Sitting of 16 February 1882

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Post Cards (Reply)* [74]; Distress Amendment* [73].
Second Reading—Churchwardens' Admission [45].

QUESTIONS.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LICENCES.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether persons appointed to issue licences to have and carry arms under "The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881," are bound by the Act to grant a licence to any person applying for it on the production of a certificate signed by two justices of the peace for the county that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence; and, whether the Law has not been violated in several cases by magistrates refusing to grant licences to persons who were furnished with the necessary certificates?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the licensing officer is not required by the Peace Preservation Act, 1881, to grant a licence to any person applying for it on the production of a certificate signed by two justices of the peace for the county that he is a fit and proper person to have such licence. The Act provides that the licence shall be granted to an agricultural occupier producing to the licensing officer a certificate signed by two county magistrates, residing in the same petty sessions district as the applicant, that the applicant is, to their own personal knowledge, a fit and proper person to have such licence. I am not
  776
  aware that the law has been violated in any case by magistrates refusing to grant licences to persons furnished with the certificates by law required.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—OMAGH GAOL.
MR. R. POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that Mr. Disney, Governor of Omagh Gaol, died in that building on the 8th inst. of malignant fever, caught during progress of endeavours to improve the bad sewerage of his residence within the prison; whether it is true that the former governor of the Gaol, and four of his children, also suffered from fever, and that his four children died; and, whether it is his intention to remove from Omagh Gaol the prisoners detained there under the Coercion Act?
MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he has any information as to the sanitary condition of the other gaols in Ireland, especially Kilmainham, in which "suspects" are confined?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, he was sorry to say it was true that Mr. Disney, the late Governor of Omagh Gaol, died in that prison of fever. The Governor's house, being in a defective state, had to be repaired, and Mr. Disney caught fever during the alterations. He could not learn whether the former Governor of the gaol suffered from fever. Three of his children died during the past 10 years. One died from croup; there was no record of what the other children died from. He had ascertained from the medical officer of the prison, and from the architect of the Prisons Board, that the portion of the prison in which the "suspects" were detained was healthy. In answer to the hon. Member for Carlow (Mr. Gray), he had to state that the sanitary arrangements in the portion of the prison of Kilmainham where the "suspects" were confined were perfectly good. There was an ample supply of water and good accommodation.
MR. R. POWERsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman did not appear to understand the latter portion of his Question, as to whether it was the intention to remove from Omagh Gaol the prisoners detained under the Coercion Act?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that from the Report made by the prison autho-

777
rities as to that part of the prison, there did not appear to be any danger or present necessity for the removal of the prisoners.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE.
MR. SPENCER BALFOURasked the Vice President of the Council, When he expects to be able to lay the New Code upon the Table?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the New Code is now being drafted, and I hope to have it printed and laid on the Table not later than the 6th of March; but in order that sufficient time may be given for the changes it involves, both in teaching, office forms, and inspectorial organization, it is proposed that examinations under it shall not begin until after the 31st of March next year. I shall, therefore, at the same time, lay on the Table the existing Code, which, for purposes of payment, will continue in operation for the coming financial year. There will be only one slight change in it—namely, the maximum hours for the employment of pupil teachers will be reduced from 30 to 25 per week. This is in order to diminish the pressure of overwork upon pupil teachers, and to give them more leisure for study.

OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS—PUBLICATION OF A PAMPHLET.
LORD JOHN MANNERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the pamphlet "On the industry and trade of Germany during the first year of the new Protective Policy," an abstract of which, with a preface by "E. W. G.," has been presented to Parliament by the Board of Trade is an official document; and, whether it was forwarded to the Department through the Foreign Office; if not, on what principle are Foreign works, by private persons, on controversial political questions, selected for the privilege of translation and publication at the public expense by the Department?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, in answer to the first Question of the noble Lord, I am not quite certain what constitutes an official document. In one sense it might be matter of definition, and in some sense matter of opinion. The Reports of German Chambers of Commerce are Reports of quasi-official bodies, and
778
when forwarded by our Ministers and Consuls have, on various occasions, been laid before Parliament; but I do not know if a document, which is an abstract of the Report of a Chamber of Commerce, ought to be called an official document or not. In the present case we had received the Report of the Berlin Chamber of Commerce from the Statistical Bureau at Berlin, which first drew our attention to the view taken on Protection by the trading classes of Germany. In consequence of this, we applied to the Foreign Office, and received through it the pamphlet in question, giving a résumé of the Reports of all the Chambers of Commerce. We then purchased other copies through a bookseller, from which the actual translation and abstract laid before Parliament were made. The paper, it will be observed, shows different opinions of various Chambers on both sides of the question. The principle on which foreign works, whether by private persons or others, and whether on controversial subjects or not, are selected for publication by the Department, is to give papers which contain matters of sufficient public interest and importance. I may inform the noble Lord that the present publication is in strict accordance with precedent. I could refer him to a great number of instances if that were necessary; but if the noble Lord will look at the Reports from Her Majesty's Representatives in Germany on the New German Tariff, which were presented by the late Government in 1879, he will find various articles from private newspapers, chiefly on the Protectionist side, and at page 27 he will find a table extracted from a work issued by the German Free Trade Association; and if he will look at the Reports from Her Majesty's Secretaries of Embassy and Legation, presented in 1880, he will find at page 157 translations of observations by the Heidenheim Chamber of Commerce on the New German Tariff made in a Free Trade sense. In short, almost every volume of this class of Reports contains articles and extracts from private sources forwarded by Her Majesty's Ministers and Consuls.

STATE OF IRELAND—"BOYCOTTING" IN COUNTY CLARE—MRS. MORONEY.
MR. GRAYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whe-

779
ther the statement contained in the Irish Correspondence of the "Times" of the 13th instant, to the effect that, in Mil-town Malbay, county Clare,
"The shopkeepers who have been Boycotting Mrs. Moroney, a landowner in the locality, and refusing to supply her with the necessaries of life, hare been called before Major Clifford Lloyd and allowed three days to make up their minds whether they would continue the practice or abandon it;"
and, whether this statement is true; and, if so, under what Law Major Lloyd is acting, and to what penalty the shopkeepers will be subject in case of refusal to abandon the practice?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was true that shopkeepers had refused to supply Mrs. Moroney with the necessaries of life; and, hearing of this, Major Clifford Lloyd gave them three days to consider what course they would adopt. A meeting of all the shopkeepers in Miltown Malbay was thereupon held, at which a resolution was put to the effect that every person demanding goods over the counter for cash at Miltown Malbay should be supplied. That resolution had since been acted upon. He was not aware that there was any law prohibiting Major Clifford Lloyd, or any other subject of the Crown, from acting as he did. Inasmuch as the shopkeepers had discontinued "Boycotting," it became unnecessary to answer the latter part of the Question.

ARMY (INDIA)—THE MADRAS STAFF CORPS.
MAJOR O'BEIRNEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether an officer who exchanged as a captain, in the year 1878, from a British regiment into the Madras Staff Corps, and who, previous to the date of his exchange, had served eleven years continuously in India without any sick leave, is not entitled to count the entire of the eleven years' service in India in a British regiment towards the pension he would be entitled to in the Madras Staff Corps, provided such exchange has taken place between two officers fully qualified for the Staff Corps, and not probationers; and, if this service in a British regiment serving in India is disallowed for pension in the Madras Staff Corps, if he will explain why, in a recent Despatch of the Secretary of State for India, on the revised scale of pensions, it is stated two years'
780
service out of India in the British army, before joining the Staff Corps, are allowed to count as service towards pension?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, officers who enter the Staff Corps from the British Service are allowed to count all service in India for pension under Indian Retiring Regulations, provided that not less than one-half the required period for each rate of pension shall have been passed in the Staff Corps. Subject to this rule, and to certain restrictions in respect to furlough, pensions are given after 20, 24, 28, 32, and 38 years' service, towards which may be reckoned service out of India before joining the Staff Corps, to an extent not exceeding two years in any case.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS—THE BLUECOAT SCHOOL AT HERTFORD.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONasked the President of the Local Government Board, How many outbreaks of epidemic complaints have taken place within the last ten years at the preliminary school at Hertford, in connection with Christ's Hospital, and how many fatal cases have occurred on each occasion; what steps have been taken during the period mentioned to place the sanitary arrangements of the school on a proper footing, and bring them in accordance with modern improvements; whether there are not still cesspools in use at the school and in the immediate neighbourhood; what means have been adopted for securing the discharge of sewage from the school; and, whether the situation of the school, being in a watershed, is not unhealthy?
MR. DODSON, in reply, said, that there had been six epidemics of measles during the last 10 years. Five deaths had occurred from measles, and four from scarlet fever. He did not know precisely what was the cause of these epidemics, as the water supply was good, there were no cesspools in the immediate neighbourhood, and the drainage had been made by the Corporation of the town.

ARMY ORGANIZATION—MILITIA UNIFORMS.
EARL PERCYasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he is prepared to make a similar allowance to

781
officers of Militia regiments, who have been obliged to change their lace, facings, and accoutrements, as he has to those whose uniforms have been changed from those of Rifle regiments to those of the Line?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to the noble Lord, who has been good enough to write to me a letter explaining his Question in more detail, I fear I can only say that I have never held out any expectation to officers of the Militia that any allowance would be made to them on the change from silver to gold lace. The General Order of May, 1881, paragraph 16, clearly lays down that officers need only change their lace and badges when they require to replace those in use; and I am told that this was clearly understood from the first. There could be no reason to change officers' head dress sooner, as the men only wear the Glengarry.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE ARRESTS AT MILTOWN MALBAY.
MR. O'SHEAasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, previously to the arrests made last week at Miltown Malbay, county Clare, by order of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary personally satisfied themselves of the existence of reasonable suspicion of crime, or of incitement to crime, in each case?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, the hon. Member is doubtless aware that I was not in Ireland at the time that these arrests were made. It was, therefore, impossible for me to be present at the investigations, which were in each case made by the Lord Lieutenant, who satisfied himself that in each case there was reasonable suspicion within the meaning of the Act. I can say further, however, that I have since received and carefully considered special Reports on these cases, and that I am quite ready to make myself responsible for the arrests.

CRIME (ENGLAND).
MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the following statement in a leading London journal, "The World":—
782
"There was never, certainly within the recollection of any person now living, such an amount of anarchy and theft, of open and unpunished defiance of the Law, as now exists in England. Every alternate paragraph in the morning newspapers is the record of some murder or attempt to murder, or suspected murder, some cases of outrageous wife-beating, some gross instance of abduction, some audacious and cleverly-contrived burglary, arson, or highway theft.….Crime and brutality are organising themselves on all sides, and the defensive, detective, and precautionary powers which Society has at its disposal are ineffectual to meet or ward off the danger;"
with much more to the like effect; and, whether, in view of the existence of so much crime and outrage, he will introduce a Bill for the better Protection of Person and Property in England?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I am not quite sure whether the hon. Member has obtained the information on this important subject from the most authentic source. I think if he would consult the judicial statistics to be found in the Library, he would agree with me that there is no case at present for taking the extraordinary measures which he suggests.

METROPOLIS—THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS—PROTECTION FROM FIRE.
MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in consideration of the admission of the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, that great risk and danger is incurred by the theatre-going public in the Metropolis, and that the legislation of 1878 has been practically neglected, and in view of the possibility of fire breaking out at any theatre at any moment, which might have as fatal consequences as that at Vienna, he is prepared to bring in a Bill dealing specially with the subject, and, if not, what steps he proposes to take to ensure the safety of the public from fire at theatres? He wished to state that he had received a letter from the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, in which he stated that the word "admission" used in his Question was not justified by the answer given to his Question, and that he did not mean to imply what was imputed to him.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I do not think that the explanation of the hon. Member goes far enough. I state most distinctly that I made no admission whatever that the theatres in the

783
Metropolis were in a dangerous state, and I never intended that anybody in this House or out of it should take that from me. I also say that I never made any admission that the legislation of 1878 had been practically neglected, for it has not been neglected.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, in answer to my hon. Friend, I understand his Question to be this. In 1878 a Statute was passed giving powers with reference to this matter, which, as I believe, are adequate powers. These powers were vested in the Metropolitan Board of Works, and this matter has been called to their notice. I understand the Chairman of the Board to state that these powers are being put into operation now. Under those circumstances, it does not seem to me to be advisable to pass another Act. That Act would take time to pass, and some new machinery would have to be created. In the meantime the operation of the machinery now in operation would be suspended, there now being adequate powers for doing what is required. I think, therefore, that, upon the whole, we had better leave the matter in the hands of the Metropolitan Board of Works, which unquestionably has power to do what the hon. Member desires.
MR. MACFARLANEwished to know why, if the Act had been in operation since 1878, the appointment of an Inspector under the Act only took place last month, and why the Metropolitan Board of Works had been lying upon its oars for four years?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am afraid I cannot answer that Question. I do not know that they have lain upon their oars all that time.
MR. DIXON-HARTLAND: I understood the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works to state that his powers with regard to old theatres were very small indeed.

CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—THE FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE—THE SCHEDULED COUNTIES.
SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Vice President of the Council, If he will state the number of scheduled counties on account of foot and mouth disease; whether the restrictive orders have had the desired effect; whether he
784
can state he is now able to withdraw from the Schedule any counties, especially the county of Sussex; and, whether some effective means could not be taken to prevent veterinary practitioners from carrying the disease from place to place by their own carelessness and want of the most ordinary precaution?
MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, 12 counties, with the boroughs therein, have been scheduled since the Order was framed on December 29. This measure has been so successful in arresting disease that we have been able to pass an. Order releasing, from Monday next, eight counties, including the county of Sussex. The only remaining counties are Lincoln, Northampton, Lancashire, and the West Riding of Yorkshire. With reference to the suggestion that disease is spread by veterinary practitioners, I am afraid that no action of the Privy Council could insure the adoption of such reasonable precautions as are incumbent upon every intelligent practitioner.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Is Cumberland exempt?
MR. MUNDELLA: Yes, Sir. All except the four counties I have mentioned.

SOUTH AFRICA (THE TRANSVAAL)— TREATMENT OF NATIVES.
MR. CROPPERasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether his attention has been called to a printed official Report of the Transvaal Volksraad, dated November 7, 1881, in which it is stated that in 1878, by order of the British authorities in the Transvaal, about 800 Kaffirs, men, women, and children, were distributed as apprentices among the farmers, the adults being placed under contract for three years, while the children were consigned to servitude until the boys had reached their eighteenth, and the girls their seventeenth, year; and, whether the statements made in that Report, especially with reference to the alleged separation of children from their parents, are true?
MR. COURTNEY: Sir, the Report in question has not been officially transmitted to the Colonial Office; but on the appearance of a newspaper paragraph referring to it a despatch was sent to Sir Hercules Robinson, and on the receipt of a second newspaper, con-

785
taming what purported to be a reprint of the Report, a second despatch was sent to the High Commissioner to obtain and forward full explanations of the matter. These despatches were sent last month, and there has not yet been time for replies to arrive.

PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— ANTHONY HILL.
MR. METGEasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If it is the case that a man named Anthony Hill has been sentenced to three months' imprisonment at Ennis for cheering for Mr. Parnell; and, if so, under what statute it can be shown to be a criminal act to cheer for a Member of Parliament? The hon. Member added that, since putting the Question on the Paper, he had received three letters on the subject—one from the parish priest, another from the prisoner's sister, and the third from his mother, from which it appeared that the actual term of imprisonment was six months, instead of three, and that the prisoner was only a boy of 16 or 17, whose mother was dependent upon him for support.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that the information he had received upon the matter was as follows:—
"Anthony Hill was charged with inciting to riot, and was bound over to keep the peace for six months. He has found bail, and has left for America."
Inciting to riot is a criminal offence.
MR. METGE: It is a curious fact that his mother does not know that he is out of prison.

LAW AND JUSTICE—SCHOOL BOARD FOR LONDON—ST. PAUL'S INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS—THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
MR. CARINGTONasked Mr. Attorney General, Whether the accusations made by Mrs. Surr against the managers of the Saint Paul's Industrial Schools were substantiated; and, if they were, why no proceedings have been taken by the Public Prosecutor? Before his Question was answered, he wished to state that last Session he put a Question to the Home Secretary as to whether the Public Prosecutor intended to interfere
786
in a certain case. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suitably admonished him, and informed him that the initiative rested with the Attorney General. He had therefore put this Question to the Attorney General; but he had received a letter from the hon. and learned Gentleman saying that the Question should have been asked of the Home Secretary. He was not aware whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman was now prepared to answer the Question.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I am prepared to answer the Question. There has been some misapprehension as to the position of the Public Prosecutor. Anyone may refer any matter to him that it is thought ought to be dealt with criminally by the Public Prosecutor. He acts, however, not under the direction of the Home Office, but under that of the Attorney General. In this case I may tell my hon. Friend how the matter arose. A charge was made against the management of Saint Paul's School. There were two questions—first of all, whether the facts alleged would justify closing the school. That was an executive matter of discretion which I had to decide, and I decided that the school should be closed. Then there arose the further question, the legal question, whether the circumstances alleged justified and required a criminal prosecution. That was a question left to the Public Prosecutor, to exercise his independent judgment, upon a consideration of all the circumstances, and with all the information which he thought it necessary to have upon the matter. Having made that investigation, he reported to me that he did not consider it a case in which a criminal prosecution should be instituted. That is how the matter arose.
MR. CARINGTON: May I ask if the Public Prosecutor had any communication with Mrs. Surr upon the subject?
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I am unable to give an answer to that Question, as the proceedings of the Public Prosecutor are entirely independent of the Secretary of State.

THE BRITISH NORTH BORNEO COMPANY.
MR. DILLWYN: asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether any arrangements have been made whereby

787
the British North Borneo Company have been, or are to be, supplied with guns or other warlike stores from the Royal arsenals?
MR. CHILDERS: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that in April last the North Borneo Company applied to be allowed to purchase from the War Department some old guns and ammunition. Fifteen old smoothbore howitzers of obsolete pattern, with 50 rounds each, were sold to them after reference to the Foreign Office. The cost is estimated at about £1,000.

IRELAND—CONSOLIDATION OF THE DEPARTMENTS OF VALUATION AND THE LAND COMMISSION.
MR. T. A. DICKSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Her Majesty's Government will take into consideration the desirability of uniting and consolidating the Valuation of Ireland Department with the Irish Land Commission?
MR. W. E. FORSTER, in reply, said, it was a matter in the hands of the Treasury; but there was no proposition to that effect in existence at present.

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—INTERFERENCE OF PEERS IN ELECTIONS— THE NORTH RIDING ELECTION.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he wished to call the attention of the House to a breach of its Privileges. The breach did not seriously affect any individual; but it directly affected the power and position of that Assembly. The case was very simple, and he could compress his statement into a few sentences. On the first day of Parliament the House adopted the following Resolution:—
"That is a high infringement of the liberties and privileges of the Commons of the United Kingdom for any Lord of Parliament, or other Peer or Prelate—not being a Peer of Ireland—to concern himself in the election of Members for the Commons of Parliament.
The Resolution also provided that for any Lord Lieutenant or Governor of any country to influence the election of any Member was a further and greater infraction of their liberties. This Rule was either important, or it was not. If it was unimportant it ought not to be passed. If it was important it ought to be enforced. It had been violated in a
788
recent election in the North of England. The contest took place some weeks ago in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The Marquess of Ripon—who was a large landowner in that Division of the county, who was Lord Lieutenant for the Riding, who was a Lord of Parliament and a great officer of the Crown—telegraphed from India his warm approval of one of the candidates, and his extreme desire to see him elected. He supported that desire in a substantial manner. He gave £1,000, or was reported to have done so, towards the expenses of the contest. Another Lord of Parliament, the Earl of Zetland—also a large landed proprietor in the Division—following the bad example of the Marquess of Ripon, wrote a letter approving of the opposite candidate, and promised to subscribe £1,000 towards his expenses. The language of the Resolution was clear and precise. No Peer of Parliament was allowed to concern himself,—that was, to intermeddle in elections for Members of that House. The infringement of the Rule was equally palpable.
MR. SPEAKER: I understand that the hon. Member raises this question as one of Privilege; but in order to entitle him to Privilege, he should have brought the question forward as a question of urgency at the earliest possible moment, instead of which he has allowed a considerable time to elapse before bringing the matter under the notice of the House, and he has thereby lost his claim to deal with the matter as Privilege.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he appreciated the point upon which the Speaker ruled him out of Order. He knew that, on previous occasions, it had been ruled that the essence of Privilege was its urgency; and he was willing to allow that the Motion, not having been made on the first day of the Session, was removed, to some extent, from that category. But he wished to explain that he was not aware of all the facts when Parliament assembled; and there had been a desire on the part of the House, which he respected, not to have the discussion on the Address interfered with. For these reasons, he had not submitted the matter before. But, the Speaker having now given a decision adverse to him, the only course remaining open was to bring the subject forward as a substantive Resolution. He

789
begged to say that on the first day available he would do this.

PARLIAMENT—RULES AND ORDERS— SUNDAY CLOSING (WALES) ACT.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he wished also to put a Question to Mr. Speaker on a matter of emergency. The House was aware that the hon. and learned Member for Bridport (Mr. War-ton) asked permission to bring in a Bill on Monday, called the Sunday Closing (Wales) Act (1881) Amendment Bill, an amendment to the Welsh Sunday Closing Bill. As the House knew, the hon. and learned Member was not allowed to bring in that Bill. The next day, however, he placed on the Paper a new Notice, in these words—"Mr. Warton. Sunday Closing (Wales).—A Bill to explain the Sunday Closing (Wales) Bill." He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) was under the impression that it was the duty and privilege of the House to initiate legislation by Bill to repeal previous legislation or amend it; but he was not aware that it was the purpose of the House to explain. He thought that was the function of a Court of Law. They repealed when the Courts had explained. He therefore wished to know whether the hon. and learned Member was in Order in asking leave to bring in a Bill which was substantially the same as that which had been refused?
MR. SPEAKER: I am not prepared to say that the Notice which has been given by the hon. and learned Member for Bridport is irregular; but if the Bill he now proposes to introduce is substantially the same as the former Bill upon which his application was refused, it will be irregular to ask leave to introduce such a Bill. But the question whether it is substantially the same or not can only be answered by the hon. and learned Member himself.
MR. WARTONsaid, that the Bill he proposed now to introduce was for objects entirely different from those of the other. On the former occasion, when asked by an hon. Member in the Library what the object of the Bill No. 1 was, he replied that it was to exempt certain places in Wales from the operation of the Sunday Closing Act.
MR. SPEAKER: It is not in accordance with the practice of the House for an hon. Member to recite conversations
790
arising in friendly intercourse with other Members.
MR. WARTONsaid, he was calling the hon. Member's attention to what had occurred, and intimating that the two Bills were for totally different objects. The second Bill was introduced in order to explain the meaning of the Act, which had not been understood by the promoters themselves.
SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, that that was the very point he wanted to know, whether it was in order to bring forward a Bill to explain a legal question? That was not legislation.

HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN—REPORTED ACCIDENT.
MR. WARTONasked whether any Member of the Government could give the House any information respecting the reported carriage accident to the Queen? In the absence of any definite information, the House would like to know whether it was the fact that Her Majesty had been injured or not?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: In reply to the hon. and learned Member for Bridport, I have only to state that neither I nor my Colleagues have received any information of the rumoured accident to Her Majesty, and we have no reason to think that there is the slightest ground for the rumour.

MR. FOTTRELL, LATE SECRETARY TO THE LAND COMMISSION.
MR. GRAYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland a Question of which he had given him private Notice—namely, Whether, in view of the statement he made to the House on the 10th instant with regard to Mr. George Fottrell, late Solicitor to the Land Commission—namely—
"I asked him if he had acted for the Land League, and he replied that he had been engaged in one transaction. If I had been informed that that transaction was the purchase by Messrs. Parnell and Egan and the Member for Longford of United Ireland, I should have made further inquiry before consenting to the appointment—"
he would, having regard to the gravity of that statement, read to the House Mr. Fottrell's letter of the 14th instant, addressed to himself?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am glad the hon. Member has asked the

791
Question, as I intended to ask the House to let me correct a mistake into which I fell with regard to this matter. It was quite true that I stated substantially what is set forth in the hon. Member's Question; but the impression I intended to convey to the House was that the transaction in question was the purchase of the paper which afterwards became United Ireland. It appears that I was mistaken in the statement that the conversation to which I referred in my answer took place between myself and Mr. Fottrell. I will read to the House the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers—
"8, North Great George's Street,
"Dublin, 14th February, 1882.
"Sir,—I beg to acknowledge receipt of a letter from your Secretary, dated 13th instant, in which he informs me that you admit the substantial accuracy of the report given in The Freeman's Journal of the 11th instant of a statement which you made on the preceding night in the House of Commons in reference to me. He further informs me that the question which you stated you put to me, and my reply to it, took place in a conversation between us before my appointment as Solicitor to the Land Commission. I desire to give a respectful but emphatic denial to your statement that any such conversation took place between us. I had no correspondence with you on the subject of my appointment, beyond my formal letter of application, dated 11th August, 1881, of which I now send you a copy. On the day following the date of the letter, I called at the Irish Office to see you; but you had gone over to the House of Commons, and I did not see you. Up to the date of my appointment I had. but two conversations with you, the first of which took place in May, 1881, when I called on you at the Irish Office, to obtain permission, as his friend and solicitor, to visit Mr. John Dillon, M.P., for a couple of hours each week during his confinement in Kilmainham, and the second of which occurred on the 23rd August, 1881, when, at your request, conveyed through Judge O'Hagan, I waited on you in Dublin Castle to learn that the Commissioners had appointed me their Solicitor, and that you had sanctioned the appointment. Neither on that nor any other occasion, before or after my appointment, did you ask me was I connected with the Land League; nor did I ever state to you that I 'had been employed in one transaction' by that body.
"If the matter rested here, I should not have felt called upon to notice your statement, because the accuracy or inaccuracy would have been comparatively unimportant; but, unfortunately, by the closing words of your remarks in the House of Commons, you have conveyed to the public—unintentionally, it may be—an insinuation that my alleged reply was not quite candid—in fact, in replying I told you the truth, but not the whole truth—that I kept back from you the nature of the transactions in which I had been engaged, and that,
792
if I had not done so, your attitude in reference to my application would have been different. Permit me to say the insinuation, if such were intended, is wholly groundless. Although I neither had conversation nor correspondence with you on the subject of the business transaction in which my firm had been professionally engaged for Mr. Parnell and some of his friends, yet, on applying for the Solicitorship of the Land Commission, I took care to mention to Mr. Justice O'Hagan, and to Mr. John Naish, the Law Adviser of Dublin Castle, the fact that I had been engaged, and, moreover, the exact nature of the business in which I had acted. I mentioned it to Mr. Justice O'Hagan, as the Chief of the Commission, in whose hands the appointment was vested, and I mentioned it to Mr. Naish, as being your Law Adviser, and, as such, the person most likely to be consulted by you in reference to my professional character and position. As the statement by which you conveyed to the public a wrong impression of my action was made in the House of Commons, I feel I am entitled to ask you, as a matter of justice, to give the same publicity to my contradiction by reading it in your place in Parliament.—I have the honour to be your obedient servant,
"GEORGE FOTTRELL, JUN."
I may further state that I have been informed by Mr. Naish that he did tell me Mr. Fottrell had been engaged in a commercial transaction on behalf of the Land League. He says he does not remember that Mr. Fottrell told him what the nature of the transaction was, but that if Mr. Fottrell asserted that he did, he quite believed him.
LORD JOHN MANNERS: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to add this document to the existing Correspondence on the subject, because, as I gather from that letter, Mr. Justice O'Hagan was aware of the matter before the appointment was made?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: That being the case, I think I must read part of a letter which I received from Mr. Justice O'Hagan on the 11th instant.
MR. CALLAN: Read the whole of it.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am not obliged to read every word that occurs in the letter. Mr. Justice O'Hagan says—
"As to Mr. Fottrell's relations with the Land League as solicitor before his appointment, I was not aware of his having had any such relations until the appearance of Mr. Pigott's letter to Mr. Egan long subsequent to Mr. Fottrell's appointment. I then spoke to Mr. Fottrell on the subject, and he told me that be had acted for Mr. Parnell in the matter of the purchase of Mr. pigott's newspaper, and on no other occasion. I did not attach much importance to the fact of his having acted on this single occasion, as I conceive that any so-

793
licitor might have done the same; and I have known solicitors of the utmost respectability and most moderate opinions who would not have thought of declining such a piece of business if offered to them."
LORD JOHN MANNERS: I must again ask if the right hon. Gentleman will add these to the Correspondence already published, because, as I understand it, Mr. Justice O'Hagan says one thing and Mr. Fottrell says another—
MR. W. E. FORSTER: There certainly seems to be some difference of opinion between them.
MR. CALLAN: I move that, in consequence of the difference of opinion which exists between Judge O'Hagan and Mr. Fottrell, the Correspondence be laid on the Table.
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am prepared to produce it if it is moved for.
MR. CALLAN: Then I beg to give Notice that to-morrow I will move for its production.
MR. GRAY: I am sorry to trouble the right hon. Gentleman with another Question, of which I have given him private Notice. It is, whether his attention has been called to a public letter of Mr. George Fottrell, dated 14th instant, in which he says, with reference to the fact that he was questioned by the members of the Land Commission as to the authorship of the articles published in The Freeman's Journal, and subsequently re-published in the now celebrated pamphlet—
"I assert that in asking me to divulge the name of the author of the articles which appeared in The Freeman you acted on the instructions of Mr. Forster. I am fully satisfied that of yourselves you never would have stooped to put such a question; and if confirmation of my view was needed, I had it in the pain which was depicted in your faces when you stated to me that you had no option but to put the question."
I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether that is a true statement so far as he was concerned; and, if so, whether the instructions were conveyed to the Land Commission verbally or in writing; and, if in writing, whether he will lay the whole Correspondence on the Table?
MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not think it is necessary to produce the whole Correspondence. What was done with regard to this particular matter was this. At the end of a private letter which I wrote to Judge O'Hagan I added these words—
794
"It is supposed by some persons that Mr. Fottrell wrote the pamphlet. Had you not better ask him whether this was not the case?"

PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—THE NEW RULES OF PROCEDURE.
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, on behalf of the Prime Minister, said, that as there appeared to be no probability of the adjourned debate on the Report of the Address closing at an early hour, the Prime Minister would not move the Resolutions relating to the Procedure of the House that evening. But if, contrary to the expectations of the Government, the debate should be terminated to-night, it was proposed that the House should proceed to the next Government Order of the Day—the second reading of the Rivers Conservancy and Floods Prevention Bill.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLasked whether the noble Marquess could give any explanation as to how it was that the Attorney General for Ireland yesterday afternoon, when the debate on the Report appeared to be closed, deliberately rose and talked the debate out? ["Oh!"]
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, as far as he was informed, there was no appearance of the debate being at an end when the Attorney General for Ireland rose, as several Members had risen along with him.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, it would be convenient to the House if the noble Lord would state whether, in the event of the debate on the Report of the Address finishing to-night, it was the intention of the First Lord of the Treasury to propose the New Rules of Procedure to-morrow?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I think not.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: When will they be brought forward?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: On Monday.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYwished to ask the noble Marquess whether, if the Resolutions as to the Procedure of the House were brought forward on Monday, it was the intention of the Government to continue the discussion upon them de die in diem?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONbelieved that it would not be in the power

795
of the Government to take that course without the consent of the House.
MR. GORSTasked whether, if the 1st Resolution was passed by the House, the Government would apply it to the discussion of the subsequent Resolutions?
THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that, if the 1st Resolution were passed by the House, it would not be in the discretion of the Government to apply it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  THE ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO THE QUEEN'S SPEECH.—REPORT.

    ADJOURNED DEBATE. [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th February], "That the said Address be read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that after the sweeping and general observations that had been made by the noble Lord the Member for the County of Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) against the Sub-Commissioners, he had felt it his duty to make what the noble Lord below the Gangway (Lord Randolph Churchill) would call "a few interlocutory observations" in regard to those Commissioners. The noble Lord opposite (Lord George Hamilton) had attacked these gentlemen for the manner in which they had reduced rents in Ireland. He wished, therefore, in addition to what he had mentioned yesterday, to direct the noble Lord's attention to another public testimony that had been given in regard to the work of these gentlemen. He found that in The Dublin Evening Mail, in reference to another Sub-Commissioner, counsel for the landlord was reported as saying—
    "He desired, before the Court rose, to express, on behalf of himself and his learned friend, their warm thanks to the Commissioners for the firmness and ability with which they had administered the various cases before them."
    This opinion was echoed by the other professional gentlemen present, representing both landlords and tenants. After that testimony, he ventured to say it was a little too much for the noble Lord the
    796
    Member for Middlesex to assert that the Sub-Commissioners knew that the only way in which they could give satisfaction was largely to reduce rents, and that the Land Commission would not dare to reverse the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners. That was a serious charge to make against the Land Commission—a judicial body—and he thought the noble Lord, upon reflection, would regret that he had made it. Having regard to the two judicial bodies, even though one might be looked upon as the Inferior, and the other the Superior Court, what did the complaint amount to? Suppose the rents were reduced, the question was—Were they fairly reduced? The question had been tested by appeal, and the Court of Appeal had affirmed the decision of the Sub-Commissioners. What did that fact establish, but that the rents were properly reduced? There was not a Member of the House on either side who had not avowed that landlords did not want an unfair rent. It was said that all they wanted was "fair rent," and that they would accept a tribunal to establish a fair rent for them. The tribunal had reduced rents, which showed that land in Ireland had been more largely over-rented than many persons had supposed. He himself knew many landlords who had largely under-rented, holding that a landlord acted best when the tenants lived and throve under him. Some landlords rented their tenants heavily, no doubt. The following question was put to a witness before the Richmond Commission:—
    "Can a man be contented in his own mind to find his own exertions are taxed so that he is obliged to take Indian meal and butter-milk instead of having bread and tea?"
    And this was the answer—
    "There is an old saying that 'better manure never went on land than to be well salted with rent.'"
    He could only say, in reference to that statement, that if any landlord was in the habit of putting his tenants into pickle of that kind, the sooner he took them out of it the better. Well, now, the remaining complaint was that the Land Act had not, in four months, wrought the regeneration of the country. How could it? What was the state of the country when the Land Act came into operation? How had it been treated? How had the Land League

    797
    tried to strangle and choke it? To turn round and complain, under such circumstances, that the Act had not instantly brought peace and tranquillity to the country was to make the same complaint that, as the late lamented Lord Hatherley said, the child made when it planted a flower to-day, and pulled it up to-morrow to see whether the roots had grown. They must wait and see whether the prospect of improvement, which, notwithstanding all that had been said in that House, he was happy to say was showing itself in Ireland, would spread, until, at last, he hoped it would succeed in banishing from Ireland disorder and dishonesty. The debate upon that paragraph in the Speech from the Throne and on the Address had proceeded above the Gangway upon the lines distinctly laid down by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition—he meant the Leader of the regular Opposition, and not the Opposition unattached—and had been carefully followed by his right hon. and learned Friends the Members for the University of Dublin. Their complaint was that the Executive in Ireland did not use their powers as speedily or as severely as they should have done; whilst hon. Members below the Gangway complained that the Executive, on the other hand, had been too severe, and had brought about a state of terrorism. Between opinions so opposite as that they might expect to find that the mean was the truth, and it was the mean that had been adopted by the Government.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I am sure I never used the word ''severely," nor, so far as I know, did my right hon. and learned Friends. I said the Act had not been "efficiently" administered.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he accepted the correction; but ''efficiently" meant with a greater amount of energy, and that a greater number of persons should have been put into prison. These words were reported in The Times—and he presumed they were correct—that had 60, 70, or 100 of the leading men, men who were in command of the Land League organization, been arrested at the outset, matters would have been very different. Those figures sounded to him very ominous, and seemed
    798
    as though they represented the whole of Mr. Parnell's Party; but if the Leaders of that Party, if 60 or 70 of the Members behind Mr. Parnell had been arrested, what would the country have said? How would it have been possible, in their absence, to have discussed the remedial measure proposed by Parliament? Would the people of Ireland have been disposed to accept that remedial measure proposed and discussed in the absence of so many of those whom they sent to represent them? It was not the intention of the Government to sweep a drag net over the whole of Ireland. It was the intention of Parliament to arm the Government with the means of repressing violence and intimidation; but not that the Government should cram the gaols with prisoners. Unnecessary severity was not part of the policy of the Liberal Party. There were times which, unhappily, had come to that country of theirs that required the stringent exercise of very strong powers; and, in his opinion, the Government which, armed with those powers, did not use them was not worthy of power. How had they used those powers? At once, in the passing of the Protection of Person and Property Act. The Return for the first month gave 5 cases of suspicion of murder, incitement to murder, and shooting at the person; 8 of intimidation; 8 attacking dwelling-houses; 2 treasonable practices; and 11 of arson, maiming cattle, &c. Thus was the Act applied. But there was another Party below the Gangway to which he had listened with terror. The speech which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock was expected to make was thus spoken of by an Irish newspaper—"He means to go for Mr. Gladstone. The Chief of the Fourth Party"—which seemed to be confined to himself, so that he was general, rank and file, and all—''intends to wipe off a large balance of arrears by as slashing an assault as the Rules of Parliamentary Procedure will allow;" and it wound up further by saying that "Lord Randolph Churchill meant to edge his tomahawk for Ministerial scalps." The noble Lord also considered that Government had not been vigorous enough in sweeping "arrests." When the noble Lord's father was Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, he had the opportunity of studying Irish politics in his noble father's school. He (the

    799
    Attorney General for Ireland) knew not what manner of man was the political Gamaliel at whose feet the noble Lord had sat, and from whose inspiration he learned the salutary mode of administering a Coercion Act. The noble Lord had informed the House that he supposed the Government could not be expected to use the Coercion Act as similar Acts had always been used. "A Coercion Act," said the noble Lord, "was aimed at unscrupulous persons, and, from the necessities of the case, must always be used unscrupulously." The maxim of the Constitution under which they lived was that there should be no criminal so humble, no crime so bad, that the criminal should be treated unscrupulously. And yet they were to be told that they failed in their duty because they had not used the Coercion Act unscrupulously. The greatest praise that could be conferred upon a Government was that it had not used its powers unscrupulously, and would not do so. The censure which came from such a school of politics or thought as that was preferable to praise from the same quarter; and he should be slow to study in a school which set at naught the elements on which the Constitution of the country rested. He did not believe that one right hon. Gentleman who sat opposite would support such a declaration as that of the noble Lord's; and the noble Lord, if he thus made flotsam and jetsam of the traditions of his house, would hardly add to his political reputation. The public would judge which was right between those who charged the Government with doing too much, and those who charged them with not doing enough. But while it was necessary for the Government to have repressive powers, it was necessary, also, that the provisions of the Land Act should be enacted to remedy that which was at the root of the evil. Now, the Land Act had been introduced in April. Was the way to relieve the festering sore of Ireland, was the way to recommend a remedial measure and to administer that measure, to be found in repression? That remedial Act was passed in that House a little before the end of August; and what was the position of the Land League then? The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had asserted that the objects of that Land League were threefold—to stop rack-renting, to stop eviction, and
    800
    to enable the tenants to become purchasers of their farms. But these objects could be lawfully obtained by the Act of Parliament. If the Land League was a loyal and Constitutional organization really established for the purposes named, its plain duty was then to have stood aside and allowed the Act to do its work, and not to attempt to strangle the Land Act before it had had an opportunity of being worked. They had heard a great deal in that House which was hardly reconcilable with language heard outside; and he was not sure but that the defence made for some absent Members would not be rejected with contempt by them. The hon. Member for Sligo had spoken as if the Land League had never committed outrage, as if farms were to be kept vacant by the force of public opinion, and so on. Surely the hon. Member imagined the Members of that House had short memories! What said the hon. Member for Tipperary, whose opinion on such a subject he preferred to the hon. Member for Sligo's? Mr. Dillon, speaking at Templemore, County Tipperary, on the 10th of October, 1880, said—and well had his advice been since pursued—
    "If a landlord evicts any man he will have an idle farm left on his hands. He will have on his hands what I have heard described as a model farm, and that is a farm which no living-thing will go on, to show what the power of the public opinion of the people is."
    MR. SEXTON: Hear, hear!
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The chief organizer of the League, who was, he supposed, a paid agent, speaking on the same day in the same county, used a similar expression—
    "Already a dozen model farms exist in the County Tipperary. They are standing there a living witness that the landlord dare not till the land, and cannot get a living man to strike a spade or plough into it, and he dare not. He is too cowardly to go there and till it himself What has brought about this condition of things? Intelligent organization."
    This was the Constitutional agitation and intelligent organization of the Land League!
    MR. R. POWER: Whose speech is the right hon. and learned Gentleman reading from?
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied, that he was the principal organizer

    801
    of the League. [Cries of "Name!"] His name was Mr. Boyton. Did hon. Gentlemen really forget, or would they repudiate Mr. Boyton? Was he not a paid agent of the Land League? Why, one would think that the memories of hon. Members were gone, that all their misfortunes had disappeared, and all this dreadful glamour which was over the country had been lifted of like a spell—as he hoped it would be at no very distant date. If then, as they were told, the Land League never changed, its origin was outrage, and its mode of working was outrage, which it had been careful to maintain to the present day. The hon. Member for Sligo, forsooth, said it existed by the soundness of its principles, the laudable and necessary nature of its objects, and the just character of the means it employed. ''Oh, Shame! where is thy blush?" It was not only that the original constitution of this organization; which had been styled by those who were responsible for advising his Excellency to issue his proclamation of October 20th, "an unlawful and criminal conspiracy"—it was not only for the organization to work thus from the beginning; but the ordinary means were not sufficient, and it would not do to have newspapers "running with the hare and hunting with the hounds." Something that was stronger was necessary. Therefore, United Ireland—this pet organ in which the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) took such a special interest, and in the promotion of which he took such zealous care—was started in August—just before the House rose—on the 13th of August—and he begged to call the attention of the House to this organ of "constitutional agitation and intelligent organization!" The issue of that date contained the following statements by way of a published letter—the promoters of that journal had an ingenious way of conveying information, under cover of collecting news of public interest, which was of the most odious and atrocious character, and which struck at the root of all morals and of all law. Here were its words:—
    "O'Donovan Rossa's warning to Irish landlords. The following, by O'Donovan Rossa, appeared in a recent issue of his paper:—' Irish landlords, we have a few words to say to you... It has been determined on by the scattered Clan na Gael to give you warning that henceforward a record will be kept of every
    802
    landlord who exercises the power of eviction in Ireland, and for every such death sentence executed on a tenant a death sentence will be executed by the Irish race against the murderer's house, and the Irish race all the world over will give encouragement to the avenging angel.'"
    Then followed a request to be furnished with the names and residences of the landlords evicting after August, 1881. Was there ever a more direct incitement to murder? It would interest the House to know something about that journal. United Ireland was published by the Irish National Newspaper and Publishing Company (Limited), which was the first instance, he believed, of a company being established in this country for the dissemination of sedition and treason. The shares were issued at £10, and were taken up, among others, by the following gentlemen:—Mr. Parnell 237 shares, Mr. Egan 237, Dr. Kenny 10, Mr. Biggar 10; and then followed some other persons, who, though they might have been on "pleasure bent," yet still possessed "a frugal mind"—they only had two shares apiece. Treason and sedition made cheap; treason and sedition wholesale for £20! Landlords shot and their assassins protected and started in business in any part of the world! Parliament rose, as he had said, at the end of August, and accordingly on September 15th the position obviously of such hon. Members and gentlemen as were at the head of this institution, finding it paid and flourished, had to be re-considered. They sent recognized agents through the country, whose object was to spread sedition and to set Her Majesty's subjects against each other as much as they could. That was what they called promoting peace and happiness. Their game was desperate, and the position must be faced. What did the Land League desire? Was it that the supremacy of the law should be established and the authority of the Queen recognized? Nothing of the kind. That was the last thing the Land League wanted. The agitation proved to be a paying one. Money flowed in freely from America, but something was expected in return. At the Dublin Convention on the 15th September messages were read from the brethren in America, couched in terms like these—"Reject the Land Bill, pay no rent, hold the harvest." Then came

