Sitting of 18 April 1882

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—Edward Sheil, esquire, for Meath County.
PRIVATE BILLS [by Order)—Second Reading—Aberdeen Lighting*; Dublin Electric Light and Power Company*; Edison's Electric Lighting*; Westgate and South Eastern Junction Railway*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law) (No. 1)*; Local Government (Highways) Provisional Order (No. 1) *; Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) *.

QUESTIONS.

  THE MAGISTRACY (IRELAND)—CAPTAIN T. BOLTON JONES.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If the Mr. T. Bolton Jones, who was elected clerk of the Petty Sessions of Drumod and Drumsna, county Leitrim, on the 20th March, is the same person who was known in the Leitrim Militia as Captain T. Bolton

  869
  Jones; and, whether there was any charge against the latter as to the misappropriation of mess-money, in consequence of which he had to sever his connection with the regiment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Mr. Jones, formerly a captain in the Leitrim Militia, has been elected clerk of the Petty Sessions district of Drumod and Drumsna, in county Leitrim. I am not aware that any such charge as the Question suggests was ever made against him; but his appointment has not yet been ratified by His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant, and before it is ratified the Registrar of Petty Sessions Clerks must be in a position to satisfy His Excellency both as to Mr. Jones's efficiency and integrity.
  MR. HEALY: Was there no charge against him of misappropriating mess-money?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): That question would necessarily be inquired into.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE LAND COURT, NEW ROSS.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether he is aware that the jurisdiction of the Land Court sitting at Waterford on the 17th April, includes "that part of the union of New Ross, in the counties of Wexford and Kilkenny," and if he can state why the sixty or seventy cases arising in the union of New Ross cannot be heard in that town, where there is a commodious court house and good hotel accommodation, and why the suitors should be put to the inconvenience of having their cases heard at Waterford, which is over twenty miles distant from the homes of a great number of them; whether he is aware that the authorities in Merrion Street have refused all information to the tenants as to the hearing of their cases until a fortnight before the sitting begins; whether up to the 1st instant no list of cases has been published; whether, considering that valuators and surveyors have to be employed, and solicitors instructed in the several cases, a fortnight is sufficient to enable tenants to bring their cases properly into court; and, whether he will communicate with the Land Commission, with a view to having the professional
  870
  gentlemen engaged in the several cases consulted in the making of future arrangements as to fixtures, and also in order that the cases arising in the union of New Ross may be heard in that town, it being the most convenient place for all the parties concerned?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The Land Court, which sat at Waterford yesterday, is empowered by the Land Commission to hear cases in which applications may be made in towns in the unions other than the town appointed as the centre of the district. The cases referred to may, therefore, be heard at New Ross if application is made for that purpose to the Sub-Commission, and that Court grant the application. In reply to the second and third Questions, I am informed by the Secretary to the Land Commission that the authorities in Merrion Street have never refused information to parties applying for it, where it was possible to give it. In this instance the list of cases was published on the 4th of April. As to the fourth Question, there is no reason to think that a fortnight's notice of trial is not sufficient. It is a longer time than required for notice of trial in an action in the Supreme Court of Judicature; and professional gentlemen are usually employed, and proofs ready, even before notice of trial is served. As to the last Question, it would not be possible to meet the individual wishes of the several professional gentlemen engaged in these cases in the various counties in Ireland.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—ELECTION OF POOR LAW GUARDIANS—MR. O'HALLORAN, A SUSPECT.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that a voting paper for the election of guardians for the Kiltullagh Division, duly filled up by Mr. Martin O'Halloran, suspect in Kilmainham Gaol, was not forwarded in time for collection, although he had explained the necessity for its despatch, and obtained a promise that it would be attended to?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The voting paper in question was posted immediately on its receipt from Mr. O'Halloran. There was no default on the part of the prison authorities.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—ENNISKILLEN GAOL—REGULATION AS TO VISITORS TO PRISONERS ON ST. PATRICK'S DAY.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether his attention has been drawn to a Letter from Mr. J. Moyle Mahony, a suspect in Enniskillen Gaol, published in the "Freeman's Journal" of 3rd instant; whether it is true that, on St. Patrick's Day, prisoners in the various gaols were deprived of their ordinary privileges of seeing visitors, as provided by the prison rules; whether, on Mr. Mahony making complaint on this matter to the Prisons Board, he received through the Governor a reply, to the effect that they approved of this departure from the prison rules, and that if he attempted to make the matter known to the Press, that he "would never again be permitted to visit anyone;" and, whether he will have this matter at once inquired into?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The persons detained under the Protection Act in the various gaols in Ireland were not, on St. Patrick's Day, deprived of their ordinary privilege of seeing visitors as provided by the Prison Rules. In Clonmel Gaol alone (owing to the Governor's misapprehension of the Rules) were they deprived of that privilege; and, of course, this miscarriage will not occur again. It is the fact that no visitor was admitted to Mr. Mahony in Enniskillen Gaol on St. Patrick's Day; but this was simply because no visitor called to see him. He was, I believe, informed, in effect, that if he sent out letters contrary to the Rules his visits would be stopped for a time. There is nothing, so far as I can see, which calls for inquiry.
  MR. REDMONDasked whether steps would be taken to make the Governors of the different prisons understand and act according to the Rules?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): In every case, with this one exception, the Rules have been acted upon and understood by the different Governors.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED OUTRAGE IN WEXFORD COUNTY.
  MR. BARRYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether any report
  872
  has reached the Government of an outrage committed by the wife of the sub-inspector of police at Taghmon, county Wexford, who, it is alleged, on the 8th instant, fired a revolver at her servant man, whose face was scorched by the discharge, the bullet passing through a window and lodged in the woodwork of a house on the opposite side of the street; and, if the Government will cause inquiry to be made into this case?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): A civil action has been brought by the servant in this case, and, it being still pending, it is not my place to say anything on the subject.
  MR. HEALYinquired whether it was not the duty of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to conduct criminal proceedings, instead of allowing the matter to be settled by a civil action?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): It is not my duty to do so.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS IN THE COUNTY OF WEXFORD.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that, on the 22nd December last, five men were arrested at Clonrocht, county Wexford, on the same charge; whether three of them have been released; whether the district is in a peaceful condition; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will order the release of the two men still detained from the same district and on the same charge?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): All these men have been released except one, named O'Neill, and he will be released to-morrow.
  MR. REDMOND: There is another man named Doran still detained.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I think not; but I will inquire.

  CRIMINAL LAW—THE CONDEMNED PRISONER LAMSON.
  MR. LEWISasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received any representations showing that the further evidence stated to be on the way from America with re-

  873
  ference to the propriety of interfering with the due course of Law in the case of the convict Lamson for the crime of murder, are of any different character from those already submitted to him, which he describes as affording no justification for advising any interference with the sentence of the Law; and, if not, whether he will state on what grounds he has inflicted on the criminal the additional punishment of ten days' further suspense and doubt?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: It is quite impossible for me to form an opinion on the nature and character of evidence which I have not yet seen. It is quite impossible, therefore, for me to express any opinion upon it.
  MR. LEWIS: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my Question. I did not ask him to form an opinion; but whether he had received a representation showing that the evidence on its way from America was of a different character to that already submitted to him?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I have received no representations that will enable me to form an opinion as to the character of the evidence.

  POST OFFICE—THE AUSTRALIAN MAILS.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is true that, whenever the Mails from Australia and Queensland, brought respectively by the Orient and British India line of steamers, arrive at Plymouth in the day time, they are forwarded to London unsorted; that, whenever these Mails arrive during the night, they are detained at Plymouth until the 8·35 train in the morning, thus causing very considerable delay in their delivery in Ireland and the West and North of England; and, whether he will place these important Mails on a like footing to the other Colonial and Foreign Mails arriving at the same port, by despatching them in special trains when they arrive at night, and sorting them between Plymouth and Bristol?
  MR. FAWCETT: Letters which arrive at Plymouth by the lines referred to in the Question of my hon. Friend are, if time permits, sorted at Plymouth, and, if not, sent to London unsorted by the ordinary trains. If a special train with sorting carriages were employed, as sug-
  874
  gested, considerable expense would be incurred; and I do not think this would be justified in view of the fact that letters which are sent from Australia can, if the writers wish, be despatched when they reach Suez by quick route,viâ Brindisi, and arrive in England at least a week sooner than if they are sent by the long sea route by way of Gibraltar and Plymouth.

  NAVY—INDIAN TROOPSHIPS—CHATHAM.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, If there is any truth in the statement that has appeared in some of the newspapers to the effect that arrangements are in progress for making Chatham, instead of Portsmouth, the future port of arrival and departure of the Indian troopships; and, if so, whether he can explain the reasons of the change?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The Jumna has been sent to Chatham for repairs in order to reduce the pressure on Portsmouth; and it may in future years be found necessary to follow a similar course; but no arrangements are in progress for making Chatham the future port of arrival and departure of Indian troopships.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—AMERICAN CITIZENS ARRESTED UNDER THE ACT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If it is intended to lay upon the Table the Correspondence with the United States Government respecting the detention of suspects in Ireland claiming American nationality; and, if so, when?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The Correspondence on the subject of the detention in Ireland of "suspects" of American nationality is being printed, and will be laid on the Table of the House; but I cannot yet say when.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked if the Government would produce at the same time the representations made last year?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he thought Notice had better be given on the subject.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whe-

  875
  ther it is true, as reported in the public press, that certain persons imprisoned under the Irish Coercion Act, and claiming citizenship of the United States, have been offered their release on condition of leaving the United Kingdom, and have refused to accept release on this condition; and, whether, in view of this offer and refusal, the United States Ambassador in this Country has been instructed by his Government to demand that the men in question be either released or put on trial; and, if so, what the Government propose to do in the matter?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I think that the Question contained in the first paragraph should be addressed to the Irish Office. With regard to the second paragraph, it is the case that representations have been made by the United States Minister as to the "suspects" of American nationality, the nature of which representations will be seen when the Correspondence on the subject comes to be laid before the House.
  MR. SEXTONasked whether the American Government had been asked to undertake that the American "suspects," if released, would remain out of Ireland?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: It would be very inconvenient for me to make a statement on this matter that would necessarily be imperfect when the whole subject is not before the House.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he would ask a further Question on the subject on Thursday next.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST—OBLIGATIONS OF BRITISH SHIPOWNERS.
  MR. DILLWYNasked the Postmaster General, Whether, under the Act 1 Vic. c. 36, and 3 and 4 Vic. c. 96, sees. 36, 37, and 61, owners of British ships, not being under actual contract, can be compelled to carry parcels forwarded (under existing rules) through the Post Office to India, China, Australia, Cape of Good Hope, America, and other Countries, on the terms of a gratuity of not exceeding one penny for each parcel, irrespective of weight, payable to the master of the ship at the option of the Postmaster General; or, if not on these, on what other terms; if so, will these powers of compulsion be applicable to parcels forwarded under the proposed
  876
  new Parcels Post; and, if this will not apply, do the Government intend to bring in a Bill to enable the Post Office to compel shipowners, so described, to convey to such Countries such parcels, in addition to all other Postal matter which may be tendered on board their ships?
  MR. FAWCETT: I am advised that the power can be legally exercised to which reference is made in the Question of my hon. Friend; but I am sure that, when an International Parcels Post is established, there will be no desire on the part of the Government to deal otherwise than fairly with shipowners.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—CORRUPT PRACTICES (DISFRANCHISEMENT) BILL.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the Government is prepared to fix a day for the Second Beading of the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in reply, said, there was no prospect at present; he wished there was.

