev. Mr. Sheehy—a gentleman of the highest character, alike in reference to education and religion—was that he was a great favourite in the county, and, possessing large influence with the people, would have been able to exert considerable power among them in reference to certain eviction proceedings which were impending. He had been surmised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant had stated his inability to lay before the House the terms of the Warrant of arrest; because he understood the right hon. Gentleman in the course of the debate on the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill to say that he would take care that no arrests should take place unless he had been communicated with beforehand. Would the right hon. Gentleman say that that clergyman had brought himself within the terms of the Act, and that he had incited people to crime, or that he had been a party to public disturbance in the district? He knew the men by repute, and he believed they were persons of such a position that it was impossible they would be guilty of offences of the kind for any purpose of their own. He thought it was time tile Government gave the House some information on

  967
  the subject. At all events, they ought to lay the Warrants on the Table. He agreed that the present was an inconvenient mode of bringing on a discussion on the subject. But why was it done? The Irish Members wanted a day to discuss Mr. Dillon's arrest. They were denied that opportunity; and if the present discussion had not been raised in the way it had, no doubt they would have had to wait for such a long time that by the time it was brought on the whole thing would have vanished from the minds of the people. He said that was a subject that called for the immediate attention of the Government, for an answer from the Government, and it would not do to tell them that they had no information about it until they got the Warrant. He begged to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. O'Sullivan.)
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I wish to remove one misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member for Limerick, who has last spoken, and that is, that these arrests took place without my knowledge. I thought I had given the impression in my first answer that we had examined into the matter when I said it was with great regret we found ourselves absolutely compelled to arrest a Catholic clergyman. The simple reason why I cannot give the exact terms of the Warrant is because I have not yet received them; but if the question is repeated on Monday they will certainly be stated. With regard to the causes of the arrest, I beg to say that I must follow the course taken by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on a previous occasion—namely, that we cannot enter into the question of these arrests upon a Motion for the adjournment of the House. I must distinctly inform the House that we have made up our minds that it would not be our duty to do so. Individually, I am most anxious to meet any Motion that may be made against my conduct, or the conduct of the Irish Executive, in regard to this or any other arrests; and I shall be very much surprised if I should not satisfy the great majority in the House that we could not have taken any other course. But I must respectfully decline to enter into any discussion of the matter on the
  968
  present occasion, and for this reason—that it is a charge upon the Government which ought to be brought before the House in such a manner as would enable it to say whether it agrees with the charge or not.
  LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLcould not be altogether surprised that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary declined to enter into a discussion on the administration of the Coercion Act on a Motion for the adjournment of the House. But although these Motions had been made on two or three occasions, and although the Chief Secretary had always declined to go into any discussion at that moment, yet he had always expressed, at the same time, his burning anxiety to meet any charge which might be made against him. If the right hon. Gentleman wished that profession of his to have much weight with the House, it was very easy for him to take a course which would make the House perfectly confident that that was so. The Irish Government had now for three months been in possession of extraordinary powers, and there was, no doubt, a great anxiety in the minds of many hon. Members—not only from Ireland, but Members of the Opposition—to discuss the state of Ireland and the administration of the Coercion Act. The state of Ireland was quite as important as any Business which could be brought before the House. The fact was, that although the Government had brought in a very strong Coercion Act, although they had produced their remedial measures, yet the condition of Ireland was 50 times worse than it was when Parliament assembled. He could not conceive anything more important than that; and if the Chief Secretary was so anxious to meet the charges made against him, let the Prime Minister take the first Government night and dispose of the matter. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad that the Prime Minister cheered the statement, and that that course was likely to be adopted. He must say he was not surprised at the course the hon. Member for County Limerick had taken, because the matter he had brought before the House was, as he believed, without precedent. The arrest of a Roman Catholic priest, whether rightly or wrongly—as to that he pronounced no opinion—was a thing calculated to shock the sensibilities of the Irish people

  969
  from one end of the country to the other. That being so, the Chief Secretary ought not, he thought, to have taken refuge under the irregularity of the Motion, but should have at once stated to the House the reason why he had resorted to so unprecedented a measure. An explanation the Irish Members had a right to demand. He was perfectly certain that the late Administration would not have resorted to an act of this kind without the greatest possible necessity existing for it, and if they had done such a thing the Minister would have been prepared to come to the Table and state all the reasons for the arrests. There was no doubt that the arrests had been most capricious. What was the difference between the speeches delivered by Father Sheehy and those of Archbishop Croke; and what was the difference between those and the speeches of Mr. Brennan? They would like to know why one man was arrested and another left out? What was the logical conclusion to be arrived at from the proceedings of the Government? It was that they desired, not directly, but indirectly, to suppress the Land League by Act of Parliament. He could not help thinking that the Land League had been rather useful than otherwise to the Government, as violent speeches rather aided the progress of the Land Bill. Those violent speeches were checked by an occasional arrest, but with the result that more violent speeches were made the next day. While on this subject, he could not help referring to the arrest of Mr. Dillon. The hon. Member for Tipperary had, before leaving for Ireland, publicly stated that he intended to defy the law and to teach the people of Ireland how to resist the influences of the Coercion Act. Mr. Dillon kept his word. He made several speeches, not one of them more violent than any of the others. Those speeches extended over several weeks, and produced a very unfortunate result in Ireland as far as the restoration of order in that country was concerned. But what did the Government do—rather, what did they not do? They did not arrest Mr. Dillon. By their very apathy they encouraged him. He was allowed to remain at liberty until the moment he was about to leave Ireland, to leave off making those speeches, to come over to the House of Commons and take part in the Con-
  970
  stitutional discussion of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; and that was the moment selected by the Government to arrest him. What, he asked, might be expected to be the natural result of the passing of the Coercion Bills? The natural result, from what they heard from the Government, would be the proclamation of the whole of Ireland, except the Province of Ulster—certainly the proclamation of Dublin and Cork, in which, to a certain extent, existed elements of evil and danger to the Irish Government. Well, what did the Government do? They did not proclaim either Dublin or Cork until they determined to arrest Mr. Dillon, and then they suspended the Constitutional liberties of Dublin, a city of 300,000 or 400,000 inhabitants. In the whole course of Irish history he did not think they could find any record of so arbitrary an act. But the course of the Government throughout had been, as he had said, capricious. They gave the House strong reasons for passing the Coercion Acts, and how many persons had been arrested under them until a recent period? Just 30. That was the practical fulfilment of the pledge of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant that if Parliament passed the Coercion Acts he would pacify Ireland. For a considerable time 30 persons only were arrested, and the result was that the fear the Acts were intended to instil into the minds of the Irish people totally evaporated. If they wished to restore order in Ireland, which he very much doubted—["Oh!"]—well, they were not going the right way about it by removing from the minds of the people all apprehension as to the operation of the Acts. No one in Ireland had the slightest fear of the Chief Secretary or the Lord Lieutenant. As had been said the other day, the Irish Government had lost the respect of every man in Ireland. He would add to that that they had lost the respect of every single impartial person in the United Kingdom. There was, in his opinion, nothing more dangerous than that a Government should extort from Parliament the unconstitutional powers they now possessed—for many Conservative Members were unwilling to intrust them with the exercise of those powers—and show that they were afraid to put them in operation. These Coer-

  971
  cion Acts had been in operation some months, and the state of Ireland was 50 times worse than before they were passed. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had been asked for an explanation of the most recent proceeding of the Irish Executive under those Acts, and he had declined to enter into any explanation on the subject, stating that he would do so if a regular Motion were made in respect of it. That treatment of the subject might be satisfactory for a little time, but it could be so for a little time only. He strongly advised the Chief Secretary to take a different course; and he did so because he saw the way in which public opinion was going, looking at all the elections which had recently taken place. The fact was, the whole of the country was dissatisfied with the Government; and therefore he would advise the Chief Secretary, out of pure friendship, to lay all the facts before the House, and prove, if he could, that the present state of Ireland was not owing to the proceedings of the Government, and the sooner he could give that proof the better it would be for the Government and for Ireland.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he was not about to draw the attention of the House to the administration of Irish affairs by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, that right hon. Gentleman being, as he believed, in a state of Arcadian ignorance as to the real state of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government was in his place, and he it was who was really responsible fir the government of Ireland. He wished to point to the contrast between the speeches of the right hon. Gentleman on the Coercion Bills and the present action of the Government. The Prime Minister objected to the prolongation of the discussion on the introduction of the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill, because, in the absence of the text, it was impossible to speak with accuracy of its probable operation; but he added that, if they were legislating against agitation or against popular discontent, it would be better to proceed, in the first instance, with remedial legislation; and then he declared they were legislating against the abettors and the perpetrators of outrage, on whose fears they desired to operate—men of the dangerous classes, who were not to be converted
  972
  by remedial legislation. The right hon. Gentleman added that neither members of the Land League or other persons could be touched except so far as they fell within the stringent provisions of the Bill. Was it a just inference that the Bill was aimed solely at the perpetrators and abettors of outrage? [Mr GLADSTONE assented.] The right hon. Gentleman assented, and he would therefore ask whether Father Sheehy was an abettor or perpetrator of outrage? Father Sheehy was one of the most earnest, honest, fair dealing, and patriotic of the clerical party in Ireland. Was this arrest, then, consistent with the declaration of the Prime Minister as to the objects of that Bill? He took no notice of the declarations of the Chief Secretary, who contradicted himself from day to day, and guided himself with the reports of policemen, without troubling himself to find out whether they were true or not. He challenged the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) to say that the description of what the Coercion Act was going to be, and against whom it was to be directed, corresponded with the arrest of this respectable and respected clergyman—with the arrest of Town Councillors and Poor Law Guardians, and many other persons in Ireland, whose solo offence against the law had been that they were earnest supporters of this great struggle of the people against landlordism. Authentic evidence of what had occurred in the neighbourhood in which these arrests had been made was to be found in the Report of the Commission. It was asserted by the witnesses that tenants who had made improvements had been compelled to sacrifice them and to accept leases, and that rents had been raised; and Mr. William Uniacke Townsend himself admitted all the charges made against him, expressed the opinion that every tenant should have a lease, and confessed that with those leases he protected himself against the clauses of the Land Act as far as he was able to do so. No wonder he wished all his tenants to have leases, seeing that they thereby deprived themselves of the benefits conferred upon them by the Land Act. It was because Father Sheehy and other honest men agitated and demonstrated against this plunder by the landlord in the dying throes of landlordism that they were

  973
  put into prison in direct contravention of the statement of the Prime Minister. The question still remained, What were the Government going to do with Ireland? Were they going to respond to the invitation of some advocates of coercion and go further than they had done already? The Attorney General for Ireland, who was a master in the art of putting a most humane appearance on the most inhuman acts, had told the House that a magistrate could sentence a man to a month's imprisonment for carrying what he called an "inflammatory placard." If a parallel were wanted to the administration of the law in Ireland, they must go back to those times in France before they got rid of the landlords by the short and summary proceedings which were not permitted in this Constitutionally—governed country. The Prime Minister knew if he committed a single act of tyranny against one working man in England his Ministry would not be worth an hour's purchase. But those things were managed differently in Ireland, and the law by which it was done was the law of historic precedent and the will of the conqueror. Ireland seemed to be about as free, happy, and contented a country to live in as Russia under General Ignatieff.
  MR. DAWSONbore testimony to the humane and excellent character of the Rev. Father Sheehy, and protested against the answer of the Chief Secretary. He insisted that a proper answer should be given. The right hon. Gentleman knew what was in the Warrant under which the arrest had taken place, and there was no reason why it should not be stated to the House. The people of Limerick must have been outraged by the arrest of a Catholic priest who was known chiefly for his courtesy and kindness. Had the right hon. Gentleman been in Ireland he would not have dared to be a party to such an outrage. With reference to the state of Ireland, he must say he attributed it entirely to the hesitation of the Government to bring in a Bill to stay evictions during the discussion of the Land Law (Ireland) Bill. If they took that step outrages, he believed, would cease; and if they refused to take it, the outrages, he contended, were not so much the fault of the people as of the Government. Apart from the Irish aspect of the question, it appeared to
  974
  him that this act was a fatal mistake on the part of the Government at a moment when they were trying there, far away from the scene of the transaction, to pass pacific measures for the country. Instead of preparing the minds of the people for the acceptance of such measures, they were pursuing an exasperating and muddling policy. The effect of the arrest of the hon. Member for Tipperary and of Father Sheehy would be that their followers and admirers would be increased a hundredfold, and the task of pacification and conciliation would be 10 times more difficult for the Government. Such gross inconsistency was enough to make the people of Ireland look with suspicion on all their measures.
  MR. GLADSTONE: These Motions for Adjournment have, perhaps, considerable attraction to those who make them, for they afford an unbounded opportunity of licence, not only for the statement of accusations, but for the statement of assertions of any kind whatever, ranging over a field of immeasurable breadth, and requiring nothing except the imputation of the worst motives on every occasion to those charged with the government of the country, and not allowing of any practical test whatever by a vote of the House. I will only say, with regard to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, that whenever it does come near the region of facts, it appears to be extremely inaccurate. I will take those facts entirely within my own knowledge. He has saddled me as having made a statement that the Government were ready to entertain a proposal for introducing a temporary and provisional measure for suspending evictions. Sir, the Government has made no such statement whatever, or anything approaching to it. Nothing of the sort has ever fallen from my lips or from the lips of my right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster). I believe that with that observation I may pass from the speech of the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, animating and interesting as, no doubt, it must have been to those who heard it. I come now to the speech of the hon. Member for the town of Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). I cannot undertake to justify the acts of Mr. William Uniacke Townsend, or to condemn them, for I have no acquaintance with any of them, nor, indeed, was I