    803
    a touch of business. The American sympathizers liked to have some music for their money. They did not believe in sending over their money and getting nothing for it. As had been said in that House before—"Those who pay the piper have a right to call the tune." The Parnell Land League of Albany sent a telegram, which was very short, to this effect—"Strict adherence to the Land League principles, or no more help from here;" while the President of the State Land League of Iowa significantly telegraphs—"One step backward and no more money." All of which provoked laughter and applause. Money was all that was wanted. What did it matter if the country was wrecked and the people left to perish, if wholesale ruin was spread from one end of the country to the other, provided only these Land League agitators could get money? He would pass over the 1st resolution. [Cries of "Read!"] Well, it ran thus—
    "That this National Convention, assembled by the will of the people of Ireland, and acting in their name, declares that the political and social evils which afflict and impoverish our country are to he found in the detestable system of alien rule so injurious and oppressive to our people."
    ["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members.] That was a matter of opinion. If they had theirs, he had his; and the sentiment of the resolution, it seemed to him, was something like treason. The next point was this—it was necessary to strangle the Land Act in order to keep up the land agitation and the consequent flow of money from America. The action of the Land League was intended not to facilitate, but to obstruct the working of the Land Act. Test cases were to be submitted, which he ventured to say he would prove before he sat down were not entitled to anything approaching the explanation given by the hon. Member for Sligo. These test cases were designed not to give further facilities to the working of the Land Act, as the hon. Member would have them believe; and therefore it was, as he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had ventured an opinion, that those whom the hon. Member for Sligo was defending, if they had been in the House, would have laughed with contempt at such a defence being put forward in their behalf. The tenant farmers were directed by the Land League not to go
    804
    into the Land Court as individuals to obtain relief from their particular grievances, but to wait until test cases had been brought before that Court; and the House would be satisfied that in the meantime the outrages were to continue. The object of this course of procedure was fully explained by Mr. Parnell at what was called the Queen's County Convention—nothing was to be done that would show that the Land League was not the supreme power in Ireland. The effect of the action of the Land League was that the Queen's subjects were not to be allowed to avail themselves of the provisions of an Act which Parliament had passed for the redress of their grievances. It was declared that no tenant farmer should go into Court without the consent of the local branch of the Land League—and what were the local branches of the Land League to do? They were to select test cases of an average character in which the rents were neither too high nor too low—that was to say, cases in which the rent was a fair one and would not be disturbed. The object of this direction was to prevent Her Majesty's subjects from resorting to the Queen's Courts without sanction of the Land League. Such a direction as that was fraught with treason. It was asserted by the Land League that the object of the direction was to insure a low standard of rents, because it was said that the Court would be anxious at the outset to establish a claim to national confidence by lowering the rents in all cases brought before it, and to win the hearts of the tenants from ''the ranks of the Land League and from the paths of agitation." If, on the other hand, the Court did not reduce these fair rents to a very low standard, Mr. Parnell would then be able to point to the uselessness of the Act. Then came Mr. Parnell's triumphal entry into the City of Dublin on a Sunday night, which on the occasion was given up to riot. ["No, no!"] The City was on that occasion given over to riot and to the plunder of property, for which Mr. Chancellor, silversmith, he thought, had to be compensated.
    MR. SEXTON: That was more than three weeks after Mr. Parnell's entry. It was after we had all been arrested.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Three weeks after! Well, but it was

    805
    at the instance of the Land League. [Cries of "No!" and "Shame!"] He maintained that the language used at the great torchlight meeting was treasonable. At that meeting the hon. Member for Sligo used the memorable language, which he had in the House endeavoured to explain away—
    "To-night Ireland has broken loose from the Lion and the Unicorn, and has arrayed herself in all the irresistible majesty of the people, under the Shamrock and the Harp."
    The hon. Member would have the House believe that he was thinking only of the slavish tradesmen who furnished the Castle, and that he was not thinking of the emblem of the Sovereignty of the Queen as contra-distinguished from the "majesty of the people; "and that he was not, in short, actually inciting an excited mob to believe they had entered on the paths of revolution. To call that a jocular description of a torchlight meeting was uncommonly like what Bottom said—''I will aggravate my voice, so that I will roar you as gently as any sucking dove." That might be in the House of Commons, but it was not exactly the way the Lion roared outside in the City of Dublin. If the explanations that hon. Members had thought fit to offer of the speeches delivered on that occasion were to be accepted, assassination and mutilation would come to be regarded as mere practical jokes—such as had been described the blowing up of the barracks at Salford, or as some seemed to treat the explosive letter sent to the Chief Secretary, which might have blown off the hands or blown out the eyes of the person who opened it. Mr. Parnell was presented on that occasion with an address, which ended—"We ask you to lead us to that glorious consummation, the dream of Tone, Emmett, and Fitzgerald—National Independence;" and Mr. Parnell replied accordingly—
    "A spirit that is shown in every quarter and corner of Ireland. That spirit, fellow-countrymen, will never die till it carries the alien rule which has kept our countrymen impoverished and in chains, and sweeps that detested rule, with its buckshot and bayonets, clean over the Channel, whence it came, never to return."
    What was that but rank treason? ["Hear, hear!" from the Home Rule Members.] Then hon. Members below the Gangway opposite admitted that such language was rank treason? ["Hear, hear!" from the Home Rule Members.]
    806
    Then he was not going too far when he put that construction upon it. ["Hear, hear!"] At length the Leaders of this "constitutional agitation" were obliged to throw off the mask and make plain what it really was—a revolutionary and insurrectionary agitation. On 2nd October, Mr. Parnell and Father Sheehy attended a meeting in Cork, and Mr. Parnell remarked that—
    "If they refused to allow the ranks of their organization to be broken, nothing could resist their power."
    And then, forsooth, added, with his tongue in his cheek and a wink in his eye—
    "You will convince our Rulers that it is an absolute necessity for them, if they wish to maintain the link of the Crown, that the link of the Crown shall be the only link between the two countries."
    What was the gloss put upon those words by Father Sheehy? He said—
    "A national idea is becoming a prominent one. It is no longer so much' Down with landlordism' as 'Down with the English rule in Ireland.'"
    Father Sheehy went on to say ''Your 100,000 fighting men," when a voice in the crowd, amid cheers, prevented the speaker from concluding the sentence, and shouted out—"Aye, and ready at a moment's warning." What could be meant by that but insurrection? And yet they were told that there was no ground for imputing to Mr. Parnell treasonable practices. Mr. Parnell in his speech proceeded to give his hearers some moral instruction, after having given them the revolutionary instruction which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) called constitutional agitation and constitutional organization. All this was in the newspapers: it was the pabulum which the people fed upon. Mr. Parnell said—
    "I am bound to warn you that the tenant-farmer who pays a single penny of arrears to any landlord pending the decision of the test cases which we propose to take before the new Land Commission is a fool."
    What security would there be in Ireland for a man who was thus branded by Mr. Parnell as a fool? It was a repetition of "Don't nail his ear to the pump." Mr. Parnell continued—
    "Nay, more, and I do not wish to give you any advice in a matter which must depend to a great extent on the peculiar circumstances incident to each locality; but if I were a tenant

    807
    farmer I should be very much indisposed, pending the decision of these test cases, to pay any rent whatever to my landlord, and certainly not any rent the payment of which would prevent me from paying my debts to the shopkeeper, from paying good and just wages to the labourers in my employment, and from fulfilling any obligations as a member of society to those dependent upon me, and also to the institutions generally of the country."
    The "institution of the country," in Mr. Parnell's vocabulary, was the Land League, and the "obligation" was to subscribe to it and obey it. Then followed the memorable statement of what he considered a fair rent—
    "I would measure the original value of the rental of Ireland before it was improved by the tenant at about £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 sterling, not more."
    Mark that "not more." The hon. Member for Sligo told them that by that Mr. Parnell did not mean to strike the rent of Ireland down to £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year, but to leave a margin between £17,000,000 a-year and £2,000,000 or £3,000,000 a-year as the basis for arrangement. But what was the meaning of "not more?" For his own part, he believed more in the text of the speech than the gloss which had been put upon it. The "no rent" doctrine had been preached pretty well up to that time, and the insurrectionary doctrine had been kept hand in hand with it; but then it became necessary to go a step further, as the people who paid the piper wanted more music for their money. The statement that the Land League was supreme in Ireland was rapidly passing through the country. In course of time it reached Waterford, and the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) plainly announced what the hon. Member for Sligo had plainly endorsed, that all England was lamenting the fact that there were two Governments in Ireland,—"the Government of Mr. Gladstone," which was an euphemism for the Government of the Queen, "which nobody minds, and the Government of Mr. Parnell and the Land League." During the whole of this time United Ireland was continuing its publication. On the 17th of September, that journal said that—
    "The plan of the campaign was in the hands of the Land League, and that whoever moved without their order was a deserter. Whoever thwarts them by individual action is an enemy."
    What security was there in Ireland for a
    808
    tenant who was branded as a deserter and enemy by the Land League? And then it proceeded—
    "Impoverished landlordism; manacle it in the Land Courts if it be possible, or if not, or whether or not, hunt it down steadily, patiently, remorselessly to the death."
    On the 24th of September that newspaper published a leader which stated that the Act of Parliament had been displaced by the Convention, and that it was clear that the Sovereignty had passed from the Queen and had been assumed by the Land League. We were told that—
    "The Convention has thrust Mr. Gladstone's Act aside, and the cortége moves on. That is the brief summary of the decrees of the Convention. The vital point, as we pointed out last week, was the supremacy of the Land League; that established, the doom of landlordism was sealed," &c.
    "By a clear commission from the nation the Land League resumes its sovereignty and its purpose. If the Land Courts do its bidding, well; if they refuse to do its bidding, better still; if they falter (as is exceeding likely they will), the Land League are armed with the most ample authority to take the work out of their hands and do it by swifter and sharper methods."
    He would give illustrations of these methods. Mr. Parnell's speech in Cork was on 2nd October. On the 4th October, in Cork County, East Riding, a young man, 22 years of age, was fired at by a party of men, and warned not to pay his rent; he died next evening. On the 7th of October, in Cork County, West Hiding, an incident occurred which showed that this language was not spoken in vain. A party of men, numbering not less than eight, visited the house of a farmer named Gosnell. Being repeatedly refused admission, a shot was fired through the door, the charge passing through in one mass, like a bullet, so close was the muzzle of the weapon to the door. A second shot was fired. What was his offence? Gosnell and one other tenant were the only two tenants on the property who had paid their rent; he had also refused to subscribe to the Land League. Of course it would be said that the Land League had nothing to do with these cases. But who defended the ''Captain Moonlight" cases at Cork Winter Assizes? It was sworn at the trial that the Land League was connected with these outrages. The defence was rumoured, at all events, to have been carried on by the Land League. Where did the 100

    809
    guineas for counsel come from? Who paid the original retainer and the refreshers from day to day? That question was put several days since in the House, and had never been answered. Those fees were not paid from subscriptions. The question, then, was how far that policy had succeeded. Somebody had been foolish enough to state at the Chicago Convention, as it was called, that Mr. Patrick Egan estimated the rent unpaid pursuant to the "no rent" manifesto as $100,00,000. But that amount seemed paltry to the American supporters of the League, and in The Freeman's Journal of December 7 appeared a statement from Mr. Egan that the correct amount of his estimate was £10,000,000. Mr. Parnell, two days after his speech in Cork, told the tenants at Waterford that if they were dissatisfied with the prospect before them as regarded an application to the Land Court, they ought to stand by the organization and "endeavour to get their rents reduced as they were doing at the present time." Mr. Parnell put the matter quite plainly. The Land League had pointed to swifter and sharper means, and Mr. Parnell said to the tenants—"If you can gain nothing from the Court, get your rents reduced as you are at present." And that he called "a reasonable, right, and just programme." He (the Attorney General for Ireland) had shown how that was to be done on Land League principles. Then, at the meeting in the Rotunda in Dublin on the 12th of October, the day before Mr. Parnell's arrest, one of the speakers ventured to say that the tenant would have a right to go to the Land Court to ascertain whether his rack rent would be reduced. It was bad enough that the Court should be spoken of in that way, as though their decisions, if unwelcome to the tenant, were not to be respected. But what followed was worse, for Mr. Patrick Egan rose to a point of order, and this was it—"They would not be justified in testing the Land Act without the consent of the Land League;" and the chairman, who was none other than Mr. Dillon, at once said—
    "As the point has been raised, I think I should give my ruling upon it at once. In the new rules of the Land League there is a rule directing that the Land Act is not to he tested without the consent of the League."
    That was to say, a man was not to have
    810
    liberty even to apply to the Queen's Courts without the permission of this Land League. They need not tell him that all this was not treason. Mr. Parnell himself was at this time steeped in treason to the lips. There was an obvious attempt on the part of Mr. Parnell and the Land League to subvert the supremacy of the Queen, and, using a legal expression, to levy war against her. Mr. Parnell was accordingly arrested. They must not imagine there was any desire on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to shift the responsibility to the great Officers of the State. The Law Officers, when asked for their opinion, had no hesitation in giving it, and there was quite enough to sustain that opinion in point of law. All this time United Ireland was going on. A letter was inserted in it, signed "Gerald Griffin," expressing surprise at finding prayers for the Queen in Catholic prayer-books. It was plain that Mr. Griffin had not been regular in the performance of his duty, for he would have known that the Sovereign was always prayed for as such in Catholic churches. As long as revolutionary projects were not abroad, there seemed to be no objection to praying for the powers that be; but when the traitor was going through the country sowing disorganization, such prayers were looked upon with horrified disgust. A leading article in this newspaper of the 8th of October contained the following in a leading article:—"The English are surprised to find that there is something behind the Land agitation." The hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had confessed that they had ulterior purposes. The article continued thus—
    "They know all about us and how to rule us; but they do not know what any Irish child could teach them. The first lullaby that is sung over an Irish cradle is a 'treason-song,' as the first dream of Irish manhood is to act that 'treason-song' out, should the curtain even fall on a scaffold or on a field of death. This 'treason-song' is treason no longer, unless it is a treasonable doctrine that the people have a sovereign right to be ruled as they like in their own land; but, treason or not, it shall be sung and acted; it shall fire our hearts, and, if need be, it shall command our blood."
    Was there not sufficient upon which to arrest Mr. Parnell? Notwithstanding all this, they were told by the hon. Member for Sligo that there was no explanation of the cause for assigning