  ARMY ESTIMATES—VOTE 23—PENSIONS.
  COLONEL BARNEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will inform the House what portion of the £1,760,500, asked for in Vote 23, Sub-Head 2, of Army Estimates, is required to pension men enlisted under the long service system, and what portion for men enlisted under the short service system?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I have to say that without analyzing at Chelsea the whole pension list of about 85,000 men, it would be impossible to give an exact answer to his Question. But, practically, almost the whole of the £1,760,000 goes to long service men. There are a few cases of wounded short service men who are entitled to permanent pensions, and of invalided short service men receiving temporary pensions; but the amount going to them is inconsiderable.

  BOARD OF MANUFACTURES AND FISHERIES (SCOTLAND).
  SIR ALEXANDER GORDONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether

  877
  he will lay upon the Table of the House a Copy of the Treasury Minute, of 1841, requiring the Board of Manufactures and the Board of Fishery in Scotland to appoint a joint secretary to carry on the duties of the two Boards?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH, in reply, said, that the Treasury Warrant appointing a joint establishment for the Boards of Fisheries and Manufactures in Scotland was a purely formal document, and did not appear to him to be of sufficient interest to be laid on the Table; but if his hon. and gallant Friend would like to see it, he should be very happy to show it him.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. PARNELL.
  MR. LEWISasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether Mr. C. S. Parnell, M.P., having been arrested on the 13th October last under the provisions of the Act 44 Vic. c. 4 s. 1, and having been released from custody on the 11th instant, can now be lawfully re-arrested or detained in custody under the original warrant; and, whether, if a new warrant be necessary for his re-arrest or further detention in custody, it can be issued in respect of the same offence?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Mr. Parnell, on surrendering himself at Kilmainham, may lawfully be detained in custody under the original warrants.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARMS LICENCES.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. G. J. Stephens, of Leskinfin, Gorey, when recently applying for an arms licence, was first asked if he belonged to the Land League, and, having replied that he did when it was legal, the magistrate then inquired if he had subscribed to the fund for the suspects; and, upon stating that he did, was told that it was illegal, and, in consequence, was refused a licence; and, whether the Government approve of refusals to grant licences on such grounds?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The local magistrates refused a certificate to Mr. Stephens; and the resident magis-
  878
  trate, who was the licensing officer, refused him an arms licence. These magistrates, in doing this, exercised the discretion with which the law has invested them; and even if I had the power, which I have not, I should not think of interfering with them, or reviewing their action in the matter.
  MR. HEALY: That is no answer to my Question. Attention had been called to the circumstance that people had not arms with which to defend themselves against "Moonlighters," and yet licences were denied them when they wanted arms.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)thought it quite sufficient to say that the magistrates had exercised their discretion. It was not in his power to review what they had done, nor to ascertain their reasons if they gave any further decisions; but, so far as he could give an opinion, he thought that if there were fewer arms in Ireland, and the facilities for obtaining them much less, it would be much to the advantage of the country.

  STATE OF IRELAND—POLICE VISITS.
  MR. HEALYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Martin O'Sullivan, of Lacka Ballyduff, county Kerry, having been bound to be of good behaviour on a charge of "Boycotting," has his house constantly visited during the night by the police, to the great alarm of his family; and, whether this is necessary; and, if not, whether a stop can be put to the practice?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): An occasional visit to this man's house is considered necessary; but no inconvenience or alarm has been caused to his family.
  MR. HEALYasked what was the usual hour of their visits?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)could not say; but he apprehended that they were made at the hour at which unlawful practices were most likely to be detected.
  MR. LEAMYasked if they were to understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered his police were at liberty to make domiciliary visits at any hour they thought fit?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied that these were police visits, and not domiciliary visits; and the police would be guilty of a dereliction of duty if they failed to make them.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped the next time the police came there they would get a warm reception. ["Order!"]

  STATE OF IRELAND—HOUSESEARCHES BY THE CONSTABULARY.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is a fact that on Sunday the 26th March, Constable Hayden and a body of police attempted to search the house of Mr. John Egan, of Ballinasloe, without warrant or authority; that on the following day they again visited his house, and in spite of his opposition proceeded to search the building, refusing to show any warrant to authorise them; whether the police were justified in taking this action; and, whether Mr. Egan would not have been acting legally had he ejected them by force from his house?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): This search was made by the Constabulary, under the orders of their officer, for dynamite, with which an abominable attempt was feloniously made to blow up a gentleman's house in the neighbourhood.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. JOHN O'CONNOR.
  MR. REDMONDasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Upon what grounds Mr. John O'Connor, of Cork, who has been imprisoned for nine months under the Coercion Act, was recently removed from Kilmainham to Clonmel Gaol; whether Mr. O'Connor had been previously transferred from Naas to Kilmainham, at the instance of his business employers, so that he might be able more conveniently to pursue his usual occupation; whether he was placed in a large cell by the Governor of Kilmainham, to afford him space and light to keep the books and ledgers appertaining to his business; whether the cell Mr. O'Connor now occupies in Clonmel is only five feet wide, and so dark that he is obliged to light a candle at noon to enable him to write; whether, in conse-
  880
  quence, he has been obliged to give up his business correspondence; whether Mr. P. J. Murphy, T.C. of Cork, who was arrested shortly after Mr. O'Connor, and on a similar charge, has been released for some months; and, whether, under these circumstances, he will order the release of Mr. O'Connor, or his transfer to Kilmainham, to enable him to carry on his business?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Mr. O'Connor was transferred to Clonmel Prison because it was considered necessary and expedient. The hon. Member will excuse me from giving any further reason. Mr. O'Connor had formerly been transferred from Naas to Kilmainham at the instance of his employers; and while in Kilmainham he was placed in the most convenient cell which could be appropriated to his use. I am informed that his cell in Clonmel is 13 feet by 5 feet 1 inch, and that there is sufficient light in it to read by; therefore, I should infer that there is sufficient light also to write by. Mr. Murphy, who was arrested two days before Mr. O'Connor, has been released, I understand, on his parole; and I am informed that Mr. O'Connor's case will be shortly reconsidered.

  POOR LAW (IRELAND)—BALLYCARY DISPENSARY DISTRICT AND LARNE WORKHOUSE.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, What is the largest number of paupers who have been inmates of Larne Workhouse from the Ballcary Dispensary district during the past year; and, how many persons have received outdoor relief from same district during that time?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The number of paupers from the Ballcary Dispensary district relieved in the Larne poor-house for the year ending March 31 last was 19, the largest number at one time being 11. The number relieved out of the poor-house during the same period was 15.

  SOUTH KENSINGTON MUSEUM—MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.
  MR. BIRKBECKasked the First Commissioner of Works, Whether, in view of the opening of the International Fisheries Exhibition, on the 1st of May

  881
  1183, measures are being taken to complete, at an early date, the building proposed to be erected in connection with the new Natural History Museum in Cromwell Road, and intended to receive the Fish Collection, and other specimens preserved in spirit, now at the British Museum?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE, in reply, said, the building would be finished in November next.

  STATE OF IRELAND—THE RECENT MURDERS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, with reference to the late atrocious assassination of Mrs. Smythe, near Collins-town, and other similar outrages, Her Majesty's Government have had under consideration, during the Recess, any measures for vindicating the power and authority of the Law in Ireland; and, if so, if he will kindly state what measures the Government propose to adopt? At the same time, perhaps, he might ask the right hon. Gentleman if his attention had been drawn to another atrocious outrage which had since occurred in Limerick on Sunday last, when a lady, accompanied by another lady, was fired at, while returning from church, by three men with blackened faces who were concealed behind a hedge?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The hon. Member seems disposed to think that all outrages are, in the first instance, reported to me when they take place in Ireland. That is not so. They are first reported to the Irish Government, and reports are only mentioned to me in certain cases. I have no detailed information of the outrage to which the hon. Member has last referred; but I understand it is not the case that the ladies were fired at. Her Majesty's Government had under consideration, and have constantly under consideration, all measures that they can take, and they have taken the best measures within their power, within the limits of the existing law. I include, of course, the extraordinary powers entrusted to them by Parliament. With regard to other measures, it is obviously quite impossible that I should state, in answer to a Question, what will be the policy of the Government with respect to that country. And I am bound to say this—that I think we should make a very great mistake if we entered upon a
  882
  discussion of the subject till we have a plan to propose, and till we see our way to ask the House of Commons to give it effectual and continuous attention.

  ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
  MR. E. W. HARCOURTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, By whom are the expenses of guarding the tunnel between Dover and Calais to be borne, by the Nation or by the Railway Company?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The question of the expense of guarding the Tunnel between Dover and Calais forms a part of the general question; and what, I presume, the hon. Gentleman desires is an assurance from Her Majesty's Government that they will do nothing that has any tendency to commit, directly or indirectly, by word or act, the taxpayers or ratepayers of this country to any expense, actual or contingent, in connection with the Tunnel, unless under the authority and with the full sanction of Parliament, and that assurance I can give him.
  SIR HARRY VERNEYasked if the right hon. Gentleman would give the House an opportunity of discussing the question?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I believe my hon. Friend has a more sure reliance in this matter than upon any statement I can make, for nothing, I apprehend, can possibly be done except with the authority of this House; and whether I wish it or not, it is quite certain there will be ample opportunity for discussing the subject.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—SECTION 8.
  MR. LEAMYasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If he will request the Land Commissioners, in those cases in which they are called on under the eighth section of the Land Act to place a value on the interest of a tenant, to ascertain if the tenant has purchased his interest from his predecessor, and in every case in which the tenant has so purchased, to state, in the Returns hereafter to be presented to the House, the amount of the purchase money paid by the tenant, as well as the value placed on the tenancy by the Court?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): My

  883
  right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has ascertained that, while in these cases the purchase-money alleged to have been paid by the tenant would most probably form part of the evidence, yet it cannot always be ascertained with certainty by the Court, and the Commissioners, therefore, cannot undertake to state it in their Returns.
  MR. HEALYasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether his attention has been called to the case of Cullen, tenant, Bunbury, landlord, reported in the "Freeman's Journal" of the 24th instant, in which Judge O'Hagan commented on the "extreme difficulty of the task imposed on the Land Commission" by section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act, which requires the Court, on application, to fix a specified value of a tenancy with a view to a subsequent sale, and expressed a wish that he could, if possible, evade the difficult task thus imposed on the Court; whether he is aware that the same difficulty has arisen before the Sub-Commissions all over Ireland, and resulted in extreme divergence of practice and procedure among those bodies; whether it is the case that one Sub-Commission has decided that its duty, under the circumstances referred to, is to fix the highest market value of the tenancy as the specified value, while Mr. Justice O'Hagan has expressed an opinion that the specified value should not be the highest market value; that another Sub-Commission was in the habit of fixing, as the specified value, the maximum amount of compensation for disturbance which the tenant would be entitled to if arbitrarily evicted, and without any reference to the tenant's improvements, but was subsequently compelled to change this practice; that one of the Sub-Commissions has refused to fix a specified value at all, unless specific evidence on the point is offered, while all the other Sub-Commissions fix the value without any evidence on the point having been offered, and discourage the practice of offering such evidence; whether it is the case that the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls, in their respective judgments in the ease of Adams v. Dun-seath, expressed contrary opinions as to the meaning of the phrase "true value" of a tenancy; whether it is a fact that the power of fixing a specified value does not apply at all when a holding is sub-
  884
  ject to the Ulster Custom; and, whether, having regard to the difficulties and contradictions which section eight, sub-section five of the Land Act has given rise to, the Government will take steps to have it repealed?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I am afraid I could not give a satisfactory and full answer to the hon. Member's Question within the proper limits of an answer to a Question; but I shall do the best in my power. It is quite true that Judge O'Hagan has commented on the difficulty of the task referred to—namely, the task imposed on the Commissioners by Section 8, sub-section 5, of the Land Act, which contemplates the fixing of the value of a tenancy during a statutable term. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman intended to ascribe the use of the word "evade" to Judge O'Hagan—probably he did not—but Judge O'Hagan does not admit that he applied any such word in reference to any provision of the Act of Parliament. Moreover, he did state that as between the Commissioners and the Sub-Commissioners there is no complete understanding yet established as to the rule of procedure in dealing with that particular sub-section; and I may remind the hon. Member that, although he himself took a very active—and I must say a most highly-informed part—in the discussion of this Bill, yet there was no discussion in the House on this sub-section, so that the Sub-Commissioners have not the advantage of such guidance as possibly in some cases they may be able to draw from the lengthened debates in Parliament. Of course, there must be further official information before it can be stated whether there has been that "extreme divergence of practice" which the hon. Gentleman refers to; but the matter will be borne in mind with a view to a full and satisfactory reply. With regard to the statement that Mr. Justice O'Hagan had expressed an opinion that the specified value should not be the highest value, Justice O'Hagan's expression was that the specified value was to be held to be the true value, and I do not know that I could add anything to that statement of fact. I am not here to justify or explain any expression the Judge might use; nor would the Judge be a party to my undertaking one course or the other. With regard to the fifth point, we be-