  975
  aware of the existence of that individual. If I have read his evidence in the Report of the Commission I have forgotten him; but there is one statement with which I think it my duty to grapple. He complains that during the debate on the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Bill We said it was aimed only at the perpetrators and abettors of outrage, and that we have now arrested a Roman Catholic priest for supporting the operations of the Land League, which we had entirely disclaimed as the object of the Bill. He is perfectly correct in his reference to the description given by Her Majesty's Government of the objects of the Bill. We did say that the Bill was not aimed at the Land League, as such; we did say that it was not aimed at the popular agitation, in the general sense of the word; we did say that it was aimed at the abettors and perpetrators of outrage; and I am entitled to say that we have not arrested anyone, priest or layman, for being a member or supporter of the Land League, or for taking part in the popular agitation, even though we may have thought that the popular agitation went, in certain respects, far beyond the limits of safety and of justice. I simply place my unproved assertion on that subject against the unproved assertion of the hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, I must say that, although the Gentlemen coming from Ireland, not unnaturally, are led in their position to deal in assertions that are somewhat hasty and reckless, they are far transcended and surpassed by their single English ally, the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). As long as the noble Lord deals with matters of opinion he is perfectly safe, because he has nothing to do but to heap upon the Government all the vilifying epithets he can command; to impute to each of their actions the very worst motive he can discover, and to serve up a highly-seasoned repast for the intellectual palate of his audience; and by this means I admit it is impossible for us to contend against a mind so judicial, against one who is so very careful and scrupulous in the language that he uses, and in the alliances he endeavours to establish by his Parliamentary procedure in this House. But, Sir, if the noble Lord will accept counsel from me, he will avoid coming to the ground of fact. When-
  976
  ever he comes to the ground of fact he treads upon very dangerous ground. I heard him make many assertions to-day; but all his reproaches I will pass by with the single observation that while he accused my right hon. Friend or me of being arbitrary and capricious, he also accused him, because of the extremn paucity of arrests made under the Coercion Bill, of having deprived that measure of all nerve and strength, and sacrificed the object for which it was passed. But the noble Lord spoke on two points with regard to the hon. Member for Tipperary, now, unfortunately, under confinement. The noble Lord said that the whole of the speeches of the hon. Member for Tipperary were identical in their tone and spirit. Well, Sir, if that is to be considered as a matter of opinion from the noble Lord, we claim the right of holding the opposite opinion; but if it is to be stated by him as a matter of fact, we, as a matter of fact, respectfully deny it. All his speeches have been carefully considered by persons who are, I apprehend, quite as competent to measure their legal bearing and significance as the noble Lord. Perhaps I may go so far as to say that the Law Advisers of the Crown are even more competent than the noble Lord to measure the legal bearings of the hon. Member's speeches. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL dissented.] The noble Lord announces by a shake of his head that he is more competent to judge of the legal bearings of the speeches of Mr. Dillon; but, perhaps, I had better leave the noble Lord as Sir John Moore was left—"alone in his glory"—if it is the opinion which he entertains of his own capacity in matters of law. Passing from that assertion of the noble Lord, I come to another which is still more in the nature of an opinion, and still less of the nature of a matter of fact. He said that we allowed Mr. Dillon, the Member for Tipperary, to make his speeches as long as he was merely touring about Ireland; but that when he announced he was coming to London to take part in the discussion on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, and to make a particular proposition in relation to it, then, seized with apprehension, we interfered and arrested him. Sir, I challenge the noble Lord to prove to me that Mr. Dillon ever did say that he was coming to London. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL.

  977
  It was a matter of notoriety.] A matter of notoriety means that it is known to all men. Now, Sir, I assert that it was not known to all men. It may be known to the noble Lord, but it was not known to us. What we know is that Mr. Dillon, the Member for Tipperary, made a statement that a certain question was going to be raised in the House of Commons, and the only declaration that has been made known to us on that subject contains no statement whatever that he was on his way to London to make it. ["Oh, oh!"] Where is it? Produce it? If the hon. Member for Cork City (Mr. Parnell) thinks fit to interrupt me for an assertion of what is within our own knowledge—namely, the assertion of what came to our knowledge, for I went no further—if he has not patience to let me state what I am cognizant of, and what I am not, I think he is bound to produce the evidence upon which he ventures upon an interruption that, I must say, was of a rather discourteous nature. The only statement known to me, and I believe I am right in stating to my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, was a statement that a certain proposal was going to be made in the House of Commons. It was not a statement that it was going to be made by the hon. Member for Tipperary. [Mr. PARNELL: That was the only inference that could be drawn.] The only inference that could be drawn, and that which the hon. Member for Cork City declares was the only inference that could be drawn, the noble Lord declares to be a matter of fact and of public notoriety. I will leave the noble Lord, in the course of his not unfrequent communications with the hon. Member for the City of Cork, to settle between them which of these versions is the correct one. Sir, I am bound to say, having referred to the noble Lord and the manner in which he thinks it his duty to render assistance to the Executive in the performance of a very difficult task in Ireland, I should not do justice if I did not dwell upon the marked contrast between the conduct of the noble Lord in that respect and the conduct of the whole of the Gentlemen whom I see sitting opposite, and to whose Party the noble Lord belongs. While they may very likely join in many of the condemnations of the noble Lord upon many of the proceedings of the Executive Government in Ireland, they have studiously avoided
  978
  saying a word which would tend to weaken the arm of the law, or deprive of their effect those measures, painful but needful, that Parliament has passed for the purpose of establishing peace and order in Ireland. As I shall not have the privilege of speaking again, nor will my right hon. Friend, on the part of the Government, with regard to any further assertions that may be made, I will enter my respectful protest, that we must not be understood by our silence to admit in whole or in part the correctness of those assertions. But there is another question as to the mode of carrying on these debates. There is a complaint against the Government because they have not shown a greater readiness to find time for the discussion of those arrests. The meaning of that is, that we have not put off the discussion on the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, which the hon. Member for Cork City is trying as far as he can to defeat, nor consented to sacrifice Monday, a day which is required for discussion on the subject of taxation. We think we have great interest in having the matter of the arrests made the subject of discussion on a specific Motion; and we also think that there has been something like a deliberate avoidance of opportunities on the part of hon. Gentlemen. It may be an inaccurate impression, but we believe we have grounds for the impression, that there is a decided preference on the part of some Gentlemen for these rather rambling and certainly unmeasured debates—unmeasured as to the assertions that are made, and rambing as regards the issue from the spirit of practical discussion we might have on the Motion. The hon. Member for Galway (Mr. T. P. O'Connor) dropped a suggestion the other day to which I should have given an answer at the time if some other Gentleman had not put another question, and the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galway was lost sight of. The hon. Member asked—"Will you propose a Morning Sitting of the House for the purpose of enabling us to have a Motion of complaint regularly lodged against you?" With regard to a Morning Sitting, Her Majesty's Government have recently had some experience. Using such information as we possessed we proposed a Morning Sitting for a particular purpose, believing that it was agreeable to the general feeling of the

  979
  House. But we found afterwards that a considerable majority of the House was not disposed to regard it with favour. Therefore, it would not be prudent on my part to place myself in the same position again, until I had received some assurance that the proposal would be agreeable to the majority of the House. All I can say is that if upon the best information it is in our power to obtain we find it would be agreeable to the House, we should not refuse to ask the House on Monday evening to consent to a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. That is the only offer which, in the straitness of time we are under, I can make; and I can only add that we have every desire to forward the views of those Gentlemen who wish to challenge the conduct of the Government on this subject.
  MR. CHARLES RUSSELLobserved, that the House was discussing the case without an accurate knowledge of the facts, and without the possibility of arriving at any practical result. He was glad, therefore, that the Prime Minister was disposed to give an early day for the consideration of the arrests under the Coercion Act. The whole subject was extremely important; but the arrest of a man like Mr. Sheehy was a peculiarly grave act, and one that might have very serious consequences on the public peace in Ireland. He claimed no immunity for any body of persons, lay or clerical, from arrest if they brought themselves within the law; but in the case of a Catholic priest in Ireland only the gravest reasons could justify his arrest, and when the Government had thought it right to make such an arrest they were bound to come prepared at the earliest possible moment to state to the House fully and fairly the grounds of that arrest. In many parts of Ireland the voice of the Catholic priest was the only free voice that could be raised against the oppression of the people. When he asked the Government to state the grounds on which they had acted, he did not demand a mere technical compliance with the letter of the Coercion Act, but a full and fair statement of the reasons for which Mr. Sheehy had been arrested.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: The Prime Minister has rightly interpreted the silence we have observed during this discussion. While we must hold the Government entirely responsible for
  980
  the whole of their action in this matter, we desire in no way whatever to embarrass or to weaken their hands in the discharge of their most painful and most responsible duties. I rise, not in order to make any general observations on this subject, but to refer to what I understood the Prime Minister to say with regard to a Morning Sitting. As I understand, he desired that an opportunity might be given for the discussion of the very serious question raised by this and other arrests in a proper and convenient form by appointing a Morning Sitting on Tuesday. If that is the desire of the Government, I think the House ought to support that proposal. The question of the conduct of the responsible Government at such a crisis as this, and in such an important matter, is one which ought not to be left in abeyance. It is impossible that hon. Gentlemen from Ireland should take every opportunity, regular or irregular, for the discussion of this question; and they must feel that the only true and satisfactory way in which it can be discussed is by a regular Motion. We quite understand that it would be difficult for the Government to give a Government night for the purpose; and I think, though I reserve my opinion as to the proper times and seasons for Morning Sittings generally, that the best course is to appoint a Morning Sitting. If Tuesday morning is convenient, I have no doubt that the great body of the House would accede to that suggestion. I hope, if it is generally understand that that course will be adopted, that it will not be thought necessary to prolong this discussion.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORjustified the course taken in moving the adjournment of the House on the ground that it would have been impossible to raise the question of the Irish arrests in any other way. He put it to the English and the Scotch Members whether, if the Constitution were suspended in their countries in order that innocent persons might be arrested under lettres de cachet, they would not have done the same thing? The right hon. Gentleman, who consulted solely the convenience of the Government in all his Parliamentary arrangements, had given no facilities for the Motion of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). When the Bradlaugh question was before the

  981
  House, the right hon. Gentleman had proposed a Morning Sitting; but as soon as the Leader of the Opposition had extricated the Government from their difficulty, Northampton became as uninteresting to the right hon. Gentleman as Tipperary. In the meantime, excellent men were arrested on so-called "reasonable suspicion;" but if there was one man more responsible than another for outrage, disturbance, and discontent, it was the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, by limiting the scope of the Compensation for Disturbance Bill of last year to disturbed districts, had practically induced the more peaceable counties to qualify for the extension of its operation. However, with regard to the proposed Morning Sitting on Tuesday, he asked for information on a point of Order, and desired to know whether it was possible at a Morning Sitting to proceed by Notice of Motion without suspending the Standing Orders of the House?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that only Orders of the Day were usually taken at a Morning Sitting; but, according to the decision of the House arrived at not long ago, the difficulty might be got over by a Motion being introduced on the preceding evening, and then made an Order of the Day for the following day.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister talked of rambling; but his own speech wandered considerably, for he had not even told them why the Catholic clergyman was arrested. If the proposed Morning Sitting were to be of any value for the purpose for which it was designed, the request of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) ought to be complied with. What were they to discuss at the Morning Sitting? Arrests which were shrouded in an impenetrable veil of secrecy. The Government ought to communicate to the House the language or the acts they imputed to the men arrested in Ireland, and hon. Gentlemen could then proceed to discuss that language and those acts. As it was, not even the persons who were most interested knew anything of the causes that led to them. The Government first took away all liberty in Ireland, then stifled discussion, thus denying to the people all mode of examining into the exercise of despotic power. The House was told two months ago that
  982
  the Coercion Act was directed against the village tyrant and the village ruffian; that it was intended to put a stop to outrage. It had, however, been used for arresting the most respectable people in Ireland, Poor Law Guardians, members of the representative Bodies, until they had made Kilmainham Gaol a place to which it was perfectly accurate to say the love and confidence of the people of Ireland turned. He (Mr. Sexton) was sorry to say that the Prime Minister's references to the speech in which his hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) announced his intention to bring the question of evictions under the notice of the House did more credit to the ingenuity of the right hon. Gentleman than it did to his candour. He (Mr. Sexton) was present at the meeting in Dublin at which the Member for Tipperary spoke, and the universal impression was that his hon. Friend intended to come over here and to raise the question of evictions on the floor of the House. When his hon. Friend was arrested, public opinion in Ireland wavered between two conclusions as to the reasons which dictated his arrest. One conclusion was that it was an act of Parliamentary policy, and that the Government thought that was a convenient way of getting rid of a troublesome opponent. The other was that in the speech which immediately preceded his arrest he had the temerity to make personal reference to the two right hon. Gentlemen who had taken part in the debate. People in Ireland said that a man might go far in discussing general principles; but that when he made reference to the right hon. Gentlemen who occupied the Treasury Bench, he had better look out for his liberty. He did not know whether the Government, before ordering or sanctioning the arrest of Father Sheehy, had taken the trouble to consider for a moment the intense, the intimate, and sacred nature of the ties that existed between the priests and the people in Ireland; but he thought that even from motives of statesmanship they might very well have considered these ties, and might have considered also that the act which they had done in arresting Father Sheehy was an act the like of which had not been done within human memory in Ireland. English statesmen knew very well that Irish priests had often exposed themselves to