    811
    treasonable practices for the arrest of Mr. Parnell. He thought the quotations he had read to the House were sufficient to dispose of the excuses of the hon. Members for Sligo and County Carlow (Messrs. Sexton and Gray) as to Mr. Parnell's object in testing the Act. The hon. Member for County Carlow (Mr Gray) had complained that the persons who were detained in prison would not have been liable to as much punishment if they had been convicted of the crimes of which they were suspected. Now, the penalties for the different offences were as follows:—For treason, death; for treason-felony, penal servitude for life; for intimidation, penal servitude for life; inciting to intimidation was a misdemeanour punishable with two years' imprisonment and fine—both or either. What, then, was the meaning of saying that the punishment under the Protection Act was excessive? [Mr. SEXTON: Under the Whiteboy Act.] Great Heavens! was he to be told that the man who shot a farmer by the fireside must not be indicted under the White-boy Act? Criminals like these were not to be handled with kid gloves, but were to be hunted down by every resource of the law; and while he had the honour of being Public Prosecutor in Ireland he would see that no part of the law was abandoned. Law and order were at stake, and the credit of the country was in question, and he appealed to all loyal subjects to aid in the maintenance of order. When that was done they could fight out their Party battles on Party grounds. The hon. Member for Sligo was under a misapprehension, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) thought, as to the treatment to which he had been subjected in Kilmainham. The hon. Member said he was ordered seven days' solitary confinement for signing the "no rent" manifesto, and that when two hon. Members who were confined with him came to see him and one left, the other was ordered to leave also by the warder. Those charges were so grave that his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary considered it right that there should be an explanation. In justice to Captain Barlow, a member of the Prison Board, he would ask leave to read the letter which he had received from him in answer to the inquiries that had been made. The letter was dated the 15th of February, 1882, and ran as follows:—
    812
    "As directed, I have the honour to report, with reference to the extract from the speech of Mr. Sexton, M.P., as follows:—Mr. Sexton was not ordered seven days' solitary confinement, or confinement of any kind or any period."
    MR. SEXTON: I suffered it, anyhow.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the letter proceeded thus—
    "I saw Mr. Sexton on the day of his release. He made no complaint to me whatever as to any pain suffered or indignity endured, nor did he make any such complaints at any time to the prison officials. I was almost daily in the prison during his detention, and he never asked to see me, nor made any complaint. The circumstances of Mr. Sexton's case are these:—On the 14th of October, 1881, he was received into Kilmainham; he was, owing to illness, confined to bed, and on the 18th of October a male nurse was provided for him by Dr. Kenny. This nurse remained until his release on the 1st of November; therefore he was never alone, night or day. On the 19th of October I inquired as to the signing of the 'no rent' manifesto. I questioned Messrs. Dillon, Parnell, Kelly, and Brennan, and stopped their visits for some days each. Mr. Sexton being ill, I did not deal with his case directly or indirectly. Having heard that Mr. Sexton was threatened with typhoid fever, I directed that other prisoners should not visit him. This order I after a time rescinded; but it was not given in any sense as a punishment. So far as I can judge, Mr. Sexton was treated with every kindness and consideration, consistent with the rules of the P.P. prisons."
    The letter was signed by Captain Barlow. He would ask the House to judge between those two statements, and he would leave the issue to them with perfect confidence. Again, on the 17th of October, a great meeting was held at the Rotunda; that was shortly after the arrest of Mr. Parnell. The hon. Member for County Carlow (Mr. Gray) wished to address an excited audience from one of the windows; but he was not allowed to do so. Any peace officer who had allowed such a proceeding under the circumstances would undoubtedly have committed a breach of duty. The hon. Member for the Borough of Carlow (Mr. Dawson), too, had stated that he wished to address his constituents, but that he was told by an insolent sub-inspector that he might do so provided he did not say anything against Mr. Gladstone. On hearing that statement made in the House he had telegraphed to the sub-inspector, and this was his reply—
    "No such conversation as that stated in your telegram occurred between Mr. Dawson and myself."
    MR. LEAMY: The hon. Member did not say that there was any conversation.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)The telegram continued—
    "I sent word to him that he would not be permitted to hold a Land League meeting, nor to address the mob on the subject, as I had received information that that was his intention."
    MR. MACFARLANEthought that the matter was capable of a very simple explanation. ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member proposes to make an explanation he will have an opportunity of doing so at the end of the present address.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that on the occasion to which the hon. Member for County Carlow (Mr. Gray) had referred the mob had actually grown to such proportions in the principal streets of Dublin that there was no safe passage for Her Majesty's subjects. He remembered it being stated that the crowd at that time, when the windows of The Evening Mail wore smashed and other damage done, was led by a respectable man who was respectably dressed. Tradesmen and others who ought to have known better than to take part in such riots were convicted before the Dublin magistrates. The state of Dublin was, in fact, such that the police were in actual peril, and had to go about in bodies to secure their personal safety. One mounted policeman, who was ordered to take a message to the Phoenix Park, had to gallop for his life, pursued by a mob who stoned him. Had his horse stumbled his life would certainly have been taken. From these instances the House could judge what sort of an audience it was that the hon. Member for County Carlow (Mr. Gray) was prohibited from addressing. The hon. Member also complained that Crown officials, against whom Coroners' juries had returned verdicts, were not prosecuted, though all other persons against whom such verdicts were returned were prosecuted immediately. Since, however, his accession to the Office which he now held, no one had been prosecuted on the verdict of a Coroner's jury. In the time of his distinguished Predecessor, now Lord Chancellor of Ireland, proceedings were taken against a constable upon the evidence disclosed in the depositions taken before a Coroner;
    814
    but the Grand Jury threw out the bill. He had himself recently obtained conditional orders to quash an inquisition against a police officer at Ballygarret. Why? Because during the inquest the jury acted as complete partizans, and would not listen to the witnesses for the defence. The jurors had themselves instructed the counsel and solicitor for the next of kin. They left the Court while evidence was being given, and smoked up and down the street, and the Coroner and his son remained with the jury while resolving on their verdict. There was another case in which he had obtained a conditional order to quash a Coroner's inquisition. A police officer in King's County, suffering from a cold, applied to his head constable for a car to go home to be nursed. The head constable said he could not give him a car, and that he must wait till morning. The doctor also told him that if he must go he ought to drive in a covered car. No such car being at hand, the constable got a lift from a friend in an open car. On arriving home he became worse, and died the next night, and the Coroner's jury brought a verdict of wilful murder against the head constable. A third case was at Belmullet, which he should consider very gravely. But whether it was a Crown official who was concerned through over-zeal in the maintenance of order, or whether it was an ordinary subject, he would not shrink from the performance of his duty, when he was satisfied that it was his duty to act. [Laughter.] He would do this, notwithstanding all the jeers that might come from any part of the House of Commons.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say whether it was at Ballygarret that the witnesses for the prisoners were arrested as "suspects?"
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had no information as to that. He confined himself to his own business, and found it quite sufficient. Among those who had been impeached by the hon. Member for the County of Carlow (Mr. Gray) was Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That gentleman, whose acquaintance he had made during the Recess, was by no means open to the attacks to which he had been so repeatedly subjected. Mr. Clif-

    815
    ford Lloyd had been assailed for his action in the case of Mrs. Moroney. On the 14th January, at the late Winter Assizes in Cork, several persons were indicted for riot and offences connected with inciting Mrs. Moroney's tenants not to pay rent. The defendants pleaded "Guilty," and were leniently dealt with, being only required to come up for judgment should they be called upon to do so. Well, on January 24, only 10 days after this merciful treatment, a poor old man, Mrs. Moroney's servant or herd, John Lennam, 77 years of age, was shot through the body when sitting at his kitchen fire, the bullet having been discharged through the window. The cause assigned for this outrage was that he was faithful to the mistress whom for years he had served, and remained in her employment after having been warned to leave her some months before. Mrs. Moroney had previously met some of her tenants, and offered them a reduction of 25 per cent in their rents, with which, forsooth, they were not satisfied. Well, under such circumstances as these, could it be maintained that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not justified in asking the shopkeepers who had "Boycotted" Mrs. Moroney whether they intended to intimidate her any further? Mr. Lloyd, he held, would have been false to his obligations as a conservator of the peace if he had refrained from taking the steps which he had taken. What was there in store for the peaceful inhabitants of Ireland in this conspiracy, which was strangling the law and destroying the tranquillity of the country? What was there to be hoped for if the supremacy of the law was not to be established, or the authority of the Queen asserted? The country did exhibit some signs of improvement, "The cloud had turned its silver lining to the night" at last, and he hoped the gloom they had seen so long was beginning to depart. In every part of Ireland obligations were being fulfilled, the tenantry were rising superior to the inducements of cupidity and the terror of intimidation. The noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) appeared to think that there were only two places in Ireland—namely, Dublin and Cork—where Winter Assizes were held. There were four Winter Assizes in Ireland, and the result of each was satisfactory. His hon.
    816
    Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Daly) stated that after the names of men were drawn as jurors from the ballot-box they were objected to and thrown aside simply because they were Catholics, or men of national and patriotic sentiments; while the first Protestant who presented himself was told to go into the jury-box. He would show how unfounded such statements were. It was common history, unfortunately, that in 1880 the jury system broke down in Ireland. In cases of agrarian character the juries failed to agree in the plainest possible cases. The Winter Assizes of 1880 also failed alike all through Ireland. Trial by jury was itself on trial, and he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had resolved it should have a fair trial so far as he was concerned. It was the duty of the Crown Solicitors to take care that proper persons were empanelled as jurors. They were bound by their instructions to order every person to stand aside who was a publican, or a person who, by being likely to be influenced by fear, or favour to the accused, or other improper motive, was unable to give an impartial verdict. That rule, he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had required the Crown Solicitors throughout Ireland carefully to observe, and they had done so. He must say those who represented the Crown, Counsel and Solicitors alike, had acquitted themselves as their duty demanded, and as courageous men ought to have done. They exercised the rights and privileges of the Crown, and were bound by their duty to do so fearlessly. The hon. Member for the City of Cork said that Catholics were not permitted to serve upon juries. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) had before him the particulars with reference to the composition of some 40 or 50 juries. In the first case, the jury consisted of four Protestants and eight Catholics. In the next case, there were eight Protestants and four Catholics. In the next case, there were four Protestants and eight Catholics. In the next, four Protestants and eight Catholics. In the next, one Protestant and 11 Catholics. In the next, seven Protestants and five Catholics, and so on. Nearly all the cases at the Winter Assizes were agrarian crimes. What was the complaint of the persons who had not been allowed to serve on juries? Here was the complaint of one of them.

    817
    But, before he read the statement of that man, he would observe that if he had known that a gentleman with his sentiments was allowed by the Crown official to serve on a jury, he would instantly have brought that official to account—he would have required a complete explanation of his conduct; and if such explanation were not made he would have known what course to take. These were this gentleman's sentiments. A meeting was called of discontented jurors, in Cork, who were not allowed to serve. They were in all, he thought, 16 or 18. They passed a resolution, and intrusted it to his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork to bring before the House—who, he supposed, thought it was better not to have the matter inquired into. This juror said—
    "He was determined that he never would agree with robbery, even if it were legalized robbery, while he was sworn to be true, just, and honest. He was aware it was said that justice was one thing and law another; and he firmly believed that (and the other jurors called out 'hear, hear!'); he knew it was said that 75 per cent of British law in Ireland was unjust ('hear!'); that wherever he felt the law was unjust, while he was sworn to be true and just, he could only conscientiously say what he believed to be true and just."
    "Hear, hear!" exclaimed the rest of these jurors. So a juror was to be a man who should decide against the law because his notion of moral sense satisfied him that he was right and the law was wrong. A Crown official would have betrayed his duty if he had allowed a man with such sentiments to serve on a jury. About the 11 Catholics who, it was said, had been directed to stand by he had asked for particulars; but, he was sorry to say, he was not able to give to the House particular information. The Crown Solicitor was unable to identify any such case. The Crown Solicitor also, in his Report on the subject, said—"No man was set aside on account of his religion or his politics." Now, that was a complete vindication of trial by jury at these Winter Assizes. The Attorney General for Ireland of the late Government had referred to the difficulty of dealing with the Ladies' Land League; and if the right hon. and learned Gentleman's tact and resolution would scarcely enable him to cope with it, it would require a great deal more than he (the Attorney General for Ireland) possessed to deal with it. A
    818
    complaint had been made that some of the "lady Land Leaguers," as they were called, had been imprisoned. He must admit that he could see no distinction between crime in petticoats and crime in trousers. Crime was crime, wherever and by whomsoever committed. One illustration of the result of their efforts occurred in the South of Ireland, where the tenants were on fair terms with their landlord, but owing to the incitement they received from the Ladies' Land League, their landlord was obliged to obtain judgments and issue writs for possession. The writs had to be executed by the sheriff, and the sheriff required to be protected by a military and civil force. He should have thought that the last persons to aid in the incitement to crime would have been women. He could understand woman's mission to tend the sick and relieve the poor, the wounded, and the suffering; but he could not understand her plunging into political turmoil for the sake of amusement. One Hannah Reynolds, hearing that proceedings were about to be taken against some tenants at Bantry, went down there from Dublin. The sheriff succeeded in reaching the first house where the first writ was to be executed; it was executed; an arrangement was made, and the man was restored to his holding, and there was peace and quietness; but this person, managing to reach the other houses before the sheriff, persuaded the tenants to resist. She called on them—"Pay no rent; we will make you right about the land," a threat the magistrates well understood. She was brought before the magistrate, who required her to find sureties for her good behaviour, or be committed to prison in default. She would not be well-behaved; she would not enter into sureties; she went to prison, and applied to the Court of Queen's Bench, who decided that the magistrate was quite right, and that she was engaged in an illegal course of conduct, and that there was good ground for endeavouring to restrain the continuance of her acts. Could anyone say that she had not gone down to Bantry deliberately to set everyone by the ears? Another of these "angels of mercy," borne on the wings of popular enthusiasm, by name Bridget M'Cormack, arrived in the County Clare. She was charged with being a member of