  885
  lieve that it is not the case; but we have heard that one Sub-Commissioner has taken "specified value" as meaning the maximum compensation for disturbance, plus the compensation for improvements. With regard to the sixth point contained in the close of the third paragraph, the answer is in the affirmative, and appeals on the subject are now pending. With regard to the seventh point, the Lord Chancellor took the "true value" to mean what the holding would bonâ fide bring in the open market if sold to an unobjectionable person; and the Master of the Rolls stated the "true value" could not be the market value, but what, having regard to the interests of landlord and tenant respectively under this code, would be the true value as between them. With respect to the eighth point contained in the last paragraph but one, the answer is simply, "Yes, it is a fact;" and with respect to the ninth point, I must say that is a matter which I think could not be entered upon in answer to a Question; but there will be an early opportunity of again referring to it and of discussing it in the House.
  In reply to Mr. BIGGAR,
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not aware that Mr. Bomford was still a Sub-Commissioner acting in the county Cavan. He was under the impression Mr. Bomford was not.
  MR. HEALY: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman state whether the Members of this House will get any official information as to the names of the Sub-Commissioners and their districts?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The new ones is it?
  MR. HEALY: All of them.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): They have all been published from time to time. [Cries of "Where, where?" and "Order!"] I shall ascertain and inform the hon. Member.

  STATE OF IRELAND—LAND LEAGUE HUTS—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD.
  MR. SEXTON: I wish to address a Question to the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland on an urgent matter which has just been communicated to me by tele-
  886
  graph. My Question is, Whether he is aware that at Tulla, in the county Clare, where a number of families have been evicted and huts were being erected to shelter them, Mr. Clifford Lloyd interfered to-day, stating that the building of the huts was illegal, and ordered the builder to leave the place this evening, and informed him that unless he left he would be arrested? I also ask whether Mr. Clifford Lloyd acted within his legal rights; and, if so, under what statute he could arrest the builder in case he refused to leave?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The first part of the Question deals with a matter of fact, and, as I have not had the advantage of seeing the telegram which the hon. Member quotes, I cannot answer it. Assuming that the facts are, as stated by the hon. Member, correct, if Mr. Clifford Lloyd found that those tenants, or others on their behalf, were building huts in which the evicted persons might carefully watch the farms from which they had been evicted for the purpose of doing mischief to any persons who might take them, or with the object of preventing persons taking those farms, then, in my opinion, Mr. Clifford Lloyd has acted rightly.
  MR. SEXTON: Under what Act of Parliament?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Under the Common Law, Sir. His duty is to protect life and property.

  COAL MINES—THE WEARDALE COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he can give the House any further information with regard to the colliery explosion in Durham than that which appears in the evening papers?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I have received a telegram from Mr. Bell, the Government Inspector of Mines, and he says—
  "I regret to inform you of an explosion of a colliery belonging to the Weardale Coal and Coke Company, which occurred at 1.30 this morning. Only the night shift, consisting of 40 men, was in the pit at the time. Twenty have been rescued alive. Six bodies have been recovered; hope to reach the remainder during the evening. The work of exploration is going on satisfactorily, there being plenty of engineer-

  887
  ing assistance at hand, and willing workmen. My colleague, Mr. Thomas, is with me. If necessary I will report further."

MOTIONS.

  PAPAL SEE (DIPLOMATIC COMMUNICATIONS).—RESOLUTION.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, in rising to call the attention of the House to the irregular and clandestine communications now passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Vatican; and to move—
  "That, while recognizing the value of a good understanding between this Country and the Papal See, this House is of opinion that all communications between any of Her Majesty's Ministers and the authorities of the Vatican should be placed on official record in accordance with the constitutional practice in diplomatic affairs, and should be conducted with the cognizance of Parliament,"
  said, he wished to explain, in the first instance, that he did not bring forward his Motion in any spirit of hostility to the Roman Catholic Church; he only desired that any communications which passed between this country and the Papal See should be carried on in a regular manner, and in accordance with what took place between the Representatives of other countries. But before entering upon that question, he desired to refer to what had fallen from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. That hon. Gentleman had expressed himself aggrieved at his having charged the Government with defraying Mr. Errington's expenses out of the Secret Service Fund; but he had had that information on authority that left no doubt on his mind on the subject. The expenditure of the Secret Service money was perfectly Constitutional; but it ought not to be employed in the payment of a salary to a Diplomatic Agent. In "another place" Lord Granville had denied that Mr. Errington's expenses had been paid at all; but the denial was made in such a manner that it amounted to no denial at all. He said that Mr. Errington had not received any money. That might be perfectly true, for nobody supposed that when a gentleman was engaged on business of that kind he received the money for every pound of butter, and every cab he hired; at the conclusion of his mission he sent in his
  888
  account, and the account was settled. But he would not lay stress upon that point; his contention was that they had no right to send a mission to any Foreign Potentate or Sovereign without the facts and circumstances being recorded in the archives of the Foreign Office. It was idle and immaterial to say that Mr. Errington was not paid; there were embassies upon which plenty of gentlemen would be perfectly ready to serve for the honour of the mission. Nor was the comparison made between the mission of Mr. Errington and the messages intrusted to Lord O'Hagan a fair one; it was quite erroneous. It was true that a gentleman like Lord O'Hagan might very well receive a message to deliver in case he met the person for whom it was intended; but it was quite different when a gentleman went to reside in Rome with a letter expressing the confidence of the Government in him as a medium of authentic communication. He would read a short extract in support of his view from a work which formed a proper complement to the work which they owed to Sir Erskine May. It was a book written by Mr. Alpheus Todd on the Constitutional history of this country. It was there pointed out that all the communications passing between the Foreign Secretary and the Representatives of the Crown abroad upon matters of public importance should be committed to writing, in order that a record might be preserved in the Foreign Office, and in due course submitted to Parliament. Now, he had never asked that any documents connected with Mr. Errington's mission should be submitted if it were inconvenient to do so. He had only contended that the Correspondence should be placed on record, so that when Her Majesty's Government came to leave Office they should leave in the archives of the Foreign Office some traces of the negotiations with the Vatican. There was another remarkable statement in another of Mr. Todd's works which had reference to the question of private letters. He said that communications frequently passed between the Foreign Secretary and diplomatic servants abroad. These letters were strictly secret; but, as Mr. Todd pointed out, they had been severely animadverted upon in Parliament. However, it was the opinion of Lord Wodehouse, Lord Clarendon, and others that these private letters were in-

  889
  dispensable. He maintained that Lord Granville, in his recent dealings with the Vatican and the Court of Rome, had established a system of secret diplomacy. I was a system which he conceived to be dangerous to this country, not because Lord Granville obtained information that was not given to Parliament or to his Successors, but hereafter, when the Government was changed, sooner or later it might be found that certain assurances had been given to Rome or received by England which were not on record. Thus, the continuity of their diplomatic correspondence would be severed, and in a manner full of peril to the country. His first knowledge of this matter, after some private letters which he received, was derived from the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, who made a most eloquent speech on diplomatic relations between this country and the Vatican, making special allusion to Mr. Errington's mission. The Bishop said that Mr. Errington was in Rome, but had no strict mission from the Government. He held a letter of confidence, so that he might be a medium of direct communications between the Government and the Holy See, without any salary or regular appointment. Now, in the time of the late Pope it was a recognized thing that a Representative of Her Majesty's Government should be stationed at Rome; but all the despatches written to him or from him were laid on the Table of the House. He (Sir H. Drum-mond Wolff) stated on good authority the other day that Cardinal Jacobini had informed Mr. Errington that he would be received as the "recommended agent of the British Government." A great many people who had been to Rome stated that Mr. Errington was received in that capacity by the Vatican; and he should like to know whether Lord Granville ever saw the letter which verified these statements? Cardinal Jacobini received Mr. Errington in that capacity. Lord Granville, as everyone knew, wrote a letter with regard to Mr. Errington's mission. The Bishop of Salford said this letter had been written and submitted to Cardinal Jacobini. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) did not object to communications with the See of Rome. He believed it was absolutely necessary that there should be an understanding with the powers of the Vatican. He felt it the more because he knew
  890
  that Mr. Errington had been sent to Rome with the view of arranging matters with regard to Ireland. Well, he was afraid Mr. Errington had not succeeded. At all events, he had tried to succeed. That he had been engaged in important negotiations no one could doubt, for had they not seen Mr. Errington, an Irish Member, coming to England in hot haste to vote for the clôture, and then hurrying back to Rome, after only a couple of days' stay in this country? Would this have happened had not Mr. Errington some very important business on hand? But, while he saw reasons for the appointment of Mr. Errington, he could not reconcile the statements made at different times by the Prime Minister with the statements made by the Bishop of Salford. The Bishop of Salford eloquently described the enormous power which the Pope exercised over the Christian community throughout the world. The Pope was spoken of by the Bishop as the Supreme Director of Men's Souls, and he added—"If there be a moral power on the earth, it resides in the Pope." And then the Bishop proceeded to say that it was an undisputed fact that the Pope exercised great moral power and authority through the territories of the British Empire. He could scarcely reconcile the reasons which the Bishop of Salford gave for the sending of Mr. Errington to Rome with the powerful protests against the influence of the Vatican made by the present Prime Minister when the late Government were in power. He had read a book on the Vatican decrees in their bearing on civil allegiance. It was there claimed that the loyalty of the subject and his civil duty were placed at the mercy of a Foreign Potentate; and in a subsequent work the right hon. Gentleman asserted with regard to the Vatican decrees that, in the strictest sense, they claimed for the Pope a supreme power over loyalty and civil duty of the subject. And these works were published as protests against that pretension. It was to the Pope that the right hon. Gentleman now appealed; and he must say that he did not wonder that the Government wished to conceal the Correspondence. There could be no doubt that the difficulty at Gibraltar helped to lead up to Mr. Errington's mission; and the Bishop of Salford made some significant allusions