  983
  unpopularity by their efforts to keep their people within the ways of peace and Constitutional action, even under circumstances of great suffering and great provocation. He (Mr. Sexton) had personal knowledge of Father Sheehy, and was able to boast of the privilege of his friendship. He had been for years a spectator and critic of the share he had taken in public life in Ireland; and he was able to say that Father Sheehy, while devoting his rare intellectual gifts to the service of the Irish people in a spirit of the purest patriotism, and while showing himself solicitous for the general progress of the people, he had always, he thought, shown himself no less solicitous for the peace and tranquillity of society. No step taken in the House, no language that could be spoken in it, could give any adequate reflection of the feeling that would be excited in Ireland by this act of arbitrary power directed against this gifted and estimable gentleman. This act marked the most advanced and the most perilous stage of the policy pursued by the Government. Nothing, he believed, but his sense of the extremity and anger of the suffering people brought Father Sheehy into this present movement. He was arrested, not because he did anything against peace and order in Ireland, but because in the locality in which he lived he was feared by evil-doers—a man whose courage and eloquence made him a tower of strength in the cause of the people. He had been thrown into gaol; and the agent in that locality—who combined the cruelty of a Turkish Pasha with the instincts of a banditti—would be at liberty to exact his rack rents, which Ministers on the Treasury Bench had admitted to be unjust. Her Majesty's Government ought to have reflected on the present convulsed and perilous state of Ireland, never so bad as then, but had, apparenty, not done so; and he (Mr. Sexton) would warn them that they were driving the people to desperation. Unless the Government meant to goad the people beyond the bounds of prudence and legitimate Constitutional action in Ireland, what did they mean by applying such a terrible provocation to the passions of the people as that arrest? The relations between the people and the priests of Ireland were closer them that between any people and priests in the world; and if that were true in a
  984
  general sense, it was true especially in Father Sheehy's case, than whom there was no man more reverenced or beloved in Ireland. No man or woman in Ireland would believe that he had brought himself under the designation of those who ought to be arrested under the Coercion Act. The Prime Minister told them on what grounds he was not arrested; but they wanted to know on what grounds he was arrested. There was not among the 4,000,000 of people in Ireland one person who would believe that Father Sheehy had said one word which was discreditable to him as a priest, or dishonourable to him as a man. The landlords in Ireland were exercising their powers with the grossest disregard for right and justice; while there were landlords who were incarnate libels upon humanity. Since his last return to Ireland, he (Mr. Sexton) had been able to appreciate the mental condition into which Mr. Dillon was driven by his experiences of the misery and suffering which existed in that country. Unless the Government wished to light and apply the fuse to the magazine of passion which was now before the Irish people, the House had better beware how they gave such provocations as were supplied in the arrest of Father Sheehy. Let them have the opportunity given of discussion. Let them be told for what words Father Sheehy had been cast into gaol. The majority of the House cheerfully and almost gaily passed the Coercion Act, and he had no doubt an equal majority would support the Government in any act they might do; but let them not be mocked by sneering invitations to make Motions which were doomed to defeat, and by irritating references to majorities against whom it was impossible to contend. Let them have the grounds upon which Father Sheehy was arrested, and the Irish Members would be prepared to discuss the question, and to show that it was not in the interests of the Irish people that such a course should be taken.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the course of events was precisely that which the Irish Members had predicted when the Coercion Act was being passed through the House. The persons who had been arrested did not at all belong to the class of whom they were told by the Government the Act contemplated the arrest. One of the Irish Members

  985
  of Parliament had been arrested, then a Catholic priest, and he supposed a Catholic Bishop or Archbishop would come next. Father Sheehy had been arrested only because his liberty had been whispered away by some secret enemy at Dublin Castle; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland ought to have hesitated before he arrested a Catholic priest upon suspicion and private information. The right hon. Gentleman, if he had ever studied the history of Ireland, would know the story of another Father Sheehy who was executed on false testimony in the year 1766, and who was regarded as a martyr by his countrymen. It would surely have been better not to have awakened these unpleasant memories in the mind of the Irish people. There was no doubt the state of Ireland was rapidly going from bad to worse; and he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) believed that unless the present Chief Secretary for Ireland were removed from his Office, in which he had so signally failed, and some man of greater stability of character put in his place, the worst consequences would result. Acting, as he did, on the suggestions of the Irish landlords, and carrying out their desires, he believed the Irish people would be driven into a condition of open insurrection. It was vain to address warnings to the Government from that side of the House; for they had shut their eyes to facts that had occurred in Ireland, and they were running into a condition of things which, he believed, they and this country would have reason to regret if much longer persevered in.
  MR. LEAMYrose to address the House, when—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. LEAMYexpressed a hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General for Ireland (Mr. W. M. Johnson) would undertake, on behalf of the Government, that, at the Morning Sitting on Tuesday, the House would be supplied with full and accurate information as to the grounds on which Father Sheehy and the other men had just been arrested at Kilmallock. Unless the House were furnished with that information, they would have no means of deciding properly whether or not the
  986
  Executive Government had acted fairly or justly in making those arrests, and nothing valuable would be gained by the discussion. The hon. and learned Solicitor General for Ireland had disappointed them of a speech from him on the Land Bill the other evening, and the least the hon. and learned Gentleman could do was to make up for it by addressing them on the present occasion. The reply to the question of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), as to the reason why the Government applied the Coercion Act in the extraordinary way they did, was this. The right hon. Gentlemen opposite (Mr. Bright and Mr. Forster) had both told the House that such an Act would only be tyrannical in the hands of the Conservative Party, and, therefore, instead of arresting people by 200 or 300 at a time, they arrested individuals by ones and twos and threes at different times. If people read in a paper of two or three people being arrested under the Act at Limerick, they did not pay much attention, and did not credit the Liberal Administration with acting tyrannically. At present, the people of Ireland were engaged in a movement to carry out an object which the Prime Minister in his Mid Lothian speeches had declared to be a legitimate object—namely, the expropriation of the landlords. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had expressed great regret that he had been forced to make that arrest; but that was not the first time that an Irish priest had been arrested on the evidence of spies and informers. That arrest would increase the hatred of the people of Ireland against foreign rule; and he felt sure that Father Sheehy would be satisfied to spend his whole life in prison if he could teach the Irish people, as his arrest would certainly teach them, the utter hollowness of the Liberal Ministry's pretences of sympathy and friendship for Ireland.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, if they were to judge by the conduct of the Government in Ireland, there was little to choose between Conservatives and Liberals. Instead of smothering discontent and crushing agitation by arrests such as that of Father Sheehy, the Government were making a great and fatal mistake. He was well known to possess great influence and authority in the county of Limerick, and was a man whom every-

  987
  one there respected for his high-minded qualities and intellectual gifts. If there was one man who tried to keep the agitation within the bounds of Constitutional limits and of common sense, Father Sheehy was that man. And yet this man was selected as a victim of the Coercion Bill. By design, or through ignorance, the Government were drawing the people to dangeous courses; but they had learned from their past history that their strength lay in combined action within Constitutional bounds. The Government had been warned that it would be impossible to govern Ireland by Coercion Bills; but their whole system in that country had been a government of force, behind which there was the wretched informer and the miserable spy. He and his Friends regretted that they should have to raise this discussion on a question of Adjournment; but necessity had no law, and until the Government told them the reasons for the arrests of Mr. Dillon and Father Sheehy, it would be their duty to have a discussion upon every arrest which took place in Ireland. He had no doubt it would be inconvenient, and would retard Business; but as an Irish Member he must say there was something higher and more important than even the progress of Public Business, and that was to know the reason why the liberties of an individual, or a nation, were taken away. The priests of Ireland had done much to preserve the people from extreme crimes, warning them especially against the doctrines of Communism and Socialism, and yet it was from this order that the Government had selected one of their victims. By their miserable and arbitrary acts the Government were driving and goading the people to sheer desperation. He deplored those acts, though he believed firmly that never in the history of the country had the British power in Ireland been in a weaker condition than at present. The government of Ireland had been a failure, and it must continue to be so so long as the country was governed against the express wishes of the people.
  MR. BARRYsaid, that the advice repeatedly tendered to the Government during the passing of the Coercion Bill by the Irish Members had been treated with the contempt which the Chief Secretary for Ireland habitually manifested to the Representatives of Ireland. But
  988
  he (Mr. Barry) maintained that every prediction made by them on that occasion had been realized. The landlords had, and were then, everywhere exercising their rights in the most cruel manner, and thousands of eviction processes were being served. But how did the Government act under the circumstances? They coped with that system of wholesale and capricious eviction by a system of wholesale and capricious arrest. He charged the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) with having carried the Coercion Bill through the House upon false pretences. The right hon. Gentleman said the Bill was intended for the village tyrant and the dissolute ruffian; but they had not witnessed any wholesale arrest of rowdies and ruffians and criminals, but the arrest of some of the most respectable men of the country. Merchants, men of the most influential position, members of public bodies, a Member of that House; lastly, to-day, the crowning wrong had come, and a Catholic priest had been arrested—a man of the highest character, who had always been distinguished for his love of order and peace, and who on one occasion had prevented a conflict between the people and constabulary. By that stumbling and blundering course of conduct they would drive the people from despair to desperation. How long was this policy to continue? Did the Government think they were going to put down the Land League? If they thought they could do so, they would make a great mistake. If every member of it was arrested to-morrow, there would be hundreds of thousands to take their place.
  MR. HEALYsaid, it was quite evident, from the conduct of the Government, that in time there would not be a respectable man in Ireland out of gaol. He regretted that his hon. Friend (Mr. O'Sullivan) had chosen a Friday night on which to move the Adjournment, and that the time of private Members should be taken up by a Motion of the character of the one which the House was discussing. Had he been the hon. Gentleman, he would have chosen the first Government night—and upon this ground, that the more inconvenience they could give the Government, the greater chance and probability there was in Ireland that they would conduct themselves with something like decency. [Mr. CALLAN:

  989
  No, no!] it Some hon. Gentleman had apologized for the inconvenience of the Motion. He saw no need for apology, when they reflected how little the Government cared for the convenience of the Irish people, and how they trampled upon all the people held sacred. Whenever any man, be he priest or layman, Member of Parliament or crossing-sweeper, was arrested in Ireland unconstitutionally, they ought to come down to the House and give the Executive Government all the trouble in their power, and, by making Motions of this sort, insist upon the discussion of the matter. As to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland. he (Mr. Healy) would venture to adopt the language towards him used in that House some years ago by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster respecting Sir Charles Adderley, then a Member of the Government. The Chief Secretary for Ireland was a very dull man, and his policy in Ireland of arresting the most respectable and worthy men in the country was stupidity followed by stupidity. The Government appeared to be determined to single out for imprisonment the most respectable people they could find. But it was a great mistake to suppose that educated men were to be intimidated from doing their duty by threats of imprisonment and punishment. It was Father Sheehy today, and it might be a Bishop or an Archbishop to-morrow. He had the honour of knowing Father Sheehy, and he was prouder of that now that he was in Kilmainham. The First Lord of the Treasury had made the Irish Members what he (Mr. Healy) might call a tortuous offer of a Morning Sitting; but the right hon. Gentleman had given no promise of acting with energy to force the House to consent to such a Sitting. Very different would have been the demeanour of the right hon. Gentleman if the question had concerned an Atheist or blasphemer. Had the Irish Members but known what use would have been made of the Coercion Act, they would have opposed the Bill with ten times more determination than they showed during its progress through the House. His regret was that they had not done so, for no Irish Member should shrink from suspension, if he should incur that punishment for advocating the rights of his countrymen; and he, for one, did
  990
  not, neither would he care whether he was suspended or not. The Chief Secretary for Ireland had said that the Coercion Act would only be used against men who planned and perpetrated outrages, and that the persons who committed crime and whom he was desirous of imprisoning were "the remnant of the old Riband and other secret societies;" "Fenians who had taken advantage of the present state of things in Ireland," and the mauvais sujets of various localities. Father Sheehy most certainly did not belong to any of these three classes. He was a Christian and a gentleman. Neither did Mr. Dillon, nor Mr. Moran, the solicitor. Yet they were the men whom the Government singled out for the honour of cells in Kilmainham. Men were generally impaled upon two horns of a dilemma, but he would give the right hon. Gentleman his choice of three. The right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the Coercion Bill, had said—
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he must remind the hon. Gentleman that it would be out of Order to quote speeches made during the current Session.
  MR. HEALYsaid, that being so, he hoped there would be no further references to dissolute ruffians and village tyrants in the course of future debates. He should, however, like to know whether he could refer to a Question which he had put to a right hon. Gentleman yesterday? The reason why he wished to do so was because he had to complain of the answers which Ministers gave to Questions asked by the Irish Members. He had asked the Secretary of State for War, whether it was the fact that four pieces of artillery and a flying column had been sent against the peasantry in the county of Limerick, and if he could give the House any news from the seat of war; but the right hon. Gentleman treated it as a joke. He warned the Chief Secretary for Ireland that his answers were deeply taken to heart. They watched the manner in which he attended to local complaints, and they felt keenly such contemptuous replies as implied that the subject was unworthy the attention of the Government or the House. If their complaints were always received in a spirit of levity a most dangerous feeling would grow up in Ireland. He complained of these arrests, not only from the cha-

  991
  racter of the men arrested, but the indignity with which they were accompanied. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) had spoken of the meanness of the arrest and imprisonment of Mr. Davitt. There was not only meanness, but malignity in the arrest of Mr. Dillon. These indignities had increased the irritation which existed in Ireland, and might yet provoke a storm of passionate indignation against the Government of the right hon Gentleman. If the Government wanted to allay agitation in Ireland, they should not arrest men who had the love, respect, and admiration of their countrymen.
  MR. O'DONNELLthought it would be admitted on all sides of the House that that debate was an unfortunate sequel to the second reading of the great remedial measure, the Land Law (Ireland) Bill; but, at the same time, it was solely and entirely the fault of the Government in arresting a popular Catholic clergyman. Why did not some more sensible Member of the Cabinet warn the Chief Secretary for Ireland of the danger of arresting men like Father Sheehy, because they engaged in the defence of the most sacred rights of their flocks? Was it intended on Tuesday to confine the information vouchsafed to the bald parchment of the Warrant, or would the Chief Secretary, who was now called the "Chief Process-server" in Ireland, have the courage, of which he was always boasting, to give the necessary details by which the action of the Government might be tested? He denied that the Government had any right to say that any language used by Father Sheehy or any other person was to be taken as incriminating himself, unless such language was considered in connection with the context and the circumstances in which the language was used. If this was not done, or if the Government did not give a fair and candid answer for their conduct, the Irish Members would feel themselves justified in reverting to the line of conduct they deemed themselves justified in taking at a time when they believed the Government were willing to act upon the anonymous slanders of informers who held communication with the authorities at Dublin Castle.
  MR. FINIGANsaid, he could not remain silent when the conduct of the
  992
  Government was under discussion for a national offence. He was willing to admit that Government might be misled by their poisoned sources of information; but they were too ready to lend a willing ear to the malicious officials of Dublin Castle. He was, however, surprised that a Liberal Government should have exercised a tyrannous power in a tyrannical manner, and still further so, that they should have acted in such a manner as to have arrested a priest. The Government could not surely forget that to Irishmen, and to Irish Catholics particularly, a priest was a sacred character, and what was done to a priest in Ireland was done to Catholicity all over the world. It was, therefore, highly impolitic on the part of the Government to raise against itself Catholic opinion not only in Ireland, but in England and America, and all the world also, and it would tell against the Liberal Government not only at any bye-Elections that might take place, but at the General Election which the exigency of circumstances might bring about at no very distant period. Why was not Father Sheehy brought up in the ordinary course of law? The reason was, they could not sustain any charge against him, and he was confined upon a vague Warrant, because, like others, he attempted to do his duty to his country. He was the more sorry that this course had been taken now, because he had hoped that we were on the eve of a period of reconciliation between the people of Ireland and the Government of the United Kingdom.
  MR. PARNELL: Mr. Speaker, I wish, before a division is taken, to join my words to those of my Colleagues in deprecation and denunciation of the step which the Government have most unwisely and rashly taken in arresting my esteemed friend Father Sheehy. I have known Father Sheehy for a great many years, and I have never heard him in the course of this Land agitation say anything that could be, in the slightest degree, twisted or interpreted into an incitement to outrage. I think this is one of those unfortunate steps which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland seems to allow himself to be forced into, and which he takes from time to time, without proper forethought and without sufficient premeditation. The Government, during the