    819
    the Ladies' Land League in Dublin, and going about the district in the interests of the League—that was, the ordinary Land League. She was ordered by Mr. Clifford Lloyd to give bail for her good behaviour, or be imprisoned for three months. A clergyman present in Court advised her to say that she came for charitable purposes; but she stood to her guns—a good deal more like trousers than petticoats—and had the courage to avow that she was travelling in the interests of the Land League. She might have obtained bail, but would not do so, and went to gaol. In her case, also, an application to the Court of Queen's Bench was unsuccessful. That Court saw no difference between the "Ladies' Land League," as it was called, and the Men's Land League. These females flew through the country, spreading dissension and plying their unlawful practices. They were, in fact, the Land League. He would read one of the placards which these "angels of mercy" of this Red Cross Society of Trouble distributed throughout Ireland. Wherever they went they smuggled, these placards with them, and secretly spread them everywhere thick as snowflakes. It began—
    "To the people of Ireland. The Government of England has declared war against the Irish people—the organization that protected them against the ravages of landlordism has been declared unlawful and criminal. A reign of terror has commenced. Meet the action of the English Government with a determined passive resistance."
    For "passive resistance" read between the lines, as the result showed, "some active demonstration;" the "swifter and sharper" meant "powder and ball." The document continued—
    "The 'no rent' banner has been raised, and it remains for the people to prove themselves dastards or men."
    Then, in large letters, were the words "Pay no rent." It did not say anything about the time being limited. It was plain, short, and simple. Then it continued—
    "Avoid the Land Courts. Such is the programme now before the country—adopt it. It will lead you to a free land and happy homes; reject it, and slavery and degradation will be your portion. Pay no rent; the person who does should be visited with the severest sentence of social ostracism. Avoid the Land Court. Cast out the person who enters it as a rank enemy to his country and to his fellow-men. 'Hold the harvest' is the watchword. To do this effectually, you should, as far as possible,
    820
    turn it into money. Sell your stock when such a course will not entail loss. Make a friendly arrangement with your creditors about your interest in your farms. A short, sharp struggle now; no rent. Your brethren in America"—
    Yes; send round the hat. "Your brethren in America have risen to the crisis"—£20,000, the hon. Member for Sligo stated the previous day, was the measure of the amount for the month—
    "and are ready to supply you with unlimited funds provided you maintain your attitude of passive resistance and pay no rent."
    He would ask the House, or any independent Member, wherever he might sit, whether conduct of the kind he had mentioned, or the distribution of documents such as that, was woman's mission?—for that was what they were engaged upon under the colour of charity. It was enough to freeze the very heart of charity. His belief was that the Land League was now working entirely through this Ladies' Land League. He believed that they were working at the instance of the Land League, and that the men, who were afraid to go in the van, were sheltering under the petticoats. ["No, no!"] Yes; he asserted it was so. [Mr. SEXTON: Not a bit afraid.] Well, all he could say was that if the hon. Member repeated out of the House what he said in it, he should consider it his duty to see whether he could not make him afraid. He believed that the men, who were afraid themselves to do the work, induced these women to do it for them. It was neither manly, nor brave, nor gallant of the men to pursuade women to act in this manner. But it was quite akin to the usual teaching of the Land League. At the Winter Assizes at Cork it was proved that some bailiffs were stripped naked by women and hunted for miles. If there was one thing in Ireland they were proud of it was the virtue and modesty of their women; but, under the teaching of the League, women were put forward by the men to tear from the bailiffs their last rag of clothing. He had lived all his life in Ireland, and he knew her people pretty well, and he had never heard of anything like this before. No man in Ireland who remembered her people in years gone by would any longer recognize them. They had become entirely demoralized. Their virtue had been sapped; the vilest motives had been put before them; the

    821
    very duties which religion inculcated had been swept away from them; and this had all been carried out by an unlawful and criminal conspiracy, which had ripened into an insurrectionary and revolutionary movement, in which it had become a struggle between the Queen's Government and the irresponsible government of the Land League. The law must be obeyed—let there be no doubt about this—and, as far as he was concerned, it should be; order must be preserved, the Queen's authority must be asserted, the supremacy of the law must be vindicated, and the people in Ireland must understand that, at all hazards, the integrity of Her Majesty's Dominions must and should be maintained.
    MR. MACFARLANEremarked, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had misrepresented the hon. Member for the Borough of Carlow with reference to the interview with the police officer.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would inquire further into the matter.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he thought the House was greatly to be sympathized with because of the fact that the debate was not allowed to close after the speech delivered from their Benches on Tuesday evening. So far from throwing any new light on the subject, the speech to which they had just listened merely emphasized the misrepresentations contained in previous speeches and accentuated the unfairness which was their leading feature. All through the right hon. and learned Gentleman proclaimed his lofty scorn for pay. What did the Attorney General for Ireland care for such a thing as money? He could not for a moment be affected by such a paltry consideration. He (Mr. Sullivan) could tell the "bounding brothers" of the Legal Profession, who came into that House for the sole purpose of making it a spring-board from which to jump into pay and power, that they knew how to value the elevated morality which they inculcated in language like that to which they had just listened. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had dwelt in his speech on what he called "reading between the lines," and that accorded very well with what they had already heard—namely, that the language of various members of the Land League was not itself open
    822
    to censure, and that in order to make out a case against them it had been necessary to put different passages of their speeches together, and then to attach a meaning to them by "reading between the lines." How could any man stand the ordeal of a trial under such circumstances? Could even the Prime Minister himself do so? The debate on Tuesday evening was raised from the wretched condition to which it had been reduced by the two front Benches by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). The whole contention between those Gentlemen was whether or not Ireland had been sufficiently flogged, and whether the flogging had been begun early enough and continued long enough. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Government side said that they had not punished Ireland earlier, because they had not got the whip in their hands. Then they were told by Members of the Opposition that they could have fashioned a whip in about three weeks. "No," said the Ministers, "the time had gone by when that could have been done;" and so it had. The time had gone for over, and would never return. During that contention the Irish Members on that side of the House were pained to find that one of the most earnest advocates for an early flogging, and a strong flogging, was a Member hailing from their own country. The senior Member for the University of Dublin claimed the character of a patriotic Irishman; but he never missed an opportunity for clamouring for further coercion of the people of Ireland. An ancestor of that right hon. and learned Gentleman opposed the passing of the Act of Union in the Irish Parliament with great ability and vigour; and when he found that the odious measure was likely to be forced through the House, he said if it should be so he would, like another Hannibal, take his children—and there were many of them—to the altar of his country, and make them swear vengeance on the destroyer of the liberties of Ireland. However, he afterwards thought better of it, and instead of bringing up his little Hannibals to the altar he charged them upon the public purse by finding them places in every department of Church and State. Today the descendant of one of these little Hannibals was not ashamed to declare that he objected to the untying of one

    823
    hand of Ireland because it would be used to untie the other; and he had the hardihood to describe the Irish Representatives in that House as "the common enemy." He did not think he need say any more of the patriotism or the public spirit of the Eight Hon. David Hannibal Plunket. Mr. Parnell had been arrested on three warrants—the first for intimidation, and the other two for treasonable practices. Where had been the justification for these charges? It could be found nowhere. It was clear from the words of the Chief Secretary himself that there was no justification. He had spoken of keeping the farms of evicted tenants empty by threats. Where was the treason in that language? There was none except in the innuendo placed on the words by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman took blame to himself that he had not sooner seen what was the meaning of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, the hon. Member for Sligo, and other Leaders of the Land League, who took, he said, great care in their mode of expression. They were brought within the purview of the Coercion Act, not for what they said, but for their "meaning," as translated by the Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman, because acts of violence and outrage were simultaneously occurring in various parts of Ireland, pretended to trace a connection between the speeches of Mr. Parnell and others and those acts of violence; but the alleged connection between the speeches of the Leaders of the Land League and those outrages, which they much regretted, was a huge fiction evolved from the imagination of Dublin Castle. The history of the agrarian war in Ireland, caused by the conduct of bad landlords, had been long and dreary; it existed long before Mr. Parnell and his Colleagues were born; and, but for the action of the Land League, they contended that the disturbances and the outrages in Ireland would have been infinitely greater. Speaking at a large open-air meeting in Dublin, Mr. Parnell said—"We are warned by the history of the past that we must fight this battle within the limits of the Constitution." The Chief Secretary passed by those words very lightly, as being of no account; but every Irish audience knew very well all that was contained in that important statement, which did not need
    824
    to be expanded into a lengthy oration. The right hon. Gentleman held that hints and shrugs meant a great deal; and men were to be sent to prison for winks and coughs; while a sneeze, it was to be supposed, would shake the pillars of the Constitution. He called the attention of the House to the interview between Mr. Parnell and a reporter from The Freeman's Journal shortly after his arrest. In the course of that interview the hon. Member for the City of Cork stated that he had always been careful to avoid saying anything which could be construed by his audience into an incitement to violence or intimidation; but that the principle on which the Government was proceeding was that any advice or recommendation given by him or any other leader of the movement to the farmers or the labourers was intimidation. On the same occasion Mr. Parnell said—
    "I had always been one of those who believed that it might be possible to use the Land Act in such a way as to secure substantial benefits for the agricultural classes of Ireland, and I opposed the more extreme Land League Party, who desired to reject it entirely at the recent Convention; but I was firmly convinced that the Act could only safely be used in an organized and systematic fashion, and that if the farmers were left without organization, assistance, and advice, the result would be as with the case of the Act of 1870—disappointment."
    That was Mr. Parnell's statement of his action in the matter, and he contended that it was more consonant with the whole character of his speeches and conduct than the strained and fantastic interpretation which had been put upon his language and his acts by the Chief Secretary for Ireland. No incitement from the Land League platform was half so eloquent to an Irish audience as the sight of a dismantled and ruined cabin, and an evicted and beggared family. The real inciters to disturbance and to outrage were the rack - renters and evictors. Their deeds, not their words only, were filling the country with confusion, and provoking to crime; but the enemies of the people were allowed to go "scot free" and to work their will, while their friends, who endeavoured to defend and protect them, were cast into prison. If the House had known the extent to which rack-renting existed throughout Ireland, he hoped that it would not have been so ready last Session to place coercive powers in the

    825
    hands of the Government. With regard to "Boycotting," he happened to be beside the hon. Member for the City of Cork when that hon. Gentleman made his first speech on that subject, when he put "Boycotting" before the people as a substitute for crime and outrage, and as being a comparatively mild and legal way of dealing with the men who made themselves obnoxious to the people. The hon. Member for the City of Cork urged that the system of outrage should be stopped; that such men should not be shot nor have their houses fired into, but that they should be simply left alone and shunned; that no dealings or intercourse should be carried on with them; and that that state of things would become more unbearable to them than any other. Now, the contention on the Treasury Bench was that "Boycotting" meant violence, crime, outrage and murder. So said the Chief Secretary, and he could say what he liked; but they denied it. They said his statements were incorrect. He supposed it would not be fitting to stigmatize them in any harsher terms. The model case of "Boycotting" was that from which the system took its name. In that case there was no murder, no outrage, no mutilation, but no one would work for Captain Boycott, no one would serve him; the people simply severely let him alone. This was the system recommended by the Land League. But it was not confined to the Land League. It had been closely followed by the constabulary. He held a letter in his hand from a highly respectable member of the constituency he represented, narrating how the constabulary had ''Boycotted" a car owner for refusing to supply them with cars to proceed on some mission of eviction. The landlords, too, had adopted the plan, not only in the country, but even in Dublin itself. A lady in County Clare had been "Boycotted;" she was in want of the necessaries of life, and her case had touched the hearts of the Government. Were there not thousands and thousands of tenant farmers in the country, industrious people willing to work, in want of the necessaries of life as urgently as Mrs. Moroney; and was it not because such a condition of things existed, and had existed, that the present agitation had arisen in Ireland? Why did not the tender feelings of the Government over-
    826
    flow for them? The great crime of which the Land League was accused was the issue of the "no rent" manifesto. The obnoxious passage in that manifesto was very short, and though it had been read before, he might repeat it. It was this—
    "The Executive of the Irish National Land League advises the tenant farmers of Ireland to pay no rent until the Government restores the Constitution of the country."
    The plain meaning of that passage was this—no Constitution, no rent; and he did not think that advice would be neglected. He had read a list of Coercion Acts to the House the other night. Those were Acts which had been called for by the landlords in order that they might continue their system of robbery upon the people. But if they had known that with a suspension of the Constitution would come a suspension of the payment of their rents, they would not have been in such a hurry to cry out for Coercion. The Prime Minister's great charge against the Land League was that it attempted to strangle the Land Act—the infant Hercules, as he described it—which was to rescue the people from their troubles. But the Premier must remember that his infant had a baby brother—Coercion—and that twin brother was what was strangling it, and not the Land Act. It was a pretty Hercules indeed, with 60,000 soldiers at its back! The condition of Ireland had been described as indeed deplorable, because a tenant farmer could not discharge his just obligations and pay his rent without danger to life or property. But he would relate to the House what a young man had said to him as to the tenant farmer who paid his rent. He said that he did not so much blame the landlords for rack-renting—they had been brought up to believe that such was their right; but nothing could be too bad for the tenant farmer who turned against his own class when he knew how severe a struggle was going on. The Solicitor General for Ireland had denied that the Land League had any idea or project of purchase whatever; but the ''Appeal and Address to the Irish Race" adopted at the meeting held on October 21, 1879, at which the Land League was constituted, plainly showed that the idea of purchase, and not of confiscation and spoliation, was the foundation stone upon which the League was built, and upon which it stood down to