  891
  to that subject. It was in consequence of that understanding with the Pope that a most monstrous oppression, as he could prove from Blue Books laid before the House, had been committed by the Colonial Office against the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Gibraltar; and that had been done against the wishes and the advice of the Governor of Gibraltar himself. He would ask the House to allow him for one moment to enter into this Correspondence about the Gibraltar business, because he maintained that a great wrong had been done by Her Majesty's Government towards the Roman Catholic inhabitants of Gibraltar. For some time there had been a feeling of great bitterness between the laity and the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church in Gibraltar with regard to the administration of temporalities of their Church. The laity complained, on many occasions, that the clergy endeavoured to have the administration of property which did not belong to them. In September, 1869, Lord Granville, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in his enthusiasm for disestablishment, wanted to disestablish the Church at Gibraltar, and gave instructions that the churches and chapels there should be handed over to the different communions. On the death of the late Vicar Apostolic a new one was named, who, for different reasons, was unpalatable to the managing junta of elders. Until Mr. Errington went to Rome Her Majesty's Government had taken the part of the congregation, and made representations to the Holy See against the appointment of Dr. Canilla as the new Vicar Apostolic. In October, 1881, however, the Vatican having declined to accede to a Memorial that the appointment should be withdrawn, Lord Kimberley, in a despatch to Lord Napier of Magdala, as Governor, took a different view from that which the Ministry had previously held. It appeared that Mr. Weld was sent to Gibraltar to settle the dispute as to the appointment of Dr. Canilla. Lord Napier of Magdala, writing on the subject of Mr. Weld's mission, said it was not clear what his object or intentions were; but it seemed to be highly necessary that this Church scandal should come to an end; and it appeared that nobody would accept the appointment of Dr. Canilla as his pastor, and the dispute would probably lead to violence. The mission of Mr. Weld, so
  892
  far from settling the question, very much aggravated the feeling against the appointment of Dr. Canilla. Mr. Weld said he would not leave Gibraltar until he had fulfilled his mission. He declined to produce any credentials from the Pope. That appeared from the Report of the Attorney General; and this also—that in consequence of the irritated feeling of the majority of the Roman Catholics, it would be necessary that the police and military should always be present at the ministrations of Dr. Canilla. It was shown that the Roman Catholics had, from time immemorial, had a right to the management of the temporalities of the Church, and that a feeling of great dissatisfaction prevailed as to the way in which those temporalities had been disposed of. It was for the Secretary of State to determine whether it was necessary or expedient for the Government to interfere with regard to the appointment, and it was shown that such a course as that threatened could only have the effect of bringing the local authorities in conflict with the inhabitants, and that the gravest consequences might ensue. What was the answer of Lord Kimberley? The noble Lord seemed to have acted in a manner which was quite inexplicable in the case of one of his enlightened judgment. He gave orders that measures should at once be taken to enforce obedience to the law and to enable the Vicar Apostolic, or other ecclesiastical authorities, legally constituted, to have access to the Church buildings from which one clergyman, who had gone over to take possession, had been expelled. But who had said that this Vicar Apostolic was legally constituted? The people said "No;" and yet Lord Kimberley, without giving any reasons for so doing, ordered the Governor of Gibraltar, in the most discourteous manner, to make use of force in order that this Vicar Apostolic might be installed. There was no despatch after that of Sir Augustus Paget; but it seemed as if there must have been some sort of secret communication with the Pope, whereby it was ascertained that he considered the new Vicar Apostolic properly constituted. Lord Kimberley, therefore, ordered the troops which on the last occasion had been employed ineffectually against the Boers to be more effectually employed against the inhabitants of Gibraltar. Lord Napier, who seemed to

  893
  foresee the difficulties of the situation, then wrote that he regretted that the situation remained unchanged, and that there was no indication of conciliation. The course the local Government had taken from the commencement was with the object of not identifying the Government with a question of Church discipline, and of the appointment of a dignitary whose installation was strenuously opposed by the population. In reply to that letter, Lord Kimberley renewed his orders, and ignored the tone of remonstrance in which Lord Napier wrote. He said he had carefully considered the despatch of Lord Napier, and, while approving the general policy therein referred to, he must impress the paramount obligation of preventing disorder. He went on to say that his instructions contained in his last letter must be observed in their integrity, and maintained as long as required. In that despatch Lord Kimberley, who in 1869 had sought to disestablish the Church at Gibraltar for some secret reason, gave the most peremptory orders without, apparently, inquiring into the merits of the case, and against the opinion of Lord Napier, instructing him to take steps to force the congregation out of the church, and impose on them a Vicar Apostolic who was distasteful to them. The result was that the congregation were ejected, the troops violently invaded the Church, the doors were broken in and many people arrested. And all that seemed to be done for no earthly reason except that which was stated by the Bishop of Salford—namely, that Mr. Errington might obtain a good understanding with the Church of Rome. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) made this Motion in no spirit of hostility towards the Church of Rome itself. On the contrary, he was of opinion that there should be a free and full understanding between the Government and the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church, and that we should try to conciliate the members of that communion in Ireland and in other parts; but he maintained that it was an unconstitutional and unfair act on the part of the Government to keep Papers concealed in such a manner that they would not be handed down to the successor of the present Minister at the Foreign Office. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, while recognising the value of a good understanding between this Country and the Papal See, this House is of opinion that all communications between any of Her Majesty's Ministers and the authorities of the Vatican should he placed on official record in accordance with the constitutional practice in diplomatic affairs, and should be conducted with the cognizance of Parliament."—(Sir Henry Wolff.)
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, it was the intention of my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Sir Charles W. Dilke) to have followed the hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), because on various points he is more conversant with the particulars of this question than I am; but, at the same time, as regards the main points of the hon. Gentleman's speech, and the very decided objections that the Government entertain to his Motion, I think I may, without any fear, undertake to state them. Now, Sir, when I listened to the hon. Gentleman throughout his interesting statement, what I was struck with most was the power of imagination by which, having got hold of a very few fragmentary circumstances, being driven on by an intense suspicion of those with whom he is dealing, and being abundantly gifted with creative imagination, he has constructed a scheme and a system out of the very slenderest materials, which, when you come to notice and point out the defects of the evidence, entirely crumbles to the ground and vanishes. That I believe to be the state of the case with the hon. Gentleman; and he will be able to judge himself, in some degree, whether I am at all warranted in making a statement of that kind. The last moiety of the speech of the hon. Gentleman was taken up with, as it appears to me, an unwarrantable attack upon my noble Friend Lord Kimberley, with reference to a series of transactions in Gibraltar, which, no doubt, are of considerable interest. The hon. Gentleman founds his allusions to these transactions on a statement in the speech of a Roman Catholic Bishop in this country in reference to them; and this Roman Catholic Bishop gives his own opinion, or hypothesis, that something that has been done in Gibraltar has probably arisen from what the hon. Gentleman persists in calling the "mission" of Mr. Errington. Well, Sir, it is a fair enough point that is raised by the hon. Gentleman—a very fair and a

  895
  very fit subject for discussion; but, at the same time, I cannot admit the correctness of his remarks upon it. His statement is that Lord Kimberley has insisted that the Governor of Gibraltar and the Roman Catholic community should accept Dr. Canilla as Vicar Apostolic. Now, Sir, that is a very serious affair, on which I must say it appeared to me that the extracts read by the hon. Gentleman did not, in the faintest degree, bear out his statement. No extract which the hon. Gentleman read contained any such instruction to the Governor of Gibraltar. Again, the hon. Gentleman says that Mr. Errington was at work as a secret agent in this matter. That is, doubtless, a very fair subject for discussion upon the Papers before us; but I would point out that in those Papers Mr. Errington does not at all appear, and that there is no evidence of any necessity for the Government to work through a secret agent, for there is a public agent, Sir Augustus Paget, who appears as the agent and the organ of the British Government. The hon. Gentleman has also referred to certain conduct of Lord Kimberley, founded on the proceedings of Sir Augustus Paget, and has stated that Mr. Errington was employed, with the sanction of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in some communication which, it appears, he has been able to hold with the Vatican. I was not aware that he would have been able to hold such communication. There it is, and I see no reason to be ashamed of it. I see no reason to disapprove of it. There is a certain despatch of Lord Kimberley's, founded, apparently, upon Sir Augustus Paget's proceedings. I need not say that I do not admit the charges against Lord Kimberley which the hon. Gentleman has made; but I am not prepared to defend Lord Kimberley, simply because I know nothing about it. What I am in a position to say is, that I believe that a matter more purely imaginative than to say, as the hon. Gentleman has done, that Mr. Errington has been at work as the agent of the British Government in regard to this affair at Gibraltar never was concocted by an ingenious mind. I have the strongest conviction that Lord Kimberley never would, either by himself or in conjunction with Lord Granville, empower Mr. Errington to act in that capacity without
  896
  making the circumstance known to me; and I can only say that, except by the hon. Gentleman, I have never in my life heard the name of Mr. Errington mentioned in connection with these proceedings at Gibraltar; and I beg, therefore, entirely to withhold my belief from that which the hon. Gentleman has, in perfect good faith, imagined, and my assent to his Motion in so far as that very important, if not main, prop of his Motion, which is founded upon this supposition—namely, that there has been a course of action by Mr. Errington in this matter on the part of the Government—is concerned. Well, then, the hon. Gentleman founds himself upon two suppositions. One of them is that Lord Granville had organized, through Mr. Errington, a system of secret diplomacy, and the other is that it is perfectly clear that Mr. Errington is now occupied at Rome in some important and secret business with the Vatican. Sir, with regard to Mr. Errington's return to Rome, I can only say that, so far as I am acquainted with the facts—and I apprehend if Lord Granville had organized this system of secret diplomacy he would have made me conversant with what he was about—Mr. Errington has returned to Rome upon purely private considerations. Moreover, I have heard—I rather think I have known—that Mr. Errington did acquaint Lord Granville, that there was a private consideration which made him anxious to return to Rome. He takes a very great interest, I believe, founded upon personal acquaintance—but I am not able to say whether that acquaintance is intimate or not—he takes a great interest in the promotion of Dr. M'Cabe, Archbishop of Dublin, to the Cardinalate, and as the ceremonial connected with Dr. M'Cabe's advancement was to take place after Easter, I believe Mr. Errington returned to Rome on that account. I am giving you this information merely as that which I have had no recent opportunity of verifying, so as to be precisely accurate. I merely give it as what I think to be the case; but what I will state positively to be the case, so far as I know—so far as my knowledge goes—is that Mr. Errington has no mission of any kind at this moment, and no purpose in view with regard to an agency of any kind in connection with Her Majesty's Government. I hope the