  993
  last week or fortnight, have been urged on by a Tory Press and by a debate in "another place" to use the Coercion Act more extensively than they have done up to the present time. They have yielded to the pressure which has been brought to bear on them by their political opponents, and they have made, in a short interval, a large number of arrests of very respectable men throughout the country. The Government have not used the Act in the way in which they promised the House to use it. They have not arrested a single "dissolute ruffian or village tyrant." In fact, they have been doing everything, in carrying out the provisions of the Act, which they undertook to the House when obtaining the Act not to do, and they have left undone everything which they undertook to the House they would do. They stand convicted, by the result of the working of the Act, of having obtained it under what, practically, amounts to false pretences. One of the speakers to-night said that, if a Conservative Government were in power, the whole of Ireland would be proclaimed under the operation of the Protection of Person and Property Act. I venture to think that if a Conservative Government were in power, they would not have obtained that Protection of Person and Property Act with which they could proclaim the whole of Ireland. Instead of having both sides of the House united against us in assisting the passage of coercion, we should have the Liberals and Radicals who now constitute the Government helping us to obstruct the Government, and helping us very successfully, I have no doubt, to prevent the Government from passing such a severe enactment. The history of former Conservative attempts to enact Coercion Laws for Ireland shows that the Liberals and Whigs, when out of Office, always combined for the purpose of preventing coercion for Ireland; but, when they come into Office, they always combine for the purpose of carrying coercion for Ireland. So that, as far as the matter of coercion goes, I feel convinced that if we had the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) at the head of Her Majesty's Government, we should be without coercion worthy of the name in Ireland, and that Ireland would have every reason to be grateful for the change so far as the absence of coercion is con-
  994
  cerned. It has been pointed out that one of the reasons why Father Sheehy has been arrested is that he successfully prevented the eviction of certain poor tenants by forming a combination amongst them. Another of the reasons I believe to be the Reports which the Government have received from a recently introduced stipendiary magistrate, one Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who has been distinguishing himself very much, during the few days he has been in Kilmallock in charge of the police, by his brutal treatment of the unoffending people of the locality. I hold in my hand a letter which I have just received from Father Sheehy, written shortly before his arrest, and he says—
  "Mr. Clifford Lloyd, R.M., is here in his magisterial capacity since Friday. On the evening of his arrival he went through the town, and though an utter stranger here, being an importation from Belfast on the day previous, he insisted on the people dispersing to their homes who were quietly chatting in the street in groups of three and four, as is the wont of people at that time in the town. On their refusing, he proceeded furiously to strike them with his cane, and struck several violently over the shoulders. He subsequently brought out the police, with their shotted guns, and cleared the streets. The police clubbed the people freely with the stocks of their rifles. This riotous conduct on the part of this magistrate was all one-sided, there having been no provocation or resistance of any kind on the part of the people. The whole town is my testimony to the absolute truth of what I here write. The man's demeanour is an insult and a menace to our community, and he is zealously supported by an unfledged sub-inspector and a force of unscrupulous policemen. Their furious wantonness was climaxed last evening. Our local band played some airs through the street, and on its passing the police barracks some few persons in the crowd cheered. Forthwith over a dozen policemen, whom the magistrate had formed into line, in anticipation of the arrival of the band, rushed into the midst of the crowd, and used their batons like so many maniacs on the unfortunate people, who were out merely for recreation. Amongst those was our servant, who went to the post-office with letters from the Presbytery, as is customary with him every evening at the same hour. This man is well known as a quiet, moral, and unoffending person, and the same character is borne by others who were cruelly and wantonly beaten."
  It is very unfortunate that one of the penalties of directing attention to outrages on the part of the Government officials in Ireland is in future to be arrested on reasonable suspicion. I can have no doubt that Government must have acted on the report of Mr. Clifford

  995
  Lloyd in directing the arrest of this esteemed clergyman. The Prime Minister accused me some time ago of want of courtesy to him. I should be very sorry to be wanting in courtesy to the right hon. Gentleman. I can assure him that, in explaining, I had no intention to show a want of courtesy to him. ["Oh, oh!"] But I would wish to say that perhaps the Prime Minister, before accusing hon. Members on this side of the House of want of courtesy, might direct his own Followers to be more observant of the ordinary courtesy of Parliamentary life than they showed last evening, when they deliberately insulted many of the Irish Members as they were walking out of the House by interjecting remarks of a most offensive and personal character; and as such we passed them by. For my part, I regret that the Government have embarked upon this renewed course of outrage and coercion on Ireland. It will entirely mar whatever effect the Land Law (Ireland) Bill might possibly have as a matter of justice to Ireland, even if that Bill be very extensively amended. The course that you have taken puts it utterly out of your power to say that you have done anything with a feeling of justice to the Irish people, for you are treating them in a way which the high spirit and the sense of the people cannot possibly stand.
  MR. GIVANsaid, that he sincerely deprecated the arrest of Father Sheehy, against whose character he was sure nothing could be said. The arrest would create widespread indignation and resentment, not only throughout Ireland, but throughout America and every other part of the world where the Irish people were scattered; for if there was one feeling more indigenous in the hearts of the Irish people than another, it was their deep-rooted respect for the priesthood. He (Mr. Givan) had not the pleasure of knowing the reverend gentleman, but had heard that his life was devoted to the promotion of the best interests of his people. He could bear testimony to the manner in which the priests of the North of Ireland had restrained the people and counselled them against obstructing the remedial measures proposed by the present Government. There was, no doubt, some cause for disaffection and for agitation in Ire-
  996
  land; but, at the same time, he could not but regret that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway had not met Her Majesty's Government in another spirit, and had not aided them in their effort to carry further the object the Premier had in view in proposing the Bill which became law in 1870.
  MR. O'KELLYsaid, that his belief was the arrest of Father Sheehy would have a good effect, for it would place in the clearest light the conduct of the Government and the uses they were making of the Coercion Law, which they obtained under false pretences. The professed object was the suppression of violence and the arrest of ruffians, and not such arrests as those now complained of—namely, those persons who were the most respectable and the most respected in their several districts by the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland might, as a result of one of these arrests, be complimented on having added to his title of "Buckshot Forster" another with which he would be known by henceforth—namely, "Priest-hunting Forster."
  MR. BIGGARsaid, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been exceedingly discourteous to hon. Gentlemen, and had exhibited the grossest ignorance on subjects which should have been within his knowledge, and had shown his incompetence for his position. He (Mr. Biggar) contended that the Government had misled the country as to the object of the Coercion Bill, as was proved by the character of the arrests which had been made. He quite agreed in the inconvenience of moving the adjournment of the House at Question time; but, he would ask, what were they to do when Ministers would not give them information which they had a right to obtain? At first, he did think they were men who could be trusted, when the Government came into Office; but as soon as the proposal was made to introduce the Coercion Bill, as soon as the Prime Minister turned his back on the professions he made before the Election, he ceased to have any confidence in any statement coming from the Treasury Bench.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to say of any Member of the House that he does not believe a statement he has made.
  MR. BIGGARbegged leave to apologize for having used the expression, because, as the House knew, he was exceedingly anxious not to use un-Parliamentary language; but they could not surely expect Irish Members to have confidence in a Government such as the one now in power. Why, the Chief Secretary for Ireland was the pet of the Tories of Bradford, and it came with a bad grace for him to pose as an exponent of Liberalism. Nor could Irish Members be expected to place confidence in an Attorney General who was a confidential friend of the late Lord Leitrim, and who had defended the unscrupulous conduct of such men as Mr. Hussey, the agent of Lord Kenmare, and Mr. Townsend, the agent of Mr. Coote.
  MR. DALYwished the Government to realize the effect the arrest of Father Sheehy would have on the moderate men of Ireland. It would alienate the Catholic priesthood, to whom the Government had been largely indebted for the preservation of peace. It would be regarded as an outrage on the whole body unless serious ground could be shown for it. In saying that, he did not wish to suggest that a priest should be regarded as in any sense above the law; but he knew that the utterances of Father Sheehy had not been as violent as those of several men who were still at large. The Irish people required to be subject to some restraints, and the persons who had the power to restrain them were the Catholic clergy; but the arrest of one of them would weaken that power. It would rankle in the minds of the people, and all the more because of undue reticence in stating the charge. Taking all things into consideration, he denounced it the more on the part of the Government, when bringing in a remedial measure, to make an arrest which was an insult to the mind and sentiment of the Irish people. It was the bounden duty of the Government to make allowance for the condition of things in Ireland, and he was very sorry for the sake of the peace, which he loved, that such an insult had taken place to the people of Ireland. For that reason he could not but add his protest to the others against the arrest which had taken place.
  MR. MACDONALDsaid, he felt it his duty to protest against this act of retrogression that had been committed by the Government under the operation of the
  998
  Coercion Act, now that it was in operation, as he protested against it when the Bill was before that House. To arrest one of the priests of Ireland was to do a very dangerous thing, and he did not hesitate to say that it was an outrage on the feelings of the great majority of the Irish people. He also entered his protest against sending down to the South a violent and prejudiced Northern magistrate. Were they, then, come to this, that they had tramp magistrates in Ireland? He was satisfied of the imperfections of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland; but having a very difficult duty to perform he (Mr. Macdonald) would appeal to Irish Members to show more mercy to the right hon. Gentleman, who, like the other Members of the Government, was anxious to give Ireland a good Land Bill, which, it was to be hoped, would settle the question.
  MR. WARTONrose to Order. Were they discussing the Land Bill?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member for Stafford must be aware he could not discuss the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, as it was not then before the House.
  MR. MACDONALD,resuming, said, he was not discussing the Land Law (Ireland) Bill, or thinking of such. He was in the hands of the Chair, and felt that if he in any way digressed that he should be told so. He totally objected to be under the ruling of the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, or any other novice that took upon himself the duties of censor of the House. He implored the Government to abandon the course they were now pursuing in regard to arrests. He did not blame the Ministry, but the Executive at Dublin Castle; and he would again ask Irish Members to be more considerate in their treatment of the right hon. Gentleman. ["No, no!"] Hon. Members should treat him kindly; whereas they seemed to be hunting him for his scalp every day. He urged the Government to release the priest, and allow the Business of the House to proceed, in order to promote the peace and happiness of Ireland.
  MR. WHITWORTHwas greatly surprised that the Government had employed the magistrate whose name had been mentioned. A more dangerous man they could not send to the South of Ireland. His (Mr. Whitworth's) brother,

  999
  who was a magistrate in Drogheda, told him that if this man were sent to the disturbed districts there would be bloodshed. At the same time, he blamed the Chief Secretary for Ireland for being too lenient. It was his great fault that he was too lenient, and that he had not put his foot firmly enough down. Every man who made a seditious speech ought to be arrested. Members of the Land League posed as the friends of Ireland. He held that there were no greater enemies of Ireland than the Gentlemen he saw opposite. Nothing was wanted so much as English capital in Ireland.
  MR. O'KELLYrose to Order. Was English capital the question before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: The Question before the House is, "That this House do now adjourn." I am bound to say that it is one of the many inconveniences of this proceeding that it gives the utmost latitude for discussion, and the observations now being made are not out of Order.
  MR. WHITWORTHsaid, that an immense amount of injury was done to Ireland by the violent speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were not really friends of their country; but, on the contrary, before three years elapsed, would be considered its greatest enemies.
  MR. M'COAN,as an Irish Protestant Member, said, the more he reflected on the gravity and unwisdom of this act of the Government, the more he felt compelled to add his protest to those which had been delivered by his hon. Friends around him. He did not share all the sentiments which had been expressed by Irish Representatives to-night; but he believed that in the whole course of the Land League agitation and the action of the Government towards it, there had been no more unwise and unstatesmanlike step. He reckoned among his friends many Roman Catholic priests, and there were no persons whom he more respected and admired. The strength of affection and veneration with which the Roman Catholic priest was regarded by the people was intense; and if, even, one of them had been carried away too far, it would have been wisdom in the Government to give him a very long tether. As the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had been in the House for some days, he hoped the direct responsibility for this arrest did not rest
  1000
  upon his shoulders, though, of course, he must share the responsibility with other Members of the Government. He would make a strong appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, and to the Prime Minister in particular, in the interest of peace and of the measure before the House, to reconsider this mistaken step, with a view to the liberation of the priest. As yet, there was still time to repair the harm that might have been done.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. LAW)said, he wished to enter his respectful protest against the language which had been used by his hon. Friend the Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth), and some other hon. Members with respect to the magistrate referred to, who was not able to be present to defend himself. It was not desirable that a person holding the responsible position which this gentleman did should be described in the unmeasured terms employed by hon. Gentlemen. The magistrate had been described by his hon. Friend, not from his own knowledge, but from report, as a "dangerous character;" but the charge did not appear to be founded on anything more than his hon. Friend's dislike to these public officials. In the case of a man occupying such a responsible position it was a serious thing to make such charges without producing an atom of proof. ["Reasonable suspicion!"] It was not a usual thing, in an assembly either of Englishmen or Irishmen, to abuse a person in the position of the gentleman who had been thus attacked, when it was impossible for him to defend himself.
  MR. J. COWENsaid, he would not have risen in this debate if it had not been for the observations which they had just heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland. He (Mr. Cowen) had been in Ireland frequently recently, and he had many opportunities of becoming acquainted with the state of the country, and he must say he entirely agreed with the opinions which had been expressed by the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth). There was "reasonable suspicion" to say that the person who had been attacked was a political and social firebrand. In whatever district he went he was calculated to excite dis-