    827
    the present day. That document, which was the very initial document of the Land League, contained the following passage:—
    "In formulating the demand of ownership of the soil by the occupiers in substitution for that of the landlords, the people of Ireland neither contemplate nor desire the confiscation of those proprietary rights which existing laws must necessarily recognize and protect; hut for the transfer of those rights to an industrial ownership. A fair compensation may be given to those who shall he called up to agree to such transfer for the settlement of the agrarian strife of the country, and for the supreme good of this people."
    The Solicitor General for Ireland must have had a copy of that document at the Castle, and should have read it before he calumniated those who supported the League in that House, and others who could not speak because they were in gaol. And the document dated November 5 in the same year set forth that the agitation for the reduction of excessive rents must be maintained, in order to bring the land to a fair valuation, and enable the cultivators to become the owners of their own farms on equitable terms. Those terms were set forth in a subsequent document, which provided for powers of ejectment, for the creation of a department of land administration, and the due conveyance of land thus purchased. He maintained that in every paragraph of the documents issued by the League purchase was fully and explicitly set forth. The Solicitor General should have made himself acquainted with these facts before he came to this House and defamed the members of the Land League and misrepresented them before the people of England. There was one class of outrages in Ireland which had not been referred to by the Government, and he doubted very much whether they were to be found in the Government Returns—these were the outrages perpetrated upon the people by the police and the magistrates. It would take a long time to describe the reign of terror, and pourtray the insults and injuries that were being worked out in Ireland by the police and magistrates in that country. In several instances, when nocturnal visits to houses were made by the police, women were obliged to dress themselves in the presence of the constabulary. It was well known that on some occasions the police who had been rioting through the
    828
    country were not in a condition of sobriety. On many occasions many of them were notoriously drunk, and perpetrated murders when their superiors knew they were drunk. Could the people submit to such conduct as that? If they raised their hands in self-defence they were accused of assault upon the police, and in many cases sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with hard labour; and if a countercharge was made against them, he ventured to say no policeman amongst the lot, no matter what injuries he might have inflicted, even if it was proved to be murder, would have a hair of his head injured by the law. On one occasion, when a policeman struck a young man who had been guilty of no offence whatever, a little boy called out, "The police are drunk;" whereupon the police struck him on the side of the head with a baton, and then they proceeded to break all the windows in the street. A woman who went to her window to see what the matter was, was also struck on the head, and a man was injured who ran to her assistance. It was inoffensive persons of this kind who were taken up by the police and carried before such magistrates as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and were sentenced by them to three months' imprisonment with hard labour for assaulting the police. On the same occasion a man had his hand split open by a blow given by the police. These were specimens of the outrages which were committed by the police in Ireland. It had been proved that at Belmullet, in the county of Mayo, a poor girl was bayonetted by a drunken policeman while she was lying on the ground, and that her murderer used such force that he was compelled to press his foot on her body in order to withdraw his weapon. With regard to the police riots in Dublin, which had been so nicely and so smoothly referred to by the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland that night, the whole of the Dublin Press had teemed with accounts of the brutalities which had been committed by the police while under the influence of drink which their superiors had given them the opportunity of obtaining. On that occasion respectable men who were taking no part whatever in the affray, but were merely trying to get home, were struck to the ground and kicked by the police.

    829
    Even little children suffered at the hands of the police, and in one instance a little boy of 12 or 14 years of age, who had been looking on, was deliberately felled to the ground by a blow on the head by a policeman. The injury caused to the boy was so severe that he lost his situation, and he (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) thought it necessary to solicit some subscriptions for his family, of whom he was a material support. These, however, were crimes and outrages of which the Government took no notice. Then, again, the Irish magistrates appeared to be just as insolent, as offensive, and as brutal as the police. In a letter which had appeared in an Irish newspaper, a charge had been brought by a respectable man against Captain Lestrange, a resident magistrate of the county of Westmeath, to the effect that on one occasion he had, while in the public streets, applied the vilest epithets to the ladies of the Land League, and that charge Captain Lestrange had not ventured to contradict. These were the men who had it in their power to send hundreds of inoffensive people to gaol. He thought the great Liberal Government might take a lesson from Russia. The Correspondent of The Standard, writing from St. Petersburg at the close of last year, stated that The St. Petersburg Gazette said—
    "The number of political arrests amounts to 1,500. All these cases have now been revised by the Minister of the Interior, who has found it possible to dispose summarily of one-half the number. It was found that many of the arrests were due to false accusations prompted by hatred, envy, and personal revenge."
    And so it was, he had not the slightest doubt, in Ireland at the present time. In nearly every case where the Irish landlords were being tried they were convicted of rack-renting their tenants for a long series of years. The system established by the landlords was debasing and demoralizing. The tendency of it was to make the peasants slaves and cowards. It made them afraid of the frown of the humblest under-bailiff or the under-bailiff's spy. Happily, that state of things was passing away. The Land League had brought another feeling into the hearts of the people, and no amount of coercion would drive that feeling out. The Attorney General for Ireland said that the Land League appealed to the basest and lowest passions.
    830
    Why? Because, apparently, these poor people strove to better their condition, to improve their habitations, which were not fit for pigs; to raise themselves from semi-starvation. Because the Land League told the people to take that view of things, they were told it appealed to the lowest and basest of their feelings. The Rev. Sydney Smith had said long ago that Irishmen, instead of crying "Erin go Bragh!" which meant "Ireland for ever!" should cry "Erin go bread and butter! Erin go pantaloons without holes in them!" But now when Irish Land Leaguers said the same sort of thing, they were accused of pandering to the lowest and basest passions. It was, it appeared, a crime on the part of the Irish peasant to wish to get a dinner. He did not know that this desire was confined to the Irish peasant. Occasionally even the Speaker retired into regions behind the Chair for the purposes of refreshment.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that the House is considering the Address to the Crown, and that the observations he is now making are wholly irrelevant to that matter.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, he had never disputed any decision of the Speaker; but he was endeavouring to meet the charges launched against the Land League from the Government Benches. He should only refer, in conclusion, to the subject of the American money. It had been said that the agitation was kept up in order not to interfere with the flow of money from America. No doubt, a large amount of money had come from America. Large amounts of money had come from America before the Land League was thought of. Then there were no compliments too high to pay to the Irish people who sent the money. Why? Because the money went to pay rack rents. But the Irish people in America grew tired of paying exorbitant rents, and they said—"We shall continue to send money to Ireland, but it will be to put an end to landlordism." In a speech in that House the other night, the President of the Board of Trade had said that he was not entitled to stand up and claim that every act of the Government in that time of trial had been wise, just, and right. He (Mr. T. D. Sullivan) said the same for the Irish National Land League. He did not assume, and could not assume,

    831
    that during that time of persecution and difficulty every act of the Irish National Land League had been wise, just, and right. If so much could not be said for the Government, a highly centralized organization, with all its Members perfectly under control from the highest to the lowest, how could it be expected that anyone would say it of the Land League, which was not so closely knitted together, and consisted of numerous branches throughout Ireland, without any connecting link between them except that of a common principle? He contended, however, taking it all in all, judging it by its proclaimed principles, by its actions—which, he claimed, must be dissociated from crime—the Land League had done a great and noble work for Ireland. It had taken slavery out of the hearts of the people. He honoured it for what it had done. He believed that it was destined to do still further noble work for Ireland, and from the bottom of his heart he wished success and long life to the Irish National Land League.
    MR. BENTINCKsaid, the House had heard a good deal to-day upon the subject of Ireland, and he did not intend to trespass upon the time of the House by making any more remarks on that subject beyond this—that for many years Ireland had had but one grievance, and that grievance was that Ireland had never hitherto been really governed. For a long time past Ireland had been the battle-field for the Party controversies of Great Britain, and the result of that course had been that agitation had been encouraged to the utmost possible extent. What that had brought us to was the Land Act, which had been given as the reward of agitation, based even though it was on principles of Communism; and, to his mind, it had so strengthened the forces of agitation that nothing but the proclamation of martial law in the disturbed districts would help to solve the problem of Irish tranquillity. On the present occasion he wished to make one or two remarks on a subject that might be said, pace the Irish Members, to be even more important than that of Ireland, and to call the attention of the House, and, if possible, of the country also, to that portion of the Royal Speech that referred to the Army and Navy Estimates. He asserted that there now existed a strong feeling of anxiety in the country as to the con-
    832
    dition of our Military and Naval Forces, and that feeling of anxiety had been much increased in the course of the last few months by the present aspect of European affairs. Upon the military part of the subject he had but little to say, and he would leave that topic to more competent critics, merely observing that the "penny wise and pound foolish" policy that had been introduced with the civilian element that was now allowed to interfere with the management of the Army had brought about a condition of things under which the Government were trying to make two boys do the work of three men. The consequence was that, in spite of the skill and courage of their generals and the bravery of their officers and troops, they had met with great disasters where they ought to have achieved success. That was a matter on which the nation felt very strongly. As to the even more important question of the condition of the Navy, there was also a feeling throughout the country that it was not equal to the requirements of the Empire, and that in consequence the honour and interests of the British Empire were gravely imperilled. The present aspect of European affairs was such that no thoughtful and observant man would undertake to say that peace might not soon be disturbed; and he had no hesitation in saying that in the event of a great European struggle the condition of our Navy was not such as to justify the assertion that either the honour of the country could be maintained or that its safety might be relied upon. It might be asked why he adverted to this subject before the Estimates were brought forward; but the modern practice being to postpone the Estimates till August, the House never adequately discussed them. His noble Friend the Member for Chichester (Lord Henry Lennox) had placed on the Paper a Motion on the Navy; but it was to be feared that the custom of the House with regard to the Motions of private Members would result either in a thinly-attended debate or in a "count-out." The whole question was one of paramount importance, and he only wondered that his right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Wigtown Burghs (Sir John Hay), who had more than once placed it very lucidly before the House, should have hitherto spoken

    833
    in vain. After reading a recent speech by Admiral Sir Thomas Symonds, he felt that they were not as wise as their forefathers. That gallant officer, who was one of the best authorities on the subject, maintained that in time of war our whole iron-clad Fleet would very insufficiently protect our shores and our Colonies. We had now no vessels of great speed, and even our cruisers were deficient in that respect; in short, we had lost the relative superiority which we possessed at the end of the last century. Such a statement as that would have thoroughly alarmed the country two or three years ago; but he thought the existing state of affairs justified even more serious apprehensions. He asked the House to consider what was to become of our Colonial possessions if we were not able to defend them. We ought also to be in a condition to protect our enormous foreign trade, which, was the great source of the wealth of this country. The Government must have great confidence in their powers of assertion if they maintained that our naval strength was sufficient for this purpose. It was our financial policy that had brought us into our present condition. Our home supply of food was yearly diminishing, and we were more and more dependent on foreign countries for the food required by our people. We could only make sure of it by a large fleet of swift cruisers sufficiently armed to maintain our supremacy. At present, a combination of foreign nations against us might cut off our food supply, and we might find ourselves in the position of a starved-out city which had not the means of defending itself against invasion. He made these remarks in no Party spirit, for he blamed the late Government and preceding Governments quite as much as the present. Unfortunately, we had the habit of placing the control of our Military and Naval Forces in the hands of civilians, who, although they tried to perform their duties in a patriotic spirit, and were actuated by good intentions, did not understand the subjects with which they had to deal. There was abundant evidence of the highest authority to show that the strength of our Navy was not what it ought to be, considering the dangers to which we were exposed. Neither our honour nor our safety were properly secured, and the Government
    834
    were bound to take steps to remove any reasonable apprehensions.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he rose in response to the appeal made to him by the hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck), to confirm what had already fallen from him with regard to the Navy, and to urge that the provision made in the Estimates this year should be sufficient, which it had not been for 10 years. The figures oh which he made this assertion were those given by the Secretary to the Admiralty last year. It was at the present time a matter of general acceptance among the nations of the world that the power of a Navy was indicated by the number of its iron-clads. Now, measuring the Navies of England and France by that standard, what did they find? Of British armourclads there were non-obsolete 27, obsolete 20, colonial 3, and building 10—total 60. The French Navy showed the following:—Iron and steel vessels, 20; wooden, efficient, 20; wooden, obsolete, 11; building (armour-clad), 17—total, 68. These figures were official and authentic; they were admitted by the present Admiralty. Deducting from the French total 11 ships which were said to be "wooden obsolete," there remained 57 armour-clads, built and building, against 60 English. But then, two English ships were permanently stationed at Bombay and one at Melbourne, so that of efficient ships, obsolete and non-obsolete in design, France and England had an equal number—namely, 57. That was a state of things which he feared the country did not sufficiently realize, and which he was sure it would not approve. In the year 1869 the First Lord of the Admiralty stated that the English Navy to be efficient required an annual expenditure upon it of £12,500,000. Our annual expenditure, however, since that time had only been £10,000,000, with the exception of one year, when it was thought expedient to buy iron-clads, and when it rose to £12,500,000; and during that period, therefore, they were something like£25,000,000 behind with their Naval expenditure. He did not urge on the Government to spend the money; but he asked them to increase the building in the Navy, and to augment the Fleet of the country in a degree at least commensurate with its interests and importance. France, he supposed, found

    835
    it necessary for the sake of her maritime position to build just now 17 iron-clads, whilst we were building 10. The Government of the United States were moving in the matter of an Iron-clad Navy; and he again urged that it was necessary that this country should spend a sufficient sum upon its Navy to maintain our maritime supremacy. He would not further detain the House upon that subject, interesting as it was. Other opportunities would present themselves for discussing it; but he had thought it well to remind the House of a few facts which the Admiralty itself could not gainsay.
    MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he thought it far more important at the present moment to look at the question of Ireland. That question had been treated by many ton. Gentlemen in that House; but the Irish Members were the only ones who had taken a practical view of it. They had proposed an Amendment to the Address. The Conservatives had not proposed an Amendment, and he was surprised that they should not have done so, considering the extraordinary language they held during the Recess, and also the somewhat modified but still strong language they had held in that House with regard to the Land Act. He presumed that they were afraid to challenge the Government openly on that question, and that they preferred to let off their pop-guns behind the Amendment of their Irish Friends. His object in rising was to give the Government a little friendly criticism, of which as yet they had had none. Such a course would not, perhaps, be very popular with his side of the House; but he could assure them there were many persons in England who took the same view as himself of the question of coercion. It was not necessary for him to prove that injustices had been committed, and for this reason, that injustices must always be committed wherever arbitrary power existed. The Prime Minister had spoken of "a private inquiry before God and man." It was absolutely necessary in a free country where justice was to be done between man and man that there should be a private inquiry, not "between God and man," but "between God and mankind." This was as the law existed in England, and he had no desire to change it. At the present time there were in Ireland five satraps who exercised un-
    836
    controlled power in that country. What manner of men these satraps were might be judged by the last appointment—namely, that of Major Bond, whose main qualification for the important and serious position which he occupied seemed to be that the magistrates of the great town of Birmingham said they had no confidence in him, and that the Watch Committee passed a resolution to dismiss him. He thought the question which the House ought seriously to consider was, Had the assurances given by the Minister who asked for the Coercion Act been kept in the mode in which the Act had been carried out in Ireland? Now, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, when he asked the House to pass the Coercion Bill, distinctly and specifically stated that he was not going to employ it against "Boycotters," or against Land Leaguers as Land Leaguers; and he did, in fact, begin to administer it in that manner. When the right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland he was a strong, stalwart Liberal—a kind man. So far as everything not relating to Ireland was concerned he, no doubt, was so still; but as regarded Ireland, the baleful atmosphere of Dublin Castle and the exercise of arbitrary power—always a demoralizing thing—had had a most terrible influence over the moral fibre of the right hon. Gentleman. He (Mr. Labouchere) was not surprised at it, for the right hon. Gentleman was simply no exception to the rule. The Chief Secretary said he had consulted his own conscience, and his conscience told him he must not arrest "Boycotters," and that he had secured his power by certain assurances to the House. He then consulted a lawyer, and asked the gentleman to appear for him before the tribunal of his own conscience. Then he discovered that the "Boycotting," which he previously thought to be nothing but exclusive trading, meant robbery, arson, murder, and Heaven knew what besides. He would now say a word as to the arrest of Mr. Parnell. That arrest was the most important of all; it was the only one discussed in that House, and the only one for which the right hon. Gentleman had given his reasons. The words quoted from Mr. Parnell's speeches upon which he took action were—"The spirit which has been raised in Ireland will never die." That meant, said the right hon. Gentleman,