  897
  hon. Gentleman will clearly and distinctly understand me in that sense; but, whether he does or does not so understand me, I trust the House will. The hon. Gentleman has done me the great honour to refer to certain publications of mine, and I am always very glad when I find that any individual, and especially if he happens to be an opponent, has conferred upon me the very great compliment of reading anything that I have written. But I am afraid the hon. Member, although he has quoted me, has not read the book. [Sir H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: Yes; I have.] Then, Sir, I am extremely sorry to say, if he has read the book, he has not profited by it. He has not remembered the book, for I am quite sure if he had remembered it he would not have made the citation that he has made. He would have made his citation such as to convey a true account of what was stated by me upon that occasion. He has quoted from me the statement that, under the decrees of the Vatican Council, the Pope had made claims upon the civil allegiance of English and Irish and Scotch Roman Catholics, which placed their civil allegiance at his mercy. Having made that half quotation, he says that I, who made that allegation when I was out of Office, now that I am in Office have committed myself upon those claims of the Pope of Rome, and have made a request to him to act upon those powers to which I have so greatly objected formerly; "and no wonder, therefore," says the hon. Gentleman, "the Prime Minister is very anxious, under these circumstances, to conceal the correspondence on this subject." Now, I am going to destroy the entire fabric of the hon. Gentleman's imagination. It is quite true that I stated in that publication that the claims made on behalf of His Holiness did amount to a claim of command over civil allegiance; but if the hon. Gentleman will kindly refer—though he has an advantage over me, for I am stating now from recollection of writings to which I have not recently referred—to those publications, and make himself thoroughly acquainted with them, he will find I stated that those claims of mastery over civil allegiance were not recognized by the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen, and that their loyalty and civil allegiance were perfectly undisputed. Therefore,
  898
  how could I appeal to those claims of the Pope over the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen, when I myself had declared in print that the Roman Catholic subjects of the Queen, so far as I was able to judge, did not allow those claims? I hope, therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that I have no great motive for concealing any correspondence, if there had been any—which there is not—between Mr. Errington and myself. The hon. Gentleman says there is no analogy between the case of Lord O'Hagan and Mr. Errington. There is a very great analogy between them. Essentially, they are precisely the same. Mr. Errington is not what the hon. Gentleman supposed. He says to-day he sees no importance in the question whether Mr. Errington is paid or not. He sees no importance in it now; but, unless I am mistaken, he did so a short time ago, when he came forward with a positive statement that the hon. Gentleman was paid for his services.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I said that his expenses were paid, and I believe they were.
  MR. GLADSTONE: Very well; the hon. Member says that his expenses were paid. The hon. Gentleman saw great importance in the point before; but my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, stretching a good deal—out of deference to the hon. Gentleman—the wise and salutary rule of public action, has stated that he was entirely mistaken with regard to it. To-day the hon. Member says that he dismisses that subject from his mind; but if he continues to believe that those expenses are paid, he ought to have some evidence to give in support of that belief. Really he is not entitled—it is not fair, it is not just—in the face of a distinct and official contradiction from my hon. Friend the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whom he has drawn into the field, to state as that which he believes that which my hon. Friend near me has taken upon himself to deny. I will say, then, for myself, that Mr. Errington is not a paid agent of Her Majesty's Government. I say that the hon. Gentleman is really quite mistaken in supposing that Lord Granville has organized a system of secret diplomacy, and for this plain reason, that he has organized no system whatever. Mr. Errington, as has been stated

  899
  again and again in this House, went to Rome on his own account; and, as he went to Rome on his own account, Lord Granville availed himself of the opportunity offered by the journey to Rome of a Gentleman, a Member of Parliament, an Irishman, a man of high intelligence, and entirely to be trusted and relied on as deeply attached to his country, to carry certain communications with respect to the state of Ireland to the Vatican, and then to assist the Pope in completing his knowledge on the subject. Those communications were transmitted to the Vatican through Mr. Errington, without any reference to the claims of the Pope in 1870. The British Government has known for a very long time that the Pope was a great social power in every country, and perhaps in Ireland more than any other country, where there are a very large mass of Roman Catholic believers. He is a great social power, and in a time of great social disturbance, Lord Granville was desirous that the Pope should be well informed on the subject. He found more than one Gentleman going to Rome whom he could trust to carry this information, and he made use of both of the two channels referred to, the difference between Lord O'Hagan and Mr. Errington being that Mr. Errington went first, and that he stayed longer. But to convey information was not the purpose of Mr. Errington's visit, as far as the Government are acquainted with it, because we have no control over the private and personal action of Mr. Errington in Rome. To convey information was a purpose which he undertook to fulfil on the part of the Government; and I believe I am strictly correct in saying that, while conveying that information, we submitted no request whatever to the Pope at Rome. The hon. Gentleman's statement that secret communications were going on is wholly destitute of foundation. Mr. Errington has been in England, but I have not seen him. My belief is, that his return to Rome was a return for personal purposes, and, if I am rightly informed, he had a natural reason for going back to Rome. It is not for me to say—I have no reason to know—whether he intends to prolong his stay there or not; but it is quite plain that the hon. Gentleman is interested in the installation of a Cardinal there, and it has nothing to do
  900
  with any secret system of diplomacy. The hon. Gentleman refers to an expression, which he seems to place great stress upon, that Mr. Errington was described, with the knowledge of Lord Granville, as an agente racommendato, or "recommended agent," of the British Government. I cannot from recollection say whether that was so or not; but I believe it is perfectly possible that it was the fact. If the hon. Member will only limit the interpretation to be placed upon that phrase, it may be quite correct that the expression was used even with the knowledge of Lord Granville. That Mr. Errington was "recommended" is perfectly true; but then he was not a well-known public character, not a man like Lord O'Hagan, who had for many years played an important part in the Roman Catholic community of Ireland, and borne the Office, which he has only just surrendered, of Lord Chancellor of Ireland. Mr. Errington was recommended not, I believe, by any letter from Lord Granville with authority, but by a letter from Lord Granville to Mr. Errington himself, in which Lord Granville put Mr. Errington in a condition to show, if he found it necessary, that he was a man on whose honour and intelligence the most entire reliance could be placed by any Government. We may take it, then, that he was recommended. Was he an agent? Well, any Member can carry a message, and any man who carries a message for you is an agent. I was myself in 1845 an agent of Lord Aberdeen, and, as the agent of Lord Aberdeen, I undertook a commission which I think had reference to the question of International Copyright. That commission I was asked to fulfil, and I did fulfil, in Paris, by a communication with M. Guizot. I was a recommended agent at that moment. I stayed in Paris for 24 or 48 hours, and then, on leaving my agency and my commission alike, I fell to the ground. In this limited sense, therefore, I am prepared to admit that Mr. Errington is an agente racommendato. He is a person recommended, because we have the attestation of Lord Granville as to his ability; but I am not aware that at this moment he has any agency whatever in his hands. Now, Sir, I hope I have in some degree fulfilled the promise I made to dissipate the vague shadows which have been cast over this subject on the conduct of Her

  901
  Majesty's Government through the active and powerful imagination of the hon. Gentleman With regard to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, I cannot agree to it for reasons which I will state in a very few words. First of all there is a Preamble to the Motion, in which the hon. Gentleman speaks of the "irregular and clandestine communications now passing between Her Majesty's Government and the Vatican." That Preamble is intended to give point to the Motion, and therefore I comment upon it to this extent, to say that I am not aware of any communications of any sort now going on upon these matters. There were communications connected with conveying any certain information which we thought it most desirable that the Vatican should be possessed of; but those communications are not, so far as I know, communications now going on. Then, Sir, comes the Motion of the hon. Gentleman, and he asks the House to commit itself to a declaration—
  "That, while recognizing the value of a good understanding between this Country and the Papal See, this House is of opinion that all communications between any of Her Majesty's Ministers and the authorities of the Vatican should be placed on official record in accordance with the Constitutional practice in diplomatic affairs, and should be conducted with the cognizance of Parliament."
  Now, Sir, I do not understand the meaning of those words. Does he mean that there ought to be distinct diplomatic relations with the Papal See? I have heard the hon. Gentleman declare himself to that effect. Well, Sir, that is an opinion which it is perfectly competent for him or for any Member of this House to hold; but it is one upon which possibly there may be great diversity of opinion amongst us. But this I will say—that it is a subject upon which, in my opinion, it would be most undesirable for the House to make any declaration in the shape of a formal vote, unless it perfectly knows what it means by that declaration, and unless, if there is a substantive meaning in the words, there be a disposition to give effect to the substantive meaning. Now, Sir, for my own part, I am not prepared to commit the Government to any opinion on the point without having taken the advice of my Colleagues in reference to it. I rather have an opinion about it myself, and my opinion would lead me to think twice or thrice before I concurred
  902
  in the words of the hon. Gentleman. But that is not my point. My point is that no declaration could be wisely or prudently made. The hon. Member has, of course, a perfect right to his opinions; but the making of any such declaration, especially if in vague and ambiguous terms, would tend, I think, to create a good deal of misapprehension, and, perhaps, not a little suspicion out-of-doors, and would do a very great deal towards preventing a good understanding—if a good understanding means that we are always to deal with charity with all mankind, and to give everyone credit for doing that which he thinks to be right according to his character and constitution. That may be all very true; but I do not think that sort of good understanding would be at all promoted by passing this Motion. Then the hon. Member says, in his Motion, that he objects to certain communications between the Vatican and Her Majesty's Government—I believe there are none—because, he says, they ought all to be placed on official record. Well, the hon. Gentleman himself has let fall words in the course of his speech, and has even quoted authorities, showing that all communications are not placed upon official record. Surely he is perfectly well aware that very important private correspondence is carried on between a Minister of State and all the great Embassies and Missions of this country; but these private communications are never placed upon official record; and it would be perfectly untrue—I can hardly think the hon. Gentleman can suppose that everything is so recorded, although, as I have said, I did hear him let fall some expressions of the kind in one of his many speeches on this subject—but it is perfectly untrue to state that these communications are placed upon official record, either at the time that they are written, or at any subsequent period. These communications contain, undoubtedly, very important portions of the integral communications between the Foreign Minister and the agent abroad, but they are never placed upon record. The House of Commons ought not to commit itself to a proposition so precipitate and so much at variance with the perfectly well-understood practice of all Governments in all times, as the proposition that all communication between any of Her Majesty's Ministers and the

  903
  authorities of the Vatican should be placed on special record. I will, however, go so far to meet the hon. Gentleman as this—that if Her Majesty's Government should see fit to organize what he calls a system of diplomacy, or anything that any right-minded man could call a system of communication between this country and the See of Home, I then agree to join hands with the hon. Gentleman, and I will agree that these means ought to be taken. I do not say for giving in that case, more than in any other case, absolute publicity of everything that is said; but to place communications of that kind on the same official footing as communications with other Embassies and Missions, I cannot agree. But my point is, that nothing of the kind exists; that a special and temporary function was undertaken by Mr. Errington upon the happy and convenient occasion of his going to Rome, as it was on a similar occasion by Lord O'Hagan, and as it might be by any other Gentleman; and unless I am entirely ignorant of the proceedings of my Colleagues—and I think I am not so—no such communications now exist. The subject-matter upon which the hon. Gentleman has fastened his suspicion is no longer in a condition to be made the subject of comment, because the purpose of Mr. Errington's proceedings has been served in conveying the information that was to be conveyed, and that information neither involved any proposal on our part, or any request on our part, or any necessity for the conveyance of those proceedings. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will not press his Motion further upon the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he concurred with the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister in the recommendation that his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) should not press his Motion, for the proposal it contained was inconsistent with the Common Law, which established Her Majesty's supremacy, and with the Diplomatic Relations Act, which was passed in 1848 to establish commercial relations and other relations between this country and the then Sovereign of the Pontifical States. That Statute carefully declared the supremacy of Her Majesty. When that measure was before the House of Lords, a most important debate took place, in conse-
  904
  quence of which that most loyal of Her Majesty's subjects whom he (Mr. Newdegate) ever knew, the late Duke of Wellington, deemed it necessary to insert the 3rd clause, guarding Her Majesty's supremacy in all parts of her Dominions, unless modified by Treaty. He (Mr. Newdegate) found that Gibraltar was ceded to the English Crown in full Sovereignty by the Treaty of 1814. He was not surprised, therefore, that Lord Napier, as Governor, was surprised, and found himself in a very awkward position, when lie had to deal with a person who claimed to have been appointed Vicar Apostolic, and who would not produce his credentials, but presumed to take upon himself the regulation of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical property in Gibraltar. But there was another matter. He (Mr. Newdegate) could quite understand the suspicion which was very generally felt with regard to the position of Mr. Errington, because the public were perfectly aware of the state of the Common Law in this country, which retained to Her Majesty and to Parliament full Sovereignty in matters ecclesiastical as well as civil; and that was most carefully guarded by the Act of 1848. The Pope was no longer Sovereign of the Pontifical States; therefore, the Common Law excluding his ecclesiastical and spiritual authority was in full vigour to prevent any diplomatic relations with the Holy See. He could not vote for the Resolution of his hon. Friend, whose ability he so much respected, because he should be voting against the Diplomatic Relations Act of 1848; at the same time, he thought his hon. Friend had done eminently useful service in bringing the subject under the notice of the House. But his hon. Friend proposed that this country should enter into communications with the Pope with reference to the property and the rights of Her Majesty's subjects at Gibraltar, and he (Mr. Newdegate) could not vote for that, for it was contrary to the Common Law. His hon. Friend was, no doubt, right in calling the attention of Parliament to the fact that there was strong reason for believing that the Common Law had been evaded in this instance. That, however, was a totally different matter from the substance of his Motion; and he thought that the speech of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford, which his hon. Friend