  1001
  order and animosity. He (Mr. Cowen) did not wish to go further, as it was a mere matter of testimony. When Roman Catholic priests were arrested on a reasonable suspicion, there was at least equal ground for the opinions expressed by the hon. Member regarding the actions of the official in question in Ireland. He would not now go any further into the subject, as it was understood that it would be brought before the House next week; he would only repeat the experience of everyone familiar with the state of Ireland that the actions of the class of men referred to were calculated to embitter and exasperate the feelings of the Irish people.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had not intended to take part in this discussion. [Laughter.] He wished to refer to the conduct of the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Burt), and to express his regret that the hon. Gentleman should have gone out of his way to sneer at Irishmen to-night. The hon. Member had gone out of his way to laugh and sneer in a way which was very offensive. Such conduct was not creditable to the class of workmen to whom he belonged.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that if the hon. Member had to complain of any language used in the House reflecting upon himself or others, he should address himself to the Chair.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he did complain to the Chair. He was expressing the opinion to the Chair that it was desirable that discussions should be carried on without ill-feeling and sneers, and he thought his complaint was well founded. If there was to be harmony between English and Irish working men, it was desirable that one who was a Representative of working men should not sneer at Irishmen. He was about to say he had not intended to intervene in the debate, because he did not approve the system of moving the adjournment of the House. The abuse had lately become common of that which he held to be the only real check they had upon evasive and contemptuous answers from Ministers. If such Motions were often repeated, he feared the Government might seize upon the opportunity thus afforded for abrogating the privileges of private Members of the House. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was an eminent Chancery barrister; but he
  1002
  knew nothing whatever of criminal law. It was notorious in the Four Courts; the failure of the Crown prosecutions last winter showed it. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's ignorance of criminal law was only equalled by the ignorance of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary of everything appertaining to Ireland. When he (Mr. Callan) was in Ireland, there was unanimity on two points only; one was the desirability of including in the Land Law (Ireland) Bill the jurisdiction of the County Court, and the other the necessity of removing from Office the present Chief Secretary. A Colleague of that right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, had made a serious charge against Irish workmen, by suggesting that they were impoverished by superstition, by their observance of the holidays of the Church. The hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth) was, he (Mr. Callan) believed, the informant of the right hon. Gentleman; but he had very lately been in Drogheda, and had ascertained that the Catholic hands at the principal mill in that town, if they went to mass in the morning, came earlier, and worked the usual number of hours, and were paid exactly as on other days. The charge, therefore, was altogether without foundation. With regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the Attorney General for Ireland had described him as a most excellent magistrate; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not have spoken from his own knowledge, and those who had better information would have described Mr. Lloyd as a very dangerous character, and as the enemy of all the popular rights of the people of Ireland. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman corroborate his statement by any specific proof? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said the charges against Mr. Clifford Lloyd were not proved. He (Mr. Callan) asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to afford an opportunity to the Irish Members of giving specific proof of the charges. Doubtless, Mr. Clifford Lloyd fulfilled, in perfection, the duties assigned to him, and he had the courage of his opinions as the enemy of all popular rights. The right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland, on the other hand, changed his opinions with great facility three years ago. In

  1003
  that House he denounced tenant right, fixity of tenure, and valuation of rents; and, in fact, every principle of the Bill which he now supported. He had eaten his words in an unprincipled manner, and apparently with the sole object of retaining his salary.
  MR. BURTsaid, the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Callan) had given him a lesson in courtesy, which, no doubt, he was very competent to give; but the hon. Member was quite mistaken in saying that he (Mr. Burt) had sneered at him. He simply laughed because the hon. Member for Louth began the opening sentence of his speech with what appeared to be the usual formula of saying that he had no intention of speaking. His laugh was not meant to indicate any want of sympathy either with the hon. Member, or the attitude which the Irish Members had assumed that evening. In fact, he entirely sympathized with them, and he only regretted that it had been necessary for them to take that course of moving the adjournment. He was one of those few English Members who had steadily opposed the Coercion Act; and whilst he did complain that it had been placed in the power of the Government to arrest anyone on what was called "reasonable suspicion," yet, assuming that the power was justifiable, he rather gave the Government credit for arresting a Member of Parliament and a priest, as it showed that they were no respecters of persons in carrying out what appeared to them to be necessary for the maintenance of order.
  MR. BYRNEcontended that it was not the Irish Members, but the Government, who were to blame for irregular conduct, inasmuch as the Government had taken the irregular course of suspending the Constitution. He wished to enter his indignant protest against the arrest of the Rev. Father Sheehy. The event would strike a chord in the heart of the Irish people all over the world, and would damage the Government in their estimation, as the priests had been with the people in every battle they had fought for their Constitutional liberties and rights. The arrest of the rev. gentleman would raise a feeling in Ireland which would not soon be allayed. Assuming that the Land Law (Ireland) Bill was everything that the Irish tenants could desire, the fact of it being accompanied by the arrest of Father
  1004
  Sheehy robbed it of all the grace and advantage it might otherwise possess.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 32; Noes 130: Majority 98.—(Div. List, No. 206.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

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

  INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SATUR DAY (IRELAND).—RESOLUTION.
  MR. MELDONrose to call attention to the hours during which houses licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors in Ireland are allowed to be open, and to move—
  "That in view of the many and serious evils arising from drunkenness on Saturday nights in Ireland, and having regard to the evidence given before the Select Committees of 1868 and 1877, and the recommendation of the Lords Report on Intemperance of 1878, this House is of opinion that the hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold on Saturdays in the large cities and towns having a population exceeding 10,000 should be materially and immediately shortened."
  The hon. Member said, the subject was of considerable importance, and was one which it was clearly within the competence of Parliament to deal. It was not so much a question between the general public and Parliament as between the publicans and the licensed victuallers and Parliament. The licensed victuallers, owing to previous legislation, were monopolists by virtue of various Acts of Parliament, and the hours at which public-houses should be closed were altogether within the discretion of Parliament, which had always regulated the hours during which the business of a licensed victualler should be carried on. The Resolution dealt with a very small point; but, at the same time, it was a point of vital importance. In Ireland the resident magistrates, police magistrates, and persons of all religious denominations were favourable to the closing of public-houses at an early hour on Saturday. It would not be right, he thought, to call upon Parliament to legislate unless a clear case had been made out; but in this instance he con-

  1005
  tended that the weight of evidence was overwhelmingly in favour of earlier closing. The proposal he wished to make was that on Saturday nights the public-houses in the large towns of Ireland should be closed two or three hours earlier than they were at present—namely, at 8 or 9 instead of 11. He believed that if they were allowed to remain open as late as 9 o'clock it would meet the entire necessities of the case, and he would suggest that that should be the restriction imposed in any measure that might be introduced upon the subject. There was another point he wished also to make clear, and that was that it was not necessary to make the restriction apply to the whole of Ireland. He did not think that the amount of drunkenness which occurred in the rural districts of Ireland was such as to call for legislative interference, and it must further be borne in mind that the places which supplied drink were also the shops where provisions were sold; and there were, therefore, good reasons why restrictive hours, which might usefully be made to apply to the large towns, should not be extended to the country districts. His proposal was that in all the large towns of Ireland having a population of 10,000 and upwards the sale of drink should be restricted by two hours at least, and if possible by three hours, on Saturday night. He wished to prove his case, as far as possible, out of the mouths of his opponents; and therefore he was anxious to call attention to the fact that the evidence which was given before the Lords' Committee on Intemperance, and before the Committee of the House of Commons on Sunday Closing, contained a general admission, even by those who were opposed to Sunday closing, that a large amount of drunkenness took place on the Saturday night, and that the evil would be to a great extent remedied by the earlier closing of the public-houses. The matter was one which was entirely between the licensed victualler and Parliament, for the people had never expressed a desire to have the public-house kept open until a late hour on the Saturday night, and many of those who represented the interests of the licensed victuallers had admitted that they might be closed without disadvantage. The evil which he was principally anxious to cope with was this. The artizan and labourer received their
  1006
  wages on Saturday night, and instead of expending them in providing the necessaries of life for their wives and families, they took them to the public-house, where they found their way into the till of the licensed victualler. The Lords' Committee on Intemperance, which sat in 1877, reported that almost all the witnesses concurred in expressing their belief that by far the greatest amount of drunkenness occurred on the evening of Saturday, and their Lordships followed up their Report by recommending that the hours not only on Saturday, but on all week days in Ireland, should be curtailed. Mr. Woodlock, a most experienced magistrate in Dublin, who had devoted a great deal of attention to the subject, when examined before the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Sunday Closing, said the worst time of the week for drunkenness was decidedly the Saturday night, after the week's wages had been received, and before the wives of the men had been able to get hold of them. Mr. Murphy, the late Member for Cork, one of the most able advocates the publicans ever had in that House, was also in favour of shortening the hours on Saturday. Captain Talbot, an experienced Commissioner of the Dublin Police, believed that the curtailment of the hours on Saturday night would have a good effect. The next evidence was most important, being that of a very clearheaded, shrewd, intelligent, and able man, Mr. Dwyer, who for many years had been engaged in looking after the interests of the licensed victuallers as the Secretary of their Society. Mr. Dwyer said—
  "I may say this much for them—the publicans—that if intemperance and an excess of drunkenness, which undoubtedly do exist much more on the Saturday night than at any other time, could be put a stop to, I would almost undertake for them that they would be willing to consent to that sacrifice."
  There was a large mass of evidence to the same effect. Mr. Tighe, Sub-Inspector of Constabulary at Belfast, was examined in reference to certain statistics as to Saturday and Sunday drinking in Belfast. He was asked whether 1,942 persons arrested on Saturday for drunkenness was a large proportion, and his answer was—
  "Unquestionably a large proportion. The drunkenness on Saturday night in Belfast is

  1007
  something frightful. The publicans keep the public-houses open until the last moment, and the working classes spend the greater part of their money in them. It is a melancholy sight to see the working classes going home on the Saturday night. The arrests made on Saturday night afford no index to the amount of drunkenness which goes on, because the police do not arrest all who go home, in a drunken state."
  By far the greatest evil to be met was the way in which the working classes squandered their money in the public-houses on the Saturday night instead of taking it home to their families. He might mention one tremendous and startling fact. In the City of Dublin the police had been cautioned not to arrest persons who were merely drunk and incapable on the Saturday night. And why was this? It was because there was not sufficient station accommodation for them in Dublin, and hundreds had been allowed to find their way home who would have been arrested if it had not been for these instructions. Among the witnesses who gave evidence in favour of earlier closing on Saturday night, and as to the enormous amount of drinking which took place on that night, were Captain Talbot, Mr. Woodlock, police magistrate, Mr. Dwyer, Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers Society, Mr. O'Donnell, police magistrate, Mr. Tighe, Sub-Inspector of Belfast, an Alderman of Limerick, Mr. Barry, County Inspector of Constabulary, Mr. Galway, County Inspector of Limerick, several large employers of labour in Limerick, Dr. O'Shaughnessy, father of the hon. Member for Limerick, Mr. Beard, County inspector of Waterford, and many other witnesses from other parts of Ireland. The whole of these gave evidence in his behalf; and he might add that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly), while he was opposed to Sunday closing in Cork, was of opinion that the intemperance which took place on a Saturday night was a great evil. At that late hour he would not read further extracts from the evidence, but the whole of it was contained in the Report of the Select Committee; and he challenged any hon. Member who opposed the Resolution to quote the evidence of a single person either before the Lords Committee on intemperance, or the Select Committee of the House of Commons on Sunday Closing, who objected to a shortening of the hours during which public-houses were al-
  1008
  lowed to be open on Saturday. On the contrary, it was admitted on all hands that the evil they must grapple with was the drinking which took place on the Saturday night after the working men received their wages. Sunday closing in Ireland had undoubtedly been eminently successful, and he believed that similar success would attend the earlier closing of public-houses on Saturday night. His hon. Friend the Member for Dublin (Mr. M. Brooks) was a most persistent defender of the publicans; but, nevertheless, in answer to an hon. Member who had interested himself in the question of Sunday closing, his hon. Friend wrote a letter stating that—
  "Although he honoured the motives of the advocates of Sunday closing, from a sense he had of his own personal responsibilities, he could not vote for them. If there were to be restrictions they should not be confined to the Sunday, but there should be something done to restrict the hours for the sale of drink on Saturday night."
  [An hon. MEMBER: Read on.] He had read all that appeared in the Report. If there was anything further his hon. Friend could read it himself. After this expression of opinion on the part of his hon. Friend, he certainly thought he ought to rely upon his hon. Friend's vote in support of the Resolution. The year after the passing of the Sunday Closing Bill his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) brought in a Bill for the closing of public-houses at 7 o'clock, not in the 16 large towns with a population above 10,000, but all over Ireland. The principle of the Bill was not challenged; but the only plea put forward on behalf of the licensed victuallers was one of delay. It was contended that it was too soon after the hours had been restricted on Sunday to ask for further restrictive measures. Upon that occasion the Bill, which was discussed on a Wednesday, was talked out. Before concluding his remarks he might, perhaps, be allowed to quote a few statistics as to the effect of keeping the public-houses open at a time when the artizans had been paid their wages, and were specially liable to be seduced by the temptations of the public-houses. In the year 1879, there were 30,000 arrests for drunkenness in the 16 large towns of Ireland to which he wished to apply