    837
    that Mr. Parnell was stirring up the people into a conflict and a rising, and that they were to be backed up by American gold and arms, which were to be sent across the Atlantic for their use. For his part, he could not see that the words necessarily meant that. They might mean that; but there was not the slightest vestige of proof that they did. Mr. Parnell went on to say—"We are warned by the history of the past; we must fight within the lines of the Constitution." Then, said the right hon. Gentleman, Mr. Parnell did not mean what he said—a proceeding which re-mined one of the letters of Tiberius to the Roman Senate on the law of Majestas. But even that was not enough. Mr. Parnell committed the crime of being silent also. An address was presented to him, and because he did not reply to it, he was held to be responsible for everything in it. Another reason given by the right hon. Gentleman for Mr. Parnell's arrest was that he had demanded a reduction of rent. He had demanded the prairie value of 2s.; but in doing so he was only repeating a phrase which had been used by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster. Mr. Parnell was only doing what the late Mr. Stuart Mill did with the approbation of a large number of Members of that House. Mr. Stuart Mill founded an Association to take away from the proprietors of land in England the unearned increment of land. If that were done in this country rents would be reduced to about 2s. per acre. Another reason for Mr. Parnell's arrest was that he advised the tenants not to go into the Land Court; but Mr. Parnell had done this in consequence of what fell from the Prime Minister himself, who said that, in his opinion, rents would not be reduced by the operation of the Land Act. Mr. Parnell had certain test cases, with the view of ascertaining whether rents would be reduced or not; and he had a perfect right, after what fell from the lips of the Prime Minister himself that rents would not be reduced, to urge the tenants not to go into the Land Court until these test cases had been decided, in order that they might see whether there would be a reduction of rent or not. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster) could not say that he put Mr. Parnell into prison because of the "no rent" manifesto, because
    838
    that would be too palpably putting the cart before the horse; but he intimated that the issue of the "no rent" manifesto justified the putting of Mr. Parnell in prison, and it was "the tearing down of the veil." If all those who were in prison had been arrested on no better grounds, then he held that they had been most unfairly treated. If the right hon. Gentleman had arrested Mr. Parnell for endeavouring to prevent men going into the Land Court, why had he not arrested the landlords? Mr. George Browne, an Irish landlord and a former Member of that House, had tenants who were in arrear. They served notices to go into the Land Court, and he immediately served notices on them for arrears, and let them know that he would act on them unless they promised not to go into the Land Court. So also Lord Rosse had a tenant whose holding was valued at £27, and his tenant on going into the Land Court was served with a notice demanding an increase of rent from £27 to £40. Mr. Parnell, had, in fact, done nothing more than a great many of the landlord class had also done, and why was he to be punished for that? The fact was, that the Liberals were in an entirely false position in Ireland. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!] No; not from that point of view. He was glad to find the right hon. Gentleman had found a difficulty in defending his acts, because he believed that in his heart he was as much opposed to those acts as he (Mr. Labouchere) was. The President of the Board of Trade had said that one of the most important duties of government was to maintain law and order. But the Liberal Party had another principle—namely, that the laws were to be made by the people, and the difficulty in Ireland was that a Liberal Minister found himself under the necessity of maintaining laws which were not made by the Irish people. In order, therefore, to maintain laws for the protection of property they had to suspend laws for the protection of liberty. Ireland was represented in that House; but it was England, by a powerful majority, that made her laws. Did anyone suppose that if Irishmen had made their own laws there would have been any need of over 40 Coercion Acts in the last century, or that the Catholic Emancipation would have been delayed for centuries? There

    839
    could be no doubt that the Irish were not with us in Ireland. Lord Derby had admitted and regretted the fact that the majority of the Irish were opposed to our laws. The condition of Ireland was said to be better than it was a year ago. If so they must remember why that was the case. The Government said that the Land Act was the cause; but besides the Land Act they had had a Coercion Act, and there was at present an army in that country. The policy of coercion could not be discussed without discussing also the alternative—namely, Home Rule. The senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) had expressed regret and surprise at what had fallen from the Prime Minister in regard to local government in Ireland. He (Mr. Labouchere) rejoiced to hear those observations; but he felt no surprise. The right hon. Gentleman never made a speech which he (Mr. Labouchere) did not either hear, or, if he had not the pleasure of hearing it, which he did not read at the earliest opportunity. He remembered a speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman at Guildhall on the occasion of receiving a golden vase. In that Conservative institution—if he might so term it—the right hon. Gentleman announced Mr. Parnell's arrest. So much was made of that announcement that sufficient attention had not been given to what fell from the right hon. Gentleman besides. He said—
    "Home Rule may be understood in any one of 100 senses, some of them perfectly acceptable and even desirable, others of them mischievous and revolutionary. With regard to local government in Ireland, after what I have said of local government in general and its immeasurable benefits and of the manner in which Parliament is at present overcharged by too great a centralization of duties, you will not be surprised if I say that I, for one, will hail with satisfaction and delight any measure of local government for Ireland or for any portion of the country, provided only that it conforms to this one condition—that it shall not break down and impair the supremacy of the Imperial Parliament."
    He might say, without exaggeration he believed, that that statement brought the question of Home Rule within the area of practical politics. He himself was in favour of Home Rule, and he accordingly was sincerely delighted to hear what the Prime Minister said the other day. He should be very glad if the right hon. Gentleman would bring forward some scheme which would unite those two
    840
    objects to which he had referred in that speech, and thus bring the matter within measurable distance of being law. Hon. Members must recollect that it was exceedingly difficult to reconcile Imperial control and local independence; but he did not think that that would prove an insurmountable obstacle to the right hon. Gentleman. He should be delighted to hear that the right hon. Gentleman had put an end to the terrible difficulties which were always occurring in Ireland by bringing in a measure to give to that country complete local government. It was not necessary to go to Hungary or Finland for illustrations. Let them look to the United States, where the problem of reconciling the central and the federal principles had been satisfactorily solved. If they were to give to Ireland the same rights which were possessed by the several States in America, he believed 999 out of every 1,000 Irishmen would be satisfied. He would only add one word. It had been said that America went with us in the present struggle with Ireland, and that it was only the Irish in America who took an opposite view. He did not believe that was so. He held in his hand a letter from Mr. Wendell Phillips, who was a man honoured in his own country, because he had opposed slavery when slavery was most popular. Mr. Phillips said we could never hope to see Ireland tranquil, and ought not to expect to do so, until we granted her some of the rights which we exercised ourselves. He had voted in favour of the Amendment of the hon. Gentlemen (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) on the ground that he always tried to return good for evil. He represented in that House a constituency whose motto was "Fiat justitia." The Irish Members—and they ought to be ashamed of it—did not help him to obtain the rights of his constituency; but, in return, he assisted them to obtain what he thought were their rights.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the debate, or rather the debates, that had taken place in connection with the Address in reply to the Speech of Her Gracious Majesty had been of a prolonged and somewhat discursive character, and he could not say that Her Majesty's Government had contributed very much towards their curtailment. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in the first of the speeches which he had de-

    841
    livered during these proceedings, had made a personal reference to himself, in connection with, a subject, however, to which he did not think he should be justified in referring in detail at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had made him a personal challenge in connection with that important question, the protection of native industries. That was a subject that he should not be remiss in bringing under the notice of the House; and although he did not think that the present would be a proper occasion, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman, after the distinct reference he had made, would, in connection with the re-arrangement of Public Business, consider the propriety of placing a day at his service. He would not anticipate the opportunity which he had no doubt the Prime Minister would readily place at his disposal; but he would rather propose to address one or two observations to the House upon that subject to which he had also referred, and which had just now been touched upon by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere)—he referred to the utterances of the right hon. Gentleman in connection with the subject of local government in Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman, upon that subject, had spoken in terms which had given rise to some misapprehension, or, at any rate, to some differences of opinion. The hon. Member for Northampton had placed upon those words the construction that the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to advocate local independence in Ireland. [Mr. LABOUCHER: I expressed a hope to that effect.] The hon. Member says he only expressed a hope; but that hope was founded upon the words of the Prime Minister. He had no doubt that before the termination of the discussion the right hon. Gentleman would have succeeded in either satisfying that hope, or, on the other hand, in allaying those fears which had been raised in other quarters. The right hon. Gentleman, in a speech made some few months ago, had referred to him personally in connection with what he might consider a kindred branch of this subject. He (Mr. Lowther) had taken the opportunity of saying that, in his opinion, we must face the fact that a numerical majority of the people of Ireland were opposed to the connection with Great Britain. The right hon. Gentleman had taken excep-
    842
    tion to that statement; he was now quoting from the report of the speech delivered by the Prime Minister on the 27th of October. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman had not given an accurate account of what he had said; and he would, therefore, read what he did say. He said—
    "It was naturally the object of those who were conducting the unlawful agitation in Ireland to make out that they were genuine legitimate Representatives of the Irish people;"
    and then the right hon. Gentleman had gone on to quote some observations made by him (Mr. Lowther), in which he had said—
    "I have never concealed ray opinion that the Land Act of 1870 demoralized the Irish people. The measure passed last year, with the merits or demerits of which I dc not now want to deal, had tended materially to aggravate the demoralization. Even if those Acts have been successful in temporarily allaying the agitation, my opinion will remain unchanged. As, however, their signal failure seemed now patent to the world, it is unnecessary for me to point to that. It cannot he too widely known that the Party led by Mr. Parnell commands the respect of the people of Ireland. Whigism outside Ulster is dead as Julius Cæsar. However disagreeable it may be to interested people in this country, we must realize that the measure now called law will have to be applied against the chosen Representatives of the great bulk of the Irish nation. That is one of my reasons for having always deprecated that short-sighted policy of handing the soil of Ireland over to the enemies of British rule. To send an army to support loyal subjects in the enjoyment of their vested rights is one thing, to maintain that army for the purpose of arresting the attempts of the virtual proprietors of the soil, who are at the same time the bulk of the population, is a different matter."
    He did not think his observations laid him open to the criticisms of a Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said—
    "I appeal for support and backing in our arduous undertaking. This is the answer we have to Mr. Lowther. The proposition which is here made is one with which we are entirely at issue. I absolutely protest against it."
    [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!]
    "I believe a greater calumny on the Irish nation—I do not say it was a wilful calumny—I believe a more gross or unjust statement could not possibly be made against the Irish nation."
    [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] He (Mr. Lowther) was rather surprised at the particular spot which the right hon. Gentleman selected for making use of these expressions. The speech was al-

    843
    leged to have been made at Knowsley, and the right hon. Gentleman, who acquitted him of having made any intentional misrepresentation of the Irish nation, must have been making a sly hit at his host. The Prime Minister went on to say that in various counties the leading persons had called together well-affected men, and had rallied for the very purpose of arresting the Government in its work; and he added—
    "I do not think any more remarkable manifestation has taken place than the discussions which took place in the Corporation of Dublin on the proposal to give the freedom of the city to Mr. Parnell. That was a subject of some personal interest to me, because I visited Ireland three years ago, and I had the honour of receiving by an unanimous vote the freedom of the city. When the Corporation declined to present the freedom of the city to Mr. Parnell, I looked upon that fact as of very great importance for two reasons. In the first place, the municipality of Dublin has always been a focus of national feeling. In the second place, the motion was made expressly on grounds which were intended to give the go-by to the position of one who was there to support law and order. I look upon it as a most significant and important fact that the motion was rejected."
    That was the evidence the right hon. Gentleman had brought forward in refutation of his statement. Of course, he (Mr. Lowther) was merely expressing his opinion founded on careful observation, and after consulting many who were in a position to form an opinion also; but the right hon. Gentleman appeared to have forgotten a very old adage, that it was not advisable to "halloa before you got out of the wood." What took place? The Corporation of Dublin, which had been described by the right hon. Gentleman as a focus of national feeling, had an opportunity to a slight extent of refreshing itself by contact with its constituency; and it also had the further advantage, during the interval that passed between the rejection of the motion referred to by the right hon. Gentleman and the time when the Corporation was again called upon to consider the question, of an experience of several months of the great remedial measures of the Government. What was the result of these advantages enjoyed by the Corporation? Why, this great focus of national feeling, whose expression of opinion had been quoted as distinct evidence that he (Mr. Lowther) had been guilty of gross calumny, by a majority far exceeding the slender
    844
    one on the strength of which the right hon. Gentleman had congratulated himself, inflicted what the right hon. Gentleman justly described as a blow aimed personally at himself and the cause of law and order. [Mr. GLADSTONE was understood to contradict this statement.] The right hon. Gentleman now said he did not describe the occurrence as a blow aimed at himself personally. But the right hon. Gentleman had certainly said that the subject was of some personal interest to him, and that the decision of the Corporation was of great importance, because it was intended to give the goby to the position of one who was there to uphold law and order. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Who?] He did not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred. He did not know who else but himself that the right hon. Gentleman could have meant. The right hon. Gentleman, who had alluded to the Corporation of Dublin as embodying national aspirations, must have been considerably perturbed when he found that the example of the Corporation of Dublin, instead of being repudiated with energy by other civic Corporations, was followed with alacrity. It was followed, for example, by the Corporations of Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, and other towns, who hurried to give the go-by to the position of one who was there to maintain law and order. He had dwelt upon this portion of his subject at some length in order to justify his assertion that, regret it as they might, they must recognize the solemn fact that the majority of the people of Ireland were opposed to the British connection. Why did he draw special attention to this matter? Because it was right that the House and the country should recognize facts as they were, and that no ideas should be allowed to go forth that the question of the integrity of the British Empire was to be dependent on local opinion in any one portion of that Empire. If the people of Kent or