  905
  had quoted, was very cleverly devised to pave the way for breaking up the protection given by the Common Law. The Common Law protected all Roman Catholic property, excepting monastic property, most carefully; but it retained to itself the right of judging whether that property was duly, legally, and loyally appropriated; and he had no doubt the Roman Catholic Bishop of Salford would like to see that jurisdiction transferred to the Vatican. He (Mr. Newdegate) was quite sure that the House was not prepared for that transfer; and that his hon. Friend did not wish, under the cover of diplomatic relations, to sanction uncontrolled interference on the part of the Vatican in Gibraltar, the entire Sovereignty of which belonged to Her Majesty under the Treaty of 1814. Though he thanked his hon. Friend, then, most sincerely for having stated the grounds for the very strong suspicion that certain communications had been made to the Pope, which were inconsistent with the Common Law, and inconsistent, therefore, with Her Majesty's supremacy, he regretted that the Resolution was drawn up in terms which rendered it impossible for him (Mr. Newdegate) to support it.
  SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, he must confess that it was with considerable relief he heard the Prime Minister's statement disclaiming all knowledge as to the proceedings that had taken place in Gibraltar. A Motion was on the Paper in his (Sir George Campbell's) name which had fallen to the ground; but he was glad to know that whatever had been done had not been done by the authority of the Prime Minister or of the Government, but as a purely Departmental affair, and might be criticized as such. He was also very glad indeed to hear the ground on which the Prime Minister opposed the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), for he (Sir George Campbell) himself was strongly opposed to the Motion on the grounds stated by the Prime Minister. Neither the House nor the country were prepared to resuscitate the long suppressed diplomatic relations between Her Majesty's Government and the See of Rome. On several occasions, when questions of that kind had been brought forward in the House, he expressed his opinion to that effect; and, while disclaiming act-
  906
  ing on what was called Scotch prejudice in this matter, had done so on political grounds, and so adhered to the old principles of the country. He had served a good deal over the world, and had seen a good many religions, and it was on political grounds he adhered to the old principle that it was better this country should not interfere diplomatically with the Vatican, but keep civil matters entirely apart from ecclesiastical matters and power. In this country, as regarded Ireland, at least, we had adopted the principle of levelling down in matters of religion; and it would be an unwise departure from that principle to enter into special relations with any foreign ecclesiastical authority. The connection between Church and State had been injurious throughout the world; and he hoped that we should take that lesson to heart, and that there would be no disposition towards a renewal of the diplomatic communications between the Government of this country and Rome. There was great temptation in the circumstances of Ireland to use the social influence of the Pope, in the way which the Prime Minister had explained, for the purpose of quieting and conciliating Ireland; but, in that respect, he thought he might quote the old adage, that "bad cases make bad law," and so a temporary advantage might end in the adoption of a bad line of policy. He hoped and believed Her Majesty's Government would have no difficulty in avoiding entering into communication with Rome of such a nature in any degree as to cause the Pope to expect any return from them. With regard to the Gibraltar matter, they had been told it was not the action of the Government, but simply of a Department; and it seemed to him that they ought to be on their guard against supporting or countenancing, in such cases, the influence of a centralized ecclesiastical authority. There was a great temptation on the part of the Government to support authority; but the great objection to the centralized power of the Pope was that it had too great influence and authority in the affairs of this and other countries. It seemed to him that they ought to encourage the aspirations of those Roman Catholics who were not inclined to submit to the great centralization of the See of Rome and to the too infallible power of the Pope, but who were, on the contrary, rather inclined to assert

  907
  the rights of the laity; they should respect the rights of a National Catholic Church as they would any other Church. There were several instances in which it had been made plain that the Roman Catholic laity were not inclined to submit to this foreign domination. An analogous case arose in Bombay, and he was glad that the India Office had taken a different view in the matter from that of the Government of Bombay, and refused to interfere. But in this case the Colonial Office had taken the part of the Pope's nominee, and put him in possession. He trusted this debate would lead the Prime Minister to consider the subject. They knew that, if he had not absolute authority over the different Departments, he had a moral authority; and he trusted the right hon. Gentleman would look into the matter, and see whether the India Office was right, or the Colonial Office was right. He hoped the matter would be settled, and that there would be no dashing between the Departments of the Government, and that a uniform policy would be followed. That policy, he hoped, would be in favour of a free Church, and non-interference with a Church not established by law and having no connection with the Government. That would be the only safe policy to pursue.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) condemned certain irregular communications which were supposed to have passed between the Vatican and Her Majesty's Government; but the discussion had drifted into the question of the appropriate action of the Colonial Government in a matter arising at Gibraltar. He should almost have thought the discussion was not pertinent to that subject. The full extent of the connection of the Vatican with what happened at Gibraltar appeared in the Blue Book, and entirely disproved the assertion that the two questions had any relation, and showed that the visit of Mr. Errington to the Vatican was not in any way connected with Gibraltar. The question was a totally distinct one. As to the policy of the action taken in Gibraltar, he (Mr. Courtney) would confess that he thought, when the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) went into the matter more closely, and read the pages again, he would find that the conduct of
  908
  Her Majesty's Government in the affair at Gibraltar entirely corresponded with the principles which he had laid down. In Gibraltar they had treated the authorities of the Roman Catholic Church in the same way as they would have done the trustees of a Particular Baptist Chapel. They had simply given notice that the peace should be preserved, and that Dr. Canilla should be freed from molestation on his way to and from the Cathedral. The Government looked upon the Roman Catholic Church as a free Church in a free State. The hon. Member for Portsmouth had said that the Government was prejudging the rights of the laity in the matter; but it was not a fact that the Government was prejudging those rights at all. The rights of the laity, as they had been established in Gibraltar, were far above the action of the Government.
  MR. WARTON: I rise to Order; the hon. Gentleman is not addressing the House, but the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy.
  MR. COURTNEY, in continuation, said, the Government did not, in the slightest degree, attempt to prejudge or interfere with the rights of the laity, who could appeal, first, to the Court at Gibraltar, and then to the Privy Council. The action of the Colonial Office had been simply confined to the preservation of peace and order at Gibraltar, and the rights of the laity to the Church or the temporalities of the Church remained precisely where they were. They could submit their claims, if they chose, to a legal tribunal.
  MR. BELLINGHAMsaid, that he should like to know if there was any prospect of opening communications with the Vatican; for, at the present moment, there seemed great misconception on the point? The Act passed in 1848 contained a cause providing that no ecclesiastic of the Roman Catholic Church should be received in this country as Representative of the Vatican; but if that provision were repealed, there would be nothing to prevent diplomatic relations being established between this country and the Vatican. It was immaterial to Catholics whether a Liberal or a Conservative Administration brought such a change about, for it was the wish of the Holy See; and, considering the fact that Prince Bismarck, who had been one of the upholders of ultra-Protestant-

  909
  ism in Germany, had been obliged lately to open communications with the Vatican, he did not see why communications should not be opened by this country with the Papal See.
  MR. WARTONsaid, he was sorry that the discussion on the Resolution of his hon. Friend (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had involved matters which seemed to him extraneous to the important question that the House had to consider. He did not care to inquire whether they ought to have diplomatic relations with the Vatican, or even to have a good understanding with it. The real object of the discussion was to ascertain what the Government had been doing in that matter; and he should have preferred a more simple Resolution than that of his hon. Friend, one declaring that the House regretted the recent correspondence with the See of Rome through Mr. Errington, or words to that effect. His hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth had alleged a number of facts to show that diplomatic proceedings had taken place. The Prime Minister met those allegations—first, by treating them as if they rested entirely upon pure imagination, characterizing them as the baseless fabric of a vision; and then he went on, step by step, to admit everything that had been charged. Mr. Errington, he allowed, was an agent; he had a letter of recommendation from Lord Granville, and, therefore, he was a recommended agent. Next, it was admitted that Mr. Errington was the special agent of the Government for some purpose. For what purpose? To inform His Holiness the Pope of something? Was it from pure benevolence to the Pope that they wished to tell him something which he did not know? It was to be presumed that, there being so many of the Clergy of his communion in Ireland, the Pope was well informed of what went on in that country. The extraordinary thing was that when they made their communication to the Pope they did not want an answer. It was said there was no answer, and they were, at the same time, told that at this moment no correspondence was going on. That meant, he (Mr. Warton) supposed, that the answer had not yet come; and then the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) got up and expressed his great delight that the Prime Minister, by his lucid statement, had
  910
  dissipated every apprehension or objection on that subject. The hon. Member had not the wit to see that the Prime Minister had admitted everything. He (Mr. Warton) wanted to know whether the Prime Minister would lay upon the Table of the House the orders to Mr. Errington; next, the information which he gave to the Pope; and also state—as they were told there was nothing now going on—whether it was intended that nothing should go on?
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF, in reply, said, he must adhere to his previous assertions, notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) maintained that Lord Kimberley had ordered the Governor of Gibraltar to send troops to instal the Vicar Apostolic, and to enable him to have full and free access, without molestation of any kind, to the Cathedral and Presbytery. The right hon. Gentleman had now acknowledged that Mr. Errington was an agente racommendato; and what he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) maintained was, that if Mr. Errington was a recommended agent, there should have been some record placed in the Foreign Office to show in what capacity he had been recommended. The right hon. Gentlemen had gone on to say that private letters were constantly addressed to our recommended agents or other diplomatists abroad; but he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) would contend that private letters ought only to be supplementary to a public despatch. He contended that the letter in question positively accredited Mr. Errington to Rome, and established him there as an agent. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] It was no use discussing words in that way, and he would contend that the letter established Mr. Errington as an agent; that he was recommended by Her Majesty's Government; that that was a secret system of diplomacy; and that the Government were ashamed even to put on record in the Foreign Office what they had done. He had to complain that Lord Granville, speaking in "another place," had misquoted what he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had said in reference to Mr. Errington's expenses, and had given only a limited denial to it. He had never said that Mr. Errington's expenses had been paid out of the Secret Service Fund; but the right hon. Gentleman would not deny that they would