  1009
  the principle of his Resolution. Out of these 30,000 arrests no less than 10,000, or one-third, took place on Saturday. From 7 to 8 o'clock on Saturday night the number of arrests was 378; from 8 to 9, 462; from 9 to 10, 440; from 10 to 11, 535; and from 11 to 12, 665. From 12 to 1 the number commenced to decrease again, being 377 and so on, down to 161, 62, and 33, until Sunday was fairly ushered in. It would be seen that the largest number of arrests, 665, took place between 11 and 12. The figures were of a startling character, and when the fact was taken into consideration that one-third of the entire arrests for drunkenness took place on Saturday night, he thought the House would feel that there was absolute need for legislation in this direction. He was told that he was proposing to proceed upon wrong lines, and that people could not be made sober by Act of Parliament. He quite admitted that they could not be made sober by Act of Parliament; but, at the same time, the temptation might be placed as much out of their reach as possible. Much might be done even by Act of Parliament towards making the people sober; and to prove this he would quote the Returns of the number of arrests for drunkenness within the last two years, which had been placed on the Table of the House within the last few days. In 1876, the number of arrests for drunkennesss all over Ireland, except Dublin, were 73,118; and in 1877, before the Sunday Closing Act came into operation, they were 71,820. In 1878, after the Sunday Closing Act came into operation, they were 67,898, as compared with 71,820 the year before. In 1879, the number had decreased to 65,477, and in 1880 to 60,386. If these figures did not afford overpowering evidence of what might be done towards making people sober by Act of Parliament he did not think there was any use in figures at all. In Dublin, it must be remembered, Sunday closing did not come into operation altogether—the hours were only shortened; and yet there had been a perceptible diminution in the number of arrests. In 1876, the number of arrests in Dublin was 12,700; in 1877, 14,615; in 1878, 17,018; in 1879, under the operation of the Sunday Closing Act, they were 13,524, or a diminution of nearly 4,000; and in 1880, the number
  1010
  fell to 10,138, or nearly 7,000 less than the number before the Sunday Closing Act came into operation. He had no intention of entering at length into the question of Sunday closing; and he had simply quoted these figures in order to meet the argument that it was impossible to make people sober by Act of Parliament. He thought they showed conclusively that they could do something by legislation towards restraining drunkenness. He could show further, if necessary, that there had been a much smaller quantity of spirits consumed in Ireland since the Sunday Closing Act came into operation than before. The proposition he now made was a very reasonable one, and not more than he had demonstrated to be absolutely necessary. All that he asked the House to do was to affirm the principle that in the large towns where drink was excessively consumed, and where drunkenness took place, and where there were good markets, and plenty of facilities for procuring provisions without resorting to provision shops, which also sold drink, the hours during which the public-houses should be allowed to remain open on the Saturday night for the sale of drink should be curtailed. He did not ask for any extreme reduction. Two hours would be sufficient, and he would be content with closing the public house at 9 o'clock instead of 11. The principle involved in the Resolution had already been affirmed by the Select Committee; and every tittle of evidence was in favour of it. His case had also been substantiated by the hon. Member for Cork, the hon. Member for Dublin, the Secretary of the Licensed Victuallers' Society, the Police Magistrates, the Constabulary, the Irish clergy, and by every man who had seriously considered the question. He hoped that the Resolution would be affirmed, and that the Government would be ready to yield to the express wish of the House on the subject.
  MR. CAINEseconded the Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in view of the many and serious evils arising from drunkenness on Saturday nights in Ireland, and having regard to the evidence given before the Select Committees of 1868 and 1877, and the recommendation of the Lords Report on Intemperance of 1878, this House is of opinion that the hours during which intoxicating liquors may be sold on Saturdays in the large cities and

  1011
  towns having a population exceeding 10,000 should be materially and immediately shortened,"—(Mr. Meldon.)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. DALYsaid, he rose to oppose the Resolution, on the same grounds which had induced him to oppose similar restrictions before. His hon. Friend the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had laid great stress upon the statistics he had quoted; but he thought it was unfair for his hon. Friend to have quoted statistics from a Paper which had not yet been presented to the House, and the accuracy of which the House had no means of ascertaining.
  MR. MELDONsaid, the Paper from which he had quoted was an official Paper, and had already been laid on the Table of the House.
  MR. DALYsaid, he had understood the hon. Member to say that the Returns had not yet been presented; and, if he (Mr. Daly) was correctly informed, they were statistics of so recent a date as not to be available to those who wished to resist the conclusions drawn from them. He thought that his hon. Friend laid too much stress upon the diminution of intemperance since the passing of the Sunday Closing Act, as it could be shown that there had been a falling-off equal to or exceeding that exhibited in the consumption of intoxicating liquors in the provision trade, the entail grocery trade, and the drapery and other trades. He joined with the hon. Member in his desire to diminish intemperance in Ireland. No one in that House had a greater horror of intemperance than he had; and he had had peculiar opportunities of studying the question, because his attention had been particularly directed towards it, in the City of Cork, in the years 1871, 1872, and 1873. He had always recognized it as one of the greatest evils affecting the working classes, and he had endeavoured to do his best to find out a remedy; but he did not consider then, and he did not consider now that he had had 10 years' more experience, that that remedy was to be obtained by restrictions of this kind. As to the quotations which had been made from the former opinions of himself and others at the time the Select Committee of 1877
  1012
  was sitting, he wished to call the attention of the House to the conditions under which they were given. It was well recognized by everybody that a large and powerful organization, with a great deal of money behind it, and actuated, no doubt, by good motives, had exercised a great influence on public opinion in regard to the restriction of the hours for the sale of intoxicating liquors. In common with other persons he had given evidence before the Select Committee. He was of opinion that it was conducive to the health and happiness of the working man that he should have the opportunity on the Sunday of obtaining a glass of beer; and, as a concession to public opinion, it was suggested that there should be a limitation of drinking hours on Saturday night in lieu of Sunday morning. He had read the evidence given before the Select Committee, and he believed the quotations read by the hon. Member for Kildare all sprang from the same idea that earlier closing on Saturday night should be accepted as an alternative for Sunday closing. It was so short a time since Parliament legislated that the new law might as yet be considered tentative and experimental. The advocates of Sunday closing claimed that the measure had been successful; but the decision arrived at by the State was that a certain period should elapse before public opinion was brought to bear upon the question again, and further legislation was attempted. He thought that pending the full trial of the present experiment any fresh legislation would be most undesirable, and to justify a proposal of this coercive character it was necessary to prove that a very exceptional state of things prevailed. He had listened carefully to the speech of his hon. Friend, and he had failed to discover any proof of exceptional drunkenness and disorder on the Saturday night such as ought to induce Parliament to extend the legislation already adopted, and which was of a tentative nature. He further complained, in reference to the agitation for early closing on Saturday, that it was fomented, encouraged, provided, and paid for by persons whose liberties would not be affected by it. The majority of the persons who got up the early closing meetings were persons who rarely or never entered a public-house at all. Therefore, although their

  1013
  motives might be the very best and purest, they were not persons upon whose mere dicta Parliament should consent to restrain the liberties and privileges of the working man. The proposal of his hon. Friend was calculated materially to abridge the liberties of the working man as to the means of enjoyment he would possess between the hours of 8 or 9 and 11 on Saturday night. Before the Legislature consented to impose a direct restriction upon the liberties of the working man, it should have incontestible proof that it was needed. So far as the speech of his hon. Friend was concerned, such proof was not as yet before the House. Following the line of the arguments of the hon. Member for Kildare, and listening involuntarily to the sotto voce comments of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake), who was an equally ardent advocate for teetotalism, he failed to see why they should stop at 8 o'clock, and why they should not close the public-houses altogether. [Mr. BLAKE: Hear, hear!] The hon. Member for Waterford said "Hear, hear!" and really that was the only logical conclusion at which they could arrive. There was no middle course. If they said it was necessary that the working man should be relieved of the temptation of intoxicating liquors, then, to be logical, they must shut up the public-houses altogether. But he held that the country was not prepared for so extreme a measure, nor, indeed, was the hon. Member for Kildare prepared to oppose it. It was important, he thought, for the House to consider whether the opinions of the people whose liberties it was proposed to curtail had been fairly ascertained. The daily life of the lower strata of the community was not a very pleasurable one. A man was at work from Monday morning until Saturday afternoon. He had to support himself and his wife and family by hard labour, to go to bed at an early hour, and to be out of the house again at daybreak. Practically, he had only Saturday afternoon and Sunday for recruiting himself, and it would be a very great injustice and deprivation to tell him that those were the only periods at which he should be unable to enjoy his pipe and his glass of beer because a small and contemptible portion of the class to which he belonged were in the habit of abusing the advantages now secured to
  1014
  them. It was a privilege which the Legislature ought not to interfere with, unless there were exceptional grounds to justify them, and no such exceptional grounds had been proved. There was one matter which had come under his own personal experience, and that was the character of the persons who were usually arrested for drunkenness on Saturday night. He was thoroughly acquainted with the City of Cork, and some years ago he had placed a self-imposed duty upon himself of clearing the Bridewell on Sunday morning, in order to ascertain who the persons arrested on the previous night were. He found that the large majority were habitual drunkards and unfortunate women; and as to producing the reformation of this class by closing the public-houses earlier on Saturday night, they might just as well endeavour to stem the tide of the River Thames with a pitch fork. It was a thing that it was impossible to accomplish, and it was absurd to suppose that by infringing and curtailing the liberties of decent, respectable men, who used the public-house in moderation, they would effect the impossible reformation of the habitual drunkard. He had already mentioned that the Sunday Closing Bill was only tentative and experimental, and until the result of that experiment had been fully ascertained the Saturday night question would not be ripe for legislation. Then, again, in regard to drunkenness, if what they desired was to reform people by Act of Parliament, they must bear in mind that a great deal of the drunkenness which prevailed did not arise in the public-houses at all. He was sorry to say that a great deal of it existed among classes who would not be seen entering a public-house; and he must say that, taking the lower classes, with all the disadvantages they possessed of badly constructed and ill-ventilated houses, and the temptations offered by the public-houses, they were as sober, class for class, as the class immediately above them, and the strata immediately above them again. In legislation so deeply affecting the working man, it was imperative that no hasty decision should be arrived at. He knew that the Resolution would only pledge the House to a principle, and that it would not immediately have the effect of law; but he held that it would be

  1015
  dangerous and unwise to affirm such a principle at the present moment, and that the advocates of Sunday closing should wait until their first experiment and achievement had been tested by its results. If Saturday night early closing was in operation, what was a man to do who wished to take his wife to a concert? It was one of the most refining, amusements he could partake of, and when he came away at 10 or half-past, was he to be debarred from having a glass of beer on his way home? Were they to compel that man to become a beer holder; and, as a matter of necessity, to keep drink in his house? He was acquainted with many men who did not keep beer or whisky in their houses, lest it should be a source of temptation to their children and servants; but the same men might very reasonably want refreshment after such harmless recreation as he had described. Then, again, how were they to deal with the theatres? In most of them there was a refreshment bar, and was a man who paid 1s. for a seat in the gallery, or 2s. to the pit, to have drink up to half-past 11 o'clock, while the poor man, quite as sober and well conducted, who, unfortunately, did not possess the 1s., was to be prohibited from obtaining a glass of beer after 9 o'clock? Surely a workman in Dublin or Cork should have the opportunity of getting a glass of beer after 8 or 9 o'clock on Saturday night. What did they propose to do with him? Were they going to send him home to bed? And then see what they were doing all the while in London. For the convenience of people visiting the theatres, public-houses situated near those places of amusement did not close until half-past 12 on ordinary week nights, and at 12 on Saturday night. Then why should they compel houses similarly situated in Dublin or Cork to close three or four hours earlier? Why should they place a Coercion Act upon the working man because he was an Irishman, and turn him out of the public-house at 8 or 9 o'clock, whereas, if he happened to be in London, he could enjoy himself on the only day he had for amusement until 12 o'clock. There was manifest injustice in this kind of legislation. It was desirable that all their legislation should be in consonance with the wishes and feelings of the people, and they must not give the artizan reason to think that he was subjected to special restrictions.
  1016
  Therefore, before they legislated further in the direction pointed out by the hon. Member for Kildare, it was indispensable that the necessity for it should be proved. He claimed to have a more thorough acquaintance with the feelings of the artizans in the large cities of Ireland than the hon. Member for Kildare; he had no interest whatever, good, bad, or indifferent, in the public-houses; but, regarding the question simply as one of individual liberty, and having paid attention to it for more than 15 years, the conclusion he had come to was that it would be unfair and unjust to debar the respectable and sober working man of reasonable and rational enjoyment on the Saturday night, because a very small percentage of the class to which he belonged made a bad use of the liberty they enjoyed.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he did not think that the arguments for and against the Resolution could have been better stated than they had been by the hon. Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon), who moved, and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly), who opposed it. There was no doubt whatever that Saturday evening did present to certain classes more attractive temptations to drink than any other time in the week. On the other hand, it was perfectly true, as the hon. Member for the City of Cork had stated, that Saturday evening was a time of relaxation for a large portion of the population when their work was over, and those who were not drunkards might naturally feel that their liberty and opportunity of enjoyment were interfered with by the closing of public-houses at that time. If he were a teetotaller, it would be very easy for him to form an opinion upon the subject, and to say that it was better not to go to the public-house at all. But the question which the Government had to consider, with regard to the Resolution of the hon. Member for Kildare, was how far the closing of public-houses would be fair to the community? The effect of closing public-houses in Ireland on Sundays had proved to be a greater success than many of its advocates had expected. For his own part, he was sanguine of its results, and had been assured that public opinion in Ireland was thoroughly in its favour; and he thought that if that opinion were proved to be as clearly in favour of the present

  1017
  Motion, there might be a shortening of the hours of public-house traffic on Saturdays. A change of that kind might be advantageous; but it was one of those cases in which the Government must not go in advance of public opinion. The Resolution of the hon. Member would, if accepted by the Government, of course, pledge them and the House to immediate action; and they could not, therefore, consistently vote for it unless they were prepared to introduce a Bill dealing with the subject. He could not say he felt certain that the Government would be supported by public opinion in Ireland in doing that; and in cases where the actual repression of crime was not to be dealt with, but simply the consideration of what measures would be beneficial to the community, he was of opinion that no good whatever could be done by acting in advance of the feelings of the public. Therefore, he did not consider it would be in the interest of the measure which the hon. Member advocated if the House were divided upon the Resolution. If, however, the hon. Member proceeded to a division, he should feel it his duty not to vote for it; while, on the other hand, he was glad that the Forms of the House enabled him to vote for going into Supply—that was, for the Previous Question. The matter was one in which the Government must look carefully to the arguments on both sides, as well as to public opinion in Ireland, in order to see how far they would be justified in taking further action. What had already been done in closing public-houses in Ireland on Sundays was in the nature of a strong measure, and one which ought not, in his opinion, to be followed immediately by another measure of a kindred character without very strong proofs that the people were in its favour. Looking at all the circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member for Kildare would not think it necessary to go to a division; but if he did so, he trusted there would be no misunderstanding as to the grounds on which he felt it his duty not to vote for the Resolution.
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANwas glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland awaited the expression of Irish public opinion upon this subject. That being so, he regarded the question as settled, because he knew
  1018
  what was the feeling in Ireland; and when the Government said they only waited for a fair and proper expression of opinion, as it was the duty of all statesmen to do, he could not but feel hearty satisfaction in witnessing the first stage of this most useful reform in connection with public-houses in Ireland. He would go farther than the right hon. Gentleman had done, and say that men who advocated social reforms of this character committed a lamentable error if they attempted to travel one inch farther than public opinion would warrant; because if they went in advance of the general sentiment in interfering with the habits of the people, unless they had secured the co-operation, not of a mere majority, but of a considerable majority, who were prepared to assist in making a legitimate effort, their moral effort, even when aided by the Legislature, would be a failure. He had all along held this view in the great struggle against the evils of drunkenness, and had always persuaded his friends that it would be a serious error to snatch a victory in the House of Commons upon this question until public opinion was prepared for it. He therefore felt a most encouraging reply had been received from the Government, and congratulated his hon. Friend to whose lot it had fallen to secure so remarkable a step towards the accomplishment of his wishes in regard to this question. He also felt some obligation to his hon. Friend the Member Cork City (Mr. Daly) for the very reasonable and forcible way in which he had put forward his views upon the subject. That hon. Member was brought into contact with the people in a most intimate manner, and was entitled to consideration for all that he had done in their behalf; but he would not hardly get up and say that Saturday night drinking was not an evil in Ireland in the eyes of the working classes, It was well known to be so. With regard to the argument of the hon. Member for Cork City, that the diminution of the consumption of drink in Ireland was due to the depression experienced in the liquor trade, as well as in other trades, and was not owing to the Sunday Closing Bill, he pointed out that there was greater depression in Ireland during the terrible years of famine—1846–7–8—and yet the consumption of drink had not fallen off. On the con-

  1019
  trary, while the industry and trade of the country was at that time perishing, the distillation and consumption of spirits in Ireland went on increasing; because the people sought forgetfulness of the horrors they were exposed to in the delirium produced by drink. At that late hour he would simply express a hope that his hon. Friend the Member for Kildare would be satisfied with the assurance he had received from the Government, and not proceed to a division. Whatever might be the wishes of the working classes, he would never attempt, either in that House or out of it, to force any law upon his countrymen in connection with this subject, unless with their own direct and absolute free choice. He objected, however, to its being said that the working classes in Ireland did not want reform in this direction while they were not trusted to vote upon it; and whether the question was referred to manhood suffrage, or woman suffrage, he was quite contented to accept the result.
  MR. M. BROOKSsaid, he had hoped the hon. Member for Kildare would have adopted the suggestion of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and not put the House to the trouble of a division. Had the hon. Member done so, he should not have felt it his duty to address any observations to the House upon the question raised by the Resolution of the lion. Member. He regretted that the hon. Member for Kildare had not read the whole of his letter from which he had quoted, because, if he had done so, it would have shown that when Sunday closing was proposed early closing on Saturday was advocated. At that time a great interest was taken not only in imposing habits of sobriety on the people, but also in the improvement of their dwellings. The hon. Member for Kildare having alluded to the views of the learned Recorder of Dublin, he would read an extract which would show that they were somewhat in accord with that portion of his letter which had not been quoted. The learned Recorder said—
  "Thousands upon thousands of the inhabitants in our great towns, notably in this city, live and die in places where a humane sportsman would be ashamed to whistle forth his spamel … … it is preposterous to think that society can be regenerated by sentences of penal servitude or the refusal of spirit licences."
  He trusted the House would think he
  1020
  was justified in quoting these observations of the learned Recorder of Dublin for the purpose of showing why his letter, to which reference had been made, was written, and what were the objects which he and others had in view. He could not but sympathize with the efforts of those gentlemen who desired to improve the social habits of the people of Ireland; but he was unable to believe that any good would result from closing the public-houses at 9 o'clock in the evening on Saturdays. The people did not go to bed at 9 o'clock. They remained up, as a rule, till midnight, and if they were not permitted to enter licensed public-houses, they would, in his opinion, be driven to enter houses that were not licensed. Therefore, in the interest of the people of the City of Dublin, he protested against the measure proposed by the hon. Member for Kildare.
  MR. EWARTrose with pleasure to give his support to the Resolution before the House, and was only sorry that the hon. Member for Kildare had not brought in a Bill for dealing with the question. They had listened, in the course of the discussion, to a great deal of special pleading, on the part of hon. Members who opposed the Resolution, with regard to the enjoyments of the working classes and the liberty of the subject. For his own part, he was as much in favour of the enjoyments of the working classes as any hon. Member who had spoken on the subject; but he desired to see them supplied in some other place than the public-house. It was well known that in large towns there were other places besides public-houses in which the working man could meet with the enjoyment of society, and to which he could even take his wife to sup after the concert. Seeing that the Chief Secretary for Ireland had appealed to public opinion upon this question, he thought he had a right to express his views as the Representative of one of the largest constituencies in Ireland. At the last General Election this was made a test question. It was a popular question, and he received deputation after deputation from the men, asking him to support the Motion. He promised with all his heart to do so, and explained his views on the subject, and during his canvas the women and the young people were constantly asking

  1021
  what his views were on the subject. When he expressed himself in favour of the early closing he received their blessings, and he believed that the House would have the good wishes of the whole of the constituencies of Ireland if they passed a Bill in the sense of the Resolution. The hon. Member for Kildare had quoted from many influential persons who were in favour of the Resolution, and he himself could quote a great many more; but he thought at that time of night it would not be wise to do so. He would, however, give his personal experience as to the great evil of keeping public-houses open late on Saturday evening. That was a time when money was abundant in the hands of working men, and debauch began on Saturday night and continued on Sunday, to the enormous injury of the men's families, who, in numberless cases, were badly fed and badly clad. The present system was one of the main supports of the monster evil of drinking which filled the gaols and workhouses and lunatic asylums. The Land Law (Ireland) Bill was a very important measure; but it did not deal with a larger question than this Resolution did. There was as much money spent in liquor as in rents in Ireland, and he thought the subject was worthy of a great deal more attention than had been bestowed upon it. His election experience proved that public opinion was greatly in favour of early closing.
  MR. LEAMYthought it would have been wiser if the hon. Member (Mr. Meldon) had first ascertained what was the real view of the people of Ireland before moving his Resolution. The hon. Member had stated that Mr. Dwyer was in favour of the Motion; but he understood from Mr. Dwyer that that was not the fact, and that gentleman had referred him to the evidence he gave before a Committee of the House to the effect that the trade would be entirely opposed to the Motion. He therefore hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Motion.
  MR. DAWSON,observing that the periods to which the hon. Member for Kildare had referred were years of depression, expressed the opinion that remedial laws, with regard to the use of liquors, would be useless as long as people remained in the wretched condition in which they were to be found in
  1022
  the crowded towns both of England and Ireland. The practice of sending children and young people for liquor was daily and hourly increasing in Ireland, and while the people remained in such a state of misery as they were at present in they must drown their cares by drinking, and if they were prevented from getting drink at the ordinary places they would have to take it home. Men who had to do physical labour required a certain amount of physical animation, and people living and sleeping in a close atmosphere became prostrate and unable to discharge their physical duties, and they had to seek in alcohol that resuscitation which the bad air rendered necessary. The real and proper way for dealing with this evil was, as the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) had said, to improve the social condition and surroundings of the people. The Mayor of Cork had erected artizan's dwellings and given the hard working people decent habitations, and it was proved that there was an immense demand for the space and accommodation these houses afforded. It was proved that without imposing any arbitrary laws of teetotalism, no one went to excess, and that morality, decent conduct, and sobriety characterized the people living in those dwellings. He looked to a permanent source of reform such as that with much more hope than to any penal legislation. Sydney Smith had said that to eradicate a vice, a virtue must be set up in its place; and if hon. Members wished to eradicate the vice of drinking and reform the people, they must give the people some innocent and practical means of pleasure in the place of drinking. He felt very poignantly how severely the people suffered from this evil. Other trades could be carried on with profit, and without danger to society; but the liquor trade could not. The profits of that trade meant the misery of the people, and he thought that the Government should take charge of the trade, of course paying compensation for interests they had allowed to grow up. People must have refreshment, and the Government should take the trade into their own hands, or confide it to Municipalities, so that people might have proper and well regulated enjoyment. The hon. and learned Member for Meath (Mr. A. M. Sullivan), and many other Members, had said that the House had the opi-

  1023
  nion of the people upon this subject; but they had not the opinion of the people. The Irish artizans had no vote as those in England had, and the best thing that could be done to free the Irish people from excess was to give them the responsibility of a vote. That, he believed, would do far more to lead them to decorous and discreet conduct than any laws such as were proposed. The erection of artizans' dwellings and the promotion of every object for the social improvement of the people had always been matters of deepest interest to him, and such measures would be far more effectual than branding the people of Ireland as incapable of putting restraints upon their appetites. He hoped no such laws would be passed.
  MR. BLAKEsaid, that as the hon. Member for Dublin (Mr. Brooks) undertook to say, on the part of his constituents, that there was no necessity for earlier closing on Saturday in that city, he (Mr. Blake) requested permission to read some short extracts from the evidence of Mr. Woodlock, a police magistrate in Dublin, on the subject. Mr. Woodlock, from his own experience, as well as the reports made to him by police officers, asserted that on
  "Saturday night drunkenness reigns supreme in Dublin, and it is with that particular time that you have to grapple. On Saturday night the wages of the working men are spent in the most degrading manner that can possibly be imagined. I have heard from police officers that there are parts of Dublin in which nearly every man, woman and child you meet is drunk."
  [Cries of "No, no!"] Hon. Members who cried "No!" should remember that, in stating this, Mr. Woodlock referred to certain parts of Dublin, very low neighbourhoods it was to be supposed. So great was the drunkenness in such localities that the police found it impossible to make all the arrests that they would have been justified in doing. Mr. Woodlock, on this point, said—
  "They ought to be arrested, but that the arresting of them wholesale would encumber the police stations, and would be impossible to carry out."
  He further attributed many of the offences that occurred on Saturdays to drinking, such as husbands beating their wives, sons their mothers, and individuals not related assaulting one another. Many petty larcenies he also attributed to the delinquents trying to
  1024
  obtain money to procure drink; indeed, many attributed their offences in that direction to that cause. Mr. Woodlock further stated that the proceeds of goods dishonestly obtained which were pawned were often found to have been used to procure whisky. He (Mr. Blake) had a good deal of experience of other towns in Ireland besides Dublin, and he believed that what held good with regard to it, so far as concerned the evil effects of drinking on Saturday evenings, might be said of many other towns. ["No, no!"] Hon. Gentlemen might dissent, the truth was often unpleasant; but take similar low localities elsewhere like those described by Mr. Woodlock in Dublin, and he was afraid the same state of things would be found to prevail. Mr. Woodlock was a man of the highest character, intelligence, and great experience, and he made his statement under grave official reponsibility, and what he said was not to be regarded lightly. Hon. Members must be themselves aware how in towns many artizans and labourers were tempted, on receiving their wages on Saturdays, to spend much of it on drink, and that there could not be a greater benefit conferred on them and the class to which they belonged than to pass such a law as would keep them out of the public-house on Saturday nights. It was said that we ought to begin by improving the moral and social condition of the people. Well, he thought nothing could be better in that direction than keeping them out of the public-house. Since Sunday closing there was a decrease of nearly £1,500,000 sterling in the amount of drink consumed, and, no doubt, there would be a still further decrease if the hours for drinking on Saturdays were curtailed. The labouring population would have so much more to spend on food and clothes for themselves and families, and there would be less crime and misery. He went fully with the hon. Member for the borough of Carlow (Mr. Dawson) that if public-houses were shut up some substitute should be found to enable the people who frequented them to meet together for conversation and amusement. Drink abolitionists should do all in their power to provide substitutes in the way of workmen's clubs and coffee palaces, and he was glad to say that the latter were springing up in Dublin