  911
  be paid. Unless it was declared that Mr. Errington was never at any time to receive money from the Secret Service Fund for expenses, he would adhere to the statement that his expenses were a charge on that Fund. It was no use, he would admit, going on with the argument, as he was perfectly satisfied with the result of the debate. The right hon. Gentleman had endeavoured to involve the subject in mystery, but he had not succeeded. He had really admitted every statement he (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had made, and was ashamed to put any of the communications which had passed on the Table. He begged to withdraw the Motion.
  MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
  Question put, and negatived.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (POOR LAW) (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Orders of the Local Government Board under the provisions of "The Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876," as amended and extended by "The Poor Law Act, 1879," relating to the parishes of Barm-brough, Burghwallis, Coleshill, Conisbrough, Forrest Hill, Hickleton, Inglesham, Kirk Bram-with, Kirk Sandall and Trumfleet, Shotover, and Shotover Hill Place, and to the townships of Adwick-le-Street, Askern, Barnby-upon-Don or Barnby Dunn, Campsall, Dalton, Ecclesfield, Helmington Row, Langthwaite-with-Tilts, Mexbrough, Moss, Owston, Thorpe-in-Balne, and Willington, ordered to he brought in hy Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (HIGHWAYS) PROVISIONAL ORDER (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board under "The Highways and Locomotives (Amendment) Act, 1878," relating to the county of Kent, ordered to he brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 1) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board relating to the City and County of Bristol, the Local Government District of Bromley, the Port of Cardiff, the Rural Sanitary District of the Glendale Union, the Borough of Hastings, the Local Government District of Merthyr Tydfil, the Boroughs of Newport (Monmouthshire) and Portsmouth, the Local Government District of Sandal Magna, and the Rural Sanitary District of the Ware Union, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
IMPERIAL TAXATION.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, in rising to call the attention of the House to the unequal Incidence of Imperial Taxation in Ireland; and to move for the appointment of a Select Committee—
  "To inquire and report whether, since the year 1851, the new and additional Duties which have been levied off Ireland have not increased the pressure of Imperial Taxation on the population of that portion of the United Kingdom to such an extent, that, having regard to the total property and income of the inhabitants of each Island respectively, the Imperial Taxation of Ireland is now doubly heavier than that of Great Britain; whether the entire Imperial Taxation of Great Britain does not barely exceed the produce of an Income Tax of 2s. 6d. in the pound; and, whether that of Ireland does not exceed what would be produced by an Income Tax of 5s.,"
  said, the case to which he asked their attention was quite distinct from that upon which a Committee of the House sat and reported in 1865. There was not any finding of that Committee which anticipated, answered, or decided in any way upon the issue raised by his present Motion, which was one for the appointment of a Committee to inquire into a state of facts without parallel in modern history, into a course of legislation for the last 29 years which had led to results without precedent in this or any other country in the world. Calling things by hard and bad names was not his habit, for that was neither proof nor argument; but it was almost impossible to find words in which to describe the financial policy pursued towards Ireland since 1853, unless one had recourse to very strong terms. His chief difficulty, however, was not to be moderate in referring to the injustice which had been done, but in finding words to describe the ignorance of hon. Members in former Parliaments and in this on the subject. Even this lack of information was scarcely so remarkable as the self-complacency with which those hon. Members seemed to contemplate the conduct of Great Britain and this Parliament towards Ireland in modern times, for it was not infrequent to hear the fiscal legislation for the United Kingdom referred to as if Ireland were in that respect a favoured and cherished sister. There never was a greater delusion. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) ought to know whether that was the true relation in which Ireland

  913
  was dealt with or the true state of the case. He had no interest in misrepresenting England or Englishmen, and he said deliberately that he knew of no country in Europe, and that there was none except Ireland, in which so large a proportion of the total income of its people was levied by the State tax-man. He did not ascribe the evils of which he complained to intentional injustice. He could not believe that the injustice was designed, no matter how it had come about. He believed the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of Her Majesty's Government, when he instituted and led the way in 1853 to the system of taxation which had impoverished Ireland, deceived himself by assuming that identity of imposts was equivalent to, and almost synonomous with, equality of taxation. But this assumption was in the case of Great Britain and Ireland, and would probably be in the case of any two countries so linked together, a monstrous delusion. If there were but one tax on the inhabitants of both countries, and if that tax were an Income Tax, then he admitted that identity of impost would imply equitable distribution of burden. But when, as in the United Kingdom, a comparatively small portion of the Revenue was raised by an Income Tax, and the great bulk raised by sumptuary taxation levied on selected articles, equality could be ascertained only when they had analyzed and affirmed the fairness of the selection. And what was the test of the fairness of selection? It would be found when they had answered the following question:—Were the articles selected for taxation such as, under ordinary circumstances, were equally in demand, equally used, equally consumed in both countries? If they were not equally in demand and equally used in both countries, then identity of imposts might mean the very opposite to equality of taxation; and in the case of England and Ireland the selection made was the very reverse of equality. It was simply legalized injustice. But England and the English Minister had the selection, and they knew what had come of it. It would have been quite easy to have selected articles for taxation on an equally identical plan for the whole United Kingdom, which would have spared Ireland and worked unfairly against England. A moderate tax on
  914
  cheese would fall heavily on the bulk of the English people, and scarcely affect the Irish in the least; a high scale of taxation on the alcohol of beer, and a lower one on the alcohol in distilled spirits, would be unfair towards the English people, and might be oppressively so. He mentioned these things to illustrate and explode the fallacy of assuming, as it was the habit to assume, that, as all the taxes affecting the Irish people also affected the English, there must be equality of taxation. He would show that these taxes were unequal and unfair in their incidence, that they favoured the richer country, and fell with extraordinary severity on the poorer and more temperate nation. He must now advert shortly to the relative taxation of Great Britain and Ireland anterior to the epoch of 1853. Could any hon. Member, who, from personal memory—as in his own case—or from authentic history, knew what was the condition of Ireland in 1841, or what it was in 1851, testify that Ireland was better able to pay the taxes then imposed upon her than Great Britain was to bear those which fell on herself? He did not apprehend that anyone would maintain seriously that Ireland was not in 1841, before the Famine, and in 1851, after the Famine, taxed as nearly to the full level of her ability to pay taxes as was Great Britain at either of those dates. But, lest there might be anyone ready to assert that Ireland was at either of those dates more lightly taxed relatively to her means than Great Britain, he would now inquire what was the total Revenue raised by the Imperial taxation of Ireland in 1841 and 1851? He referred to the Parliamentary Returns in his hands. In 1841 the Imperial Revenue raised by taxation in Ireland was slightly under £4,000,000. In 1851 it was slightly over £4,000,000. The Revenue raised by taxation of Great Britain in 1841 was over £46,000,000, and in 1851 it was over £49,000,000. At those dates, then, the Imperial taxation of Ireland amounted to a sum equal in round figures to one-twelfth of the sum raised in Great Britain. He would prove to any Committee of the House in more detail than was possible in his present statement that, relatively to the entire wealth of both Islands respectively, the contributions of Ireland to Imperial Revenue in 1841 and 1851 not

  915
  only equalled but exceeded her equitable quota. Of that excess, however, he did not complain; it was not a proper subject for clamour or popular agitation, even if people understood it, which they did not. He merely referred now to the fact that even then the Irish quota was somewhat excessive in order to emphasize the statement and the fact that, nevertheless, in 1853 a new system was commenced for reducing the quota of taxation borne by England, and for securing the maximum contribution out of Ireland in relief of several Excise and Customs Duties of the United Kingdom, of which latter Ireland's share was scarcely equal to 5 per cent of the new burdens laid upon her. The financial result of the policy of 1853, which he would describe and explain before he sat down, was not long obscure nor long delayed. They would find by the Return in his hand that the Revenue raised by taxation in Ireland in 1861 was £6,420,378, as compared to £4,006,711 in 1851, forcing up on seven years' operation of the new policy the quota of the taxation of Ireland from a twelfth to a ninth, as compared to Great Britain. By the end of the next decennial period the taxation of Ireland was forced up to £7,086,593, or to within a fraction of one-eighth of the sum raised by taxation of Great Britain. This was the modern way of sowing dragon's teeth, with somewhat a parallel result to that of the ancient precedent. All this time illusory statements were being made under the auspices of Dublin Castle, not with the intention to deceive, but none the less deceptive on that account, and Ireland was represented as making great strides in material prosperity because her Revenue, or rather her tribute to the Imperial Revenue, was swollen by new taxes, and under favour of occasional good harvests, she struggled, and, as it turned out, struggled in vain, to make headway against the wasting process and the new impediments to her progress. There was, however, great joy in Downing Street as each fresh additional million was dredged out of Ireland, and poured into the abyss of the British Exchequer, in place of being allowed to remain with the people to reward Irish industry, and to help to fortify and provide the people against the lean years, bad harvests, and hard times which had
  916
  since come with a vengeance. The vengeance, however, was not wholly for Ireland, for the problem of her pacification remained to be solved, and it would be well if all these millions rendered back could suffice for the solute on in peace. He would now explain precisely how the new taxes came to be cast on Ireland in 1853, and how radically unjust they were. The explanation of what was done in that Session of Parliament practically explained the whole, for the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer then announced that he was going in for a system of identity of imposts, and it never appeared to dawn on his ingenuous mind that identity of imposts did not mean actual and equitable equality of taxation; and although other Chancellors of the Exchequer, other Governments, and other Parliaments had since then, from time to time, increased the Spirit Duties and varied the Income Tax, they merely proceeded in grooves defined and deeply cut for them by the legislation of 1853, which laid down the lines of a financial system which, save that it succeeded in extracting a greater Revenue from Ireland than ought ever to have been exacted, was at once unscientific, unjust, and unfortunate. He would next refer to the best records obtainable in an exact and statistical form of the total incomes of the inhabitants of the two Islands respectively, to the extent which the Income Tax Returns reached. He would not commence with the earliest years of the working of the Income Tax in Ireland, for all the sources of income were not at first made out; but he took the Returns for 1861, when the Income Tax had been seven years working. In that year the yield from Income Tax in Ireland was £715,269. In the same year the Income Tax for Great Britain was £9,755,938, which showed approximately taxable incomes 13 times greater in Great Britain than in Ireland. It should be borne in mind that these were the proportions they would find without descending to compare the earnings and incomes of the wage-earning classes in both Islands, in which he could show, were it necessary, that a still greater disparity existed; but he was not driven to force the figures by substituting estimates and hypothesis for statistics. On the contrary, he would make allowance for the