  1025
  and elsewhere. They ought to be sufficiently subsidized until they became self-supporting. It was stated in that debate that it was absurd to expect that people could be reformed by Acts of Parliament. He denied that. There were plenty of instances to the contrary. Men were compelled to be honest and to desist from outrage by Act of Parliament; and there was no reason why they should not be prevented from brutalizing themselves, and bringing those who depended on them to starvation by an Act of the Legislature, shutting up drink resorts during certain hours. The United States and British America afforded the most triumphant proof of the good accomplished by prohibitory Acts of Parliament. He had lately been nearly over the whole of the United States and the Dominion of Canada. In the former he saw many towns and large districts where total prohibition was successfully carried out with the most beneficial results. Over the greater part of the North-West Territory of Canada Local Option had been adopted; and so sensible were the people of the benefits it had conferred that the people of a part of the territory that it was proposed to pin on to Manitoba absolutely refused to be connected with the latter unless the inhabitants consented to abandon the sale and use of drink; and, at the time he was there, a part of Manitoba was about to do so. The hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Daly) had said that he had involuntarily heard him (Mr. Blake) say that he would close up public-houses all Saturday if he could. His hon. Friend was quite right; he had said so, and a great deal more, and that was that if he could he would close the mtotally every day in the week. Drink was the greatest curse to the community that existed; if it could only be abolished, what happiness, prosperity, and morality would ensue! He hoped, instead of applying such small remedies to meet this great and growing evil as Sunday and partial Saturday closing, that the Legislature would meet the strong demand that would soon be made on it to allow the majority of the people, if they thought well of doing so, to put an end to the greatest evil any country could suffer from.
  DR. LYONSsaid, that on the part of his fellow-citizens in Dublin he felt
  1026
  bound to repudiate the exaggerated charges that had been brought against them. He thought such observations carried their own refutation with them, and they were simply an example of that kind of rhetorical flight of which they heard something recently in this House. He was thoroughly conversant with the condition of the City of Dublin, he might say, owing to his avocations, at all hours of the day and night. He regretted to say that the use of intoxicating liquors was too prevalent, but anything approaching the condition of things that had been spoken of could only be described as a wild exaggeration that had no foundation in fact. There was no such thing as corruption of the members of the community by drink to anything like the extent stated. It was a very rare thing indeed to see young persons of either sex indulging in drink. Unfortunately, this was too much the case with grown-up persons. He did not intend at this hour to enter on the many branches of this important question. He would merely say he was one of those who, while a most strenuous advocate of temperance, believed that the extension of temperance among any large mass of the community depended upon their being furnished with a number of conditions for rational recreation which now, unfortunately, they could not command. In his opinion, one of the things of most practical importance was the more general extension of paying wages on the day before Saturday. It was unfortunately the case that wages were to a large extent paid on the Saturday, and the provisions for the Sunday had often to be purchased as late as half-past 11 or 12 o'clock at night. Until some practical remedy in that direction could be adopted, and until it became a general rule to pay wages on Friday, he did not think that much would be done in the way of improvement. Whether it might be desirable in a more advanced state of public opinion to restrict the hours of Saturday he did not say; but any attempt in the present condition of things in Ireland to force on an early system of closing would lead to the extension of what already existed to a great degree—the accumulation of drink at home and in quasi-clubs, indulged on the principle that stolen milk was the sweeter. But it was for the purpose of repudiating on the part of

  1027
  the people of Dublin the wild charge that was brought against them by the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) that he had thought it necessary to make these remarks.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he wished to make one or two remarks on the speech of the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake). He did not know why a discussion on the liquor traffic, any more than a discussion on any other subject, should generate an unfair and irrational habit of mind; but he had observed that when any discussion on the Irish liquor question arose, it was impossible that it should be conducted at any length without involving gross and offensive charges against the general body of the Irish people. He had lived for many years in the City of Dublin, and during those years had walked on every Saturday night through its streets, and any such statement as that drunkenness reigned supreme was as fantastical a calumny as could be conceived. There were drunken men there as there were in every other city, and when seen they were regarded with as much dislike by the general body of the people. But it was altogether misleading to pick a sentence out of the Report of a police magistrate, who, as likely as not, was a person of a sour and Pharisaical turn of mind, and to quote such a Report as if it had the inspiration and authority of Holy Writ was too much. Just as a policeman was inclined to regard every man as a possible criminal, so a police magistrate, nearly every day of whose life for many years was spent in contact with the degraded classes of the community, came to see society through distorted spectacles, and mistook the condition of a part of that society for the condition of the whole. He would not trouble himself to reply to the statement that there were parts of Dublin where every man was drunk on Saturday night. Whoever originated such a statement must have formed an extraordinary estimate of the credulity of his fellow-men.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he had known Dublin for many years, and he also knew the magistrate who had given the evidence referred to. He was one of those angular individuals, whose look, as they say, was enough to turn sweet milk sour. He was a pious magistrate, and was a fitting companion for Mr. Clifford Lloyd. With regard to the hon.
  1028
  Member for Waterford, there was ample refutation of his calumny. Mr. Woodlock said he had had his evidence from the police; but if the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Blake) had any other wish in the matter than to utter a calumny against his countrymen; if he had read the evidence of Mr. Inspector Coare, the head of the Dublin police, he would have found it went in an entirely opposite direction to that of Mr. Woodlock. He says—
  "I have heard from the police that in certain parts of Dublin every man, woman, and child are drunk."
  And then he says—
  "I speak unpleasant truths. I have personal experience of almost every city in Ireland, and that statement is true."
  He said the hon. Member for Waterford should not state that which he knew not to be correct—
  MR. A. M. SULLIVANrose to Order, and wished to know if it was in Order to impute to an hon. Member that he had stated a thing which he knew not to be correct?
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. Member had, no doubt, made the statement hastily, and would see the necessity of withdrawing it.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he would withdraw the statement that he knew it to be a calumny; but he ought not to make such a statement that he stated an unpleasant truth. It was not a fact with regard to any city of which he had knowledge, and he knew Dublin, Belfast, Drogheda, and Dundalk. With the exception of Limerick, and Cork, and Waterford, he knew the other cities of Ireland, and he knew that the charge was wholly incorrect. It was one which had no foundation in fact, and he hoped the people of Ireland, and the citizens of those towns, would see who it was that made the false and injurious charge with regard to the citizens of those towns. In the City of Dublin they had the evidence of the unpleasant Archbishop with regard to the Saturday and Sunday closing, and as to why he had changed his opinion from that of former years. He could quite understand the principle of some of his hon. Friends who wanted to close the houses in Dublin altogether; but he must enter his protest against hon. Members getting up in that House and quoting police evidence, and holding

  1029
  that as their justification for maligning their countrymen. He quite understood it in the passing of the Coercion Bill. If they had taken the evidence of the police with regard to that Bill, Irish Members would have passed that Bill with unanimity; but if they were not to take the evidence of the police with respect to outrages in Ireland, why should they place such confidence upon their evidence with respect to Saturday night drinking? As a former citizen of Dublin for five years, he knew that city, and could state that there was not the slightest foundation for the charges made by the sour, disagreeable, and angular individual referred to.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 33: Majority 16.—(Div. List, No. 207.)
  Main Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Supply Committee upon Monday next.

  INFECTIOUS DISEASES NOTIFICA TION (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 40.]
  (Mr. Edmond Gray, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Dawson.)
  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Edmond Gray.)
  DR. LYONSsaid, he would appeal to the hon. Member who had charge of the measure, and to the House, to agree to the postponement of the consideration of the measure at this hour of the morning (1.30). The principal provisions of the Bill were opposed to the wishes of certain of the most important of the learned Corporations in Dublin, and it was at the request of the Medical Association of Ireland that he offered opposition to it. At this hour they should not be asked to make progress with the Bill.
  MR. M. BROOKShoped the House would allow the Bill to be considered to-night. The opponents of the measure had sprung a mine upon them that was most unexpected; and he thought that, looking at the fact that the chances of private Members were very few, that this was an important measure, and that the public bodies and private citizens in
  1030
  Dublin were unanimously in favour of it, the House would do well to give assent to the present stage.
  MR. MELDONtrusted the Bill would not be allowed to go any further. Under ordinary circumstances he should be willing—so far as he was concerned—to allow an hon. Member facilities for going on with a measure; but this matter was too serious to be disposed of at this hour of the morning. The hon. Member for Dublin had said something which had very much astonished him. He had said the public bodies in Dublin were unanimously in favour of the measure. As a matter of fact, there was anything but unanimity on the subject. The Medical Profession in Dublin was divided on it, as also were the private citizens; and in proof of this he might say that he had been requested to propose a large number of Amendments in Committee. He hoped the stage would not be taken now, and, if it was, he was afraid that the proceeding would not conduce to the future progress of the Bill.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERwould suggest that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill should persevere with his Motion—"That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," on the understanding that directly the House went into Committee Progress should be reported. In this way hon. Members would have ample opportunity to put down Amendments to the Bill.
  MR. CALLANpointed out that the Bill had been a long time on the Paper, and that, as there were a large number of Amendments down, it was evident that its provisions had received careful consideration. It was clear that the Government were not opposed to the measure, as the Solicitor General for Ireland made no objection to its being proceeded with. As for the position which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kildare (Mr. Meldon) had taken up, he (Mr. Callan) could not help saying that it would have been much better for them, and for the interests of their country, if they had spent the time which had just been wasted in the consideration of the hon. Member's abstract Resolution, in the discussion of this measure; and it would have been better for the hon. Member himself to have addressed himself to the subject of the Bill than to the vilification of his country-

  1031
  men. The hon. Member for Dublin was very attentive in the discharge of his duty, and had supported the Government on every occasion—or with few exceptions—and he was, therefore, glad to see the hon. Member in his place, and hoped he would give all the support in his power to the Bill, especially as the Solicitor General for Ireland seemed ready to go on with his Amendments. He (Mr. Callan) had carefully looked over the Paper; but, although the Bill had been printed a long time, he failed to see any Amendment to it in the name of the hon. and—he might say—learned Member for Dublin (Dr. Lyons). He thought it was incumbent on hon. Members who had the interests of Ireland at heart to go on with their Amendments, and not throw the Bill over until after the Whitsuntide Recess. He trusted the hon. Member for Carlow would proceed with the Bill.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the matter had been for some time under the consideration of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, and, with his concurrence, he (the Solicitor General for Ireland) had placed on the Paper some Amendments which, before he had put them down, he had submitted to one of the hon. Members who had charge of the Bill to see if he could suggest any acceptable modification or improvement of them. He was fully prepared to proceed with his Amendments; but he was not in charge of the Bill. It appeared to him, under the circumstances, that the suggestion of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. R. N. Fowler) was a reasonable one, and that the hon. Member for Carlow would do well to take a merely formal stage now. The object of the Bill was of great importance, the object being not a private, but a public one. The measure was one the principle of which was much required in several parts of Ireland.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 2)* (83).
Second Reading—Bridges (South Wales)* (83). Committee—Report—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (Clay Lane)* (69).
Report—Inelosure Provisional Orders (Scotton and Ferry Common)* (64); Regulation Provisional Order (Langbar Moor), now Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Langbar Moor)* (63); Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor), now Commons Regulation Provisional Order (Beamsley Moor)* (62); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (65); Inclosure Provisional Order (Wibsey Slack and Low Moor Commons)* (71).

AFFAIRS OF TUNIS.—QUESTION.
EARL DE LA WARRasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs-Whether there was any further correspondence relative to the affairs of Tunis about the date of the first despatch already communicated to the House (July, 1878), which it would be convenient for him (Earl Granville) to produce?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, no.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—THE NEW UNIFORMS.
OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
LORD WAVENEYsaid, their Lordships were aware that among the other changes of uniform which under a General Order were directed to be made was that the uniform of the Militia Artillery was to be assimilated to the uniform of the Royal Artillery. Another change which the Militia had to make was in the embroidery, which was to be gold, instead of silver, as hitherto. The Militia was a Force which had its own objects and its own duties, and he did not think that the attempts at assimilating it with the Regular Army were well devised. The change from silver to gold was not popular with the Militia officers; but the point to which he wished to draw attention was the uncertainty in which commanding officers were at present left as to uniforms. The equipment of a soldier, like his pay, was a part of his covenant, and he should have it. He
934
begged to ask the Under Secretary of State for War (1). When the dress regulations for officers of Militia would be issued, and what uniforms were to be worn in the interim; and (2). When the Military equipment of the Militia was to be completed by the issue of helmets, regard being had to the approaching training season?
THE EARL OF LONGFORDobserved, that others besides Militia officers were affected by capricious changes of uniform. He knew of one general officer who, being uncertain as to the uniform which he was at present expected to wear at Court, sent his own to an Army tailor, who made the necessary alterations for five guineas; but it cost another officer 30 guineas to have his rendered conformable to the most recent requirements. If changes in uniform were necessary and well considered for the advantage of the Service, by all means let them be carried out; but if those changes were introduced without absolute necessity, it was hardly fair to impose on officers the expense which such alterations must always involve.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEasked, Whether the Under Secretary of State for War could state how soon after the 1st of July officers of territorial regiments would be required to provide themselves with new uniforms? He believed that a certain amount of compensation would be paid to the officers of those regiments; but as the amount must vary according to circumstances, he supposed the Under Secretary could not say what it would amount to.
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the instructions on the subject of the noble Viscount's Question would be found in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the General Order. Where officers already in a regiment had to provide an entire change of uniform, they would have until the 1st of April, 1882, to do so, except in the case of the 73rd, which would adopt its new uniform on July 1 of this year. Officers joining any of these regiments in the interval would only be requested to appear in undress uniform. As regards facings and badges, the changes would come into operation on the 1st of July next; officers joining on and after that date must adopt the new uniform. Officers now in the regiments would only have to get new uniforms as required to replace their old ones. His right hon. Friend

935
the Secretary of State for War had announced that it was his intention to give some pecuniary assistance to officers in the regiments which were to be converted into Rifles or kilted regiments—the amount of this assistance had not yet been fixed; but it would not be the same in all cases. With reference to what had been said by the noble Lord (Lord Waveney), he must remark that the change in the Militia from silver lace to gold had been recommended very strongly by a Committee on which there were some distinguished Militia officers. On the whole, he believed that change would be very popular with the Militia, and would take effect on the 1st of July. When the Militia required new uniforms, they would replace those which they at present wore with those of the battalions with which they were to be incorporated. As some time must necessarily elapse before all the arrangements in reference to the new uniforms could be completed, officers joining Militia regiments in the interval would only be required to provide themselves with undress uniform until then. With regard to the second Question, it was not intended in the present year, any more than in former years, to issue helmets for the use of the Militia.
THE EARL OF GALLOWAYwished to know, Whether, in the case of the Royal Scots Fusiliers—which would be converted from a Lowland to a Highland regiment—the uniform would be entirely changed? He also asked what was the intention of the authorities as to the Militia regiment which was to be affiliated—the 21st Regiment? He did not think the noble Earl (the Earl of Morley) was well informed when he said the change would be popular with the Militia. The Militia officers would not approve of having to wear gold lace; and the result would be that for the next 15 years a great many Militia regiments would remain in a piebald state, some of the officers wearing gold and some silver lace.
THE EARL OF MORLEYasked that the Question should be put again privately, as he was not prepared to make a statement with regard to the Scots Fusiliers offhand. He might say, however, he did not know of any exception to the general Regulation being made in favour of that regiment. There
936
would be no more helmets issued than usual.
LORD WAVENEYasked, Whether, as the change from silver to gold was not to be made before the 1st of July, he would be guilty of any breach of regulation if he instructed the officers under his command, who were without uniform, to provide themselves with new uniforms in accordance with the new Regulation before the date mentioned?
THE EARL OF MORLEYthought it would be better for them to wait till the 1st of July.
House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.