  917
  fact that the rating of houses and lands in Ireland was made under the Poor Law, or Griffith's valuation, and, the rating in England was presumed to be taken at a fuller value, and, making other trivial allowances, he would adopt the conclusion that the rateable incomes of Great Britain under all the Schedules would indicate the relative ability of one Island to the other at that time as about 1 to 12. There was no rational theory to sustain an assumption that Ireland relatively to Great Britain was better able to bear taxes in 1853 than what the Returns of 1861 would denote; but, if such was the fact, so much the worse for those who argued in favour of the taxation scheme of 1853. It sufficed for him (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) to show that the taxation of Ireland in 1841 and 1851, being already as 1 to 12 of Great Britain, no fresh taxation should have been laid in 1853 on the poorer country, and he had explained that if Parliament were to have measured the taxation to be levied in Ireland by the Schedules prepared for the purposes of the Income Tax, the total contribution of Ireland to Revenue would have been laid down at a thirteenth of that of Great Britain. What excuse, therefore—what plausible pretext—what cogent reason was there for imposing upon unfortunate Ireland in the year 1853 a fresh burden destined to grow weightier and weightier year by year? He might answer that in truth there was, to his thinking, neither cogent reason, rational excuse, nor plausible pretext for doing what was then done; but that which stood in place of reason, excuse, and pretext was this sophism that indentity of imposts was equivalent to equality of taxation, and this corollary that indentity of imposts was to be established as speedily as possible. He gave the right hon. Gentleman now at the head of Her Majesty's Government credit for believing he was doing no injustice; but he was at best legislating in the dark, for there was then no Income Tax Schedule for Ireland to demonstrate the injustice of the scheme. What that scheme was, and how it was followed up, it was his (Sir Joseph M'Kenna's) duty to review by the clear and unsparing light of events. When the present Premier, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, on the 18th April, 1853—that day 29 years—introduced his Budget to Parliament, he had, from
  918
  several points of view, a gratifying statement to make; but the case had, nevertheless, a shady side, and there was a spectre which it was his business to lay or banish somehow from the feast he was about to spread before an admiring Parliament and an appreciative British public. The spectre, which would have scared anyone else, rose before him in this way. There had been a grim Famine in Ireland in 1846–7. It was no portion of his (Sir Joseph M'Kenna's) present duty to review that terrible chapter of Irish history, some of the details of which would never vanish from his memory. But, as one of the results of that Famine, there were certain debts due by the famine-stricken districts to the Treasury, the greater portion of which a Committee of the House of Lords had already recommended to be treated on distinctly equitable grounds as Imperial Expenditure, and discharged from being a debt of the districts. They were called, in official language, "Consolidated Annuities," and the charge to extinguish them amounted to £260,000 a-year. As was natural under these circumstances, those who were made liable to repay were very fretful, and appealed to the good feeling and justice of Parliament to have them treated in accordance with the recommendation of the Lords' Committee. How this appeal was responded to hon. Members should hear, and how the Chancellor of the Exchequer improved the occasion by an apparent remission of the Famine Debt, whilst he added burdens to Ireland of fresh taxation to an immensely greater extent, laying the foundation or opening up the way for still further levies in the future, until it had come to pass that the drain from Ireland, poverty-stricken as she was, was ratably more than double the amount drawn from the more prosperous inhabitants of Great Britain. What he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) described was carried out in this way. The Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement with that matchless power of exposition which not only persuaded the majority of his audience that whatever he said was right, but actually appeared to have the same effect on his own mind. The Income of the year just closed was £53,000,000, the Expenditure something over £50,000,000, the Surplus £2,460,000. What would he do

  919
  with it? Well, that was a simple question, and the right hon. Gentleman preferred to deal with complex problems; so he set his audience to think upon this one. He proposed to lower his nets again into the waters and make a fresh haul, then to compute what that would amount to before he unfolded what distribution he would make of the loaves and fishes he had already available, and of the further draughts he expected to bring to land. He then made his computations, which had been since all realized, as well as some things consequential which did not appear to have occurred to the mind of the right hon. Gentleman at the time. Well, this was what he said he would do, and did—abolish the Duty on Soap, reduce the Duty on Tea, the Stamp Duty, the Advertisement Duty, and the Duties on about 130 articles in the Customs Tariff. The Consolidated Annuities he would remit in toto.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA, resuming, said, all these, except the last-mentioned, were bonâ fide remissions and reductions; but the remission of the Consolidated Annuities was quite of another character. This was the policy towards Ireland which the Government pursued. It was a portion of the Budget Scheme to continue the Income Tax for Great Britain. They now determined to extend it for the first time to Ireland; as also to increase the Irish Spirit Duties 8d. a-gallon. The amount of these increases far exceeded—even at that time nearly trebled—the amount of the remission, although that was not quite apparent at the time. At this point, he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) would shortly observe that he had no objection to an Income Tax for Ireland, nor to a high Spirit Duty. As taxes had to be raised, there were no fairer subjects for impost than income and alcohol; but he maintained that it was monstrously unjust to spare or only lightly tax alcohol in the form which suited English habits, taste, diet, and climate, and to tax more than five-fold alcohol in the form which suited Irish people. But that was what had been done; and he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) prayed attention to these facts. Before 1853 the tax on the alcoholic equivalent
  920
  of a gallon of proof spirits, in the form of beer or other brewers' drinks, levied in the Malt Duty and in the Hop Duty, considerably exceeded the Duty on Irish Spirits. The Malt Duty was at the time 2s. 8½d. a-bushel—it was now 6d.—and the Duty on Irish Spirits payable in Ireland was 2s. 8d. in respect to every proof gallon. Beer was then, as it was now, the popular beverage of England; whilst whiskey, diluted in water hot or cold, was the popular one of Ireland. There was not then and there was not now any valid reason why alcohol should be more taxed in one vehicle than in the other; but no serious injustice then arose from the disparity, because, as he (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had shown, the incidence of the taxation as a total was in the result fairly distributed between the two Islands previous to 1853. But the Budget of 1853 inaugurated a new departure, since which the constant effort of successive Chancellors of the Exchequer appeared to have been to raise the Duty on Spirits in Ireland and to reduce the Duty on Malt, until the fiscal policy toward Ireland had culminated in this incredible injustice—that the tax on alcohol in the popular English beverage was less than one-fifth of the tax on an equal volume of alcohol in the Irish. It must not be lost sight of that this disparity was an innovation—that it dated no further back than 1853, so far as the disparity was complained of, although there were slight variations in the Duty before that date; and, above all things, the innovation had nothing to do with the discouragement of intemperance. When official excuses were made in this House for the inequality of taxation, and the disproportionate sum latterly levied off Ireland, the line of reply generally adopted was of this sort. It was admitted that some inequality did exist, but that such complaints were not confined to Ireland—that the incidence of taxation probably varied as considerably in some parts of England as compared to others as it did between Ireland as a whole and Great Britain as a whole. And the Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1875 proceeded somewhat in that strain. Of course he should say something, and his line was the nearest resemblance to a defence which he could think of. But, with all respect to him, it was no defence whatever—it was the merest evasion. What was complained of was not any

  921
  defect incidental to all schemes of taxation, except to Income Tax per se; what was complained of was the monstrous inequality brought about in their own time by an innovation made in 1853, which, under the pretence of making some sort of concession by forgiving a comparatively small debt, cast new burdens on the Irish people, already taxed to the full level of Great Britain. This question of the disparity of the incidence of Imperial taxation on Ireland was last brought under the notice of this House by the hon. Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) in the last Parliament. On that occasion the House heard a characteristic critique from a right hon. Member once himself Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), and now a noble Lord. His line of argument was peculiar and characteristic; he regarded Ireland and Great Britain as geographical expressions merely, and they were not taxed at all; and then he went on to say it was true that individuals happening to reside in these countries were taxed, but they were taxed quite equally, and on the same identical tariff, and there was an end of it—that settled it—argument was exhausted—all was fair. Such absurdities as were here involved scarcely deserved notice, save to exemplify the shifts to which people were driven who had to struggle to defend the innovation of 1853. According to that argument France and Tunis were merely geographical expressions; and if Tunis were incorporated with France, and if there was a heavy tax laid on the date crop and a light one on grapes, it would be quite fair as between the French and the Tunisians, provided the heavy tax on dates applied to dates grown by Frenchmen in Tunis or in France, and the light tax on grapes applied to grapes grown by Tunisians in either country. He (Sir Joseph M'Kenna) had really thought that Æsop's fable of the Fox and the Stork had long since put boyhood as well as manhood on its guard against such shallow sophistry. The legislation of 1853 on this subject did not take place without some earnest protest from an Irish Member. Mr. John Francis Maguire, then Member for Dungarvan, and afterwards Member for Cork City, was reported to have said—
  "The right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech—which for a Chancellor of the Exchequer to make was, he thought, one of the
  922
  jauntiest he had ever heard—said that the justice of the tax was generally felt and acknowledged in Ireland. Now, if that were the case, such a feeling ought to have manifested itself where the Consolidated Annuities were particularly oppressive, and where the Income Tax would be scarcely felt; but what was the fact? Why, it was from those portions of Ireland in particular where the Consolidated Annuities pressed heaviest, and the Income Tax would be felt the lightest, that petitions and remonstrances against the proposal were poured into that House. All the counties in the South and West of Ireland had pronounced against the impost. The attempt to gull the people of Ireland into an approval of the tax by saying that the present proposition was a good bargain, because they would have to pay £460,000 instead of £260,000, to which they were at present liable, was worse than a financial juggle—it was, if he might say so in Parliamentary language, an Exchequer swindle. The trick was so stale, the juggle so plain, and the real object so unconcealed, he could only express his wonder at any man representing an Irish constituency being gulled by it."—[3 Hansard, cxxvii. 530–1.]
  So spoke John Francis Maguire in that House one day in May, 1853. He thought he had mastered the subject and understood the scope and nature of the transaction, but he had not penetrated far into the future; for, in place of this being the laying on of an impost of £460,000 a-year in lieu of £260,000 remitted, the transaction was ab initio an immensely worse one for Ireland than Mr. Maguire believed it to be when he denounced it—for its author then announced a principle which had been unsparingly applied ever since, under which there had been raised by taxation of Ireland for the last 20 years—not to go farther back—about £3,000,000 a-year more than her previous normal contribution, being at least £3,000,000 a-year more than her quota, if the entire Revenue of the United Kingdom were raised by an identical Income Tax for England, Ireland, and Scotland. There was no test nor analysis of the wealth of Great Britain and Ireland that would not disclose the extraordinarily unfair disparity which existed between the taxation of the people of the two Islands. The latest Return of the comparative population and taxation of Great Britain and Ireland at the decennial epochs was that issued in August, 1874, which dealt with the financial years 1841, 1851, 1861–2, and 1871–2. It was too soon to expect the Return for 1881–2; but there had been no change to affect the case based on the four com-

  923
  pleted decennial Returns. The respective totals of the incomes of £ 100 and upwards for Great Britain and Ireland were, in the year 1871–2—for Great Britain, £455,750,000; for Ireland, £26,500,000. The total Revenue raised by taxation was, from Great Britain, £57,534,683, which was the merest fraction in excess of 2s. 6d. in the pound on the total incomes; and the Revenue raised from Ireland in the same year was £7,086,593, which equalled 5s. 3d. in the pound, on the total of Irish incomes under all Schedules. What wonder was it that, under these circumstances, an agricultural people would be unable to pay fair rents, not to speak of rack rents? One independent English Member at least expressed in April, 1853, his objection to heaping new taxes on Ireland before she had recovered from the effects of a desolating Famine which had reduced her population from 8,000,000 to 5,500,000 between 1841 and 1851. Sir Francis Baring, on 28th April, 1853, showed that—
  "The relief given to Great Britain by the immediate operation of the Budget of that year would be £1,443,000, and the taxes imposed—new and peculiar to Great Britain—£403,000, making the amount less to be paid by England £1,040,000. He submitted for the fair consideration of his fellow-countrymen, whether it was quite fair, when they would be immediately receiving a relief of £1,040,000, to place a new Income Tax on Ireland, and a whole amount of additional taxation of £413,000."—[3 Hansard, cxxvi. 732.]
  He had said that the increase of the Duty on Irish Spirits had no connection with a temperance policy, for it singled out the soberest population to mulct them most heavily. The Irish people were in 1853, and were now, the most moderate of the three nations in their consumption of alcohol. The alcohol consumed in beer, spirits, and wine for each unit of the population of England for the year ended 31st of March, 1877, was slightly in excess of four gallons and three quarts.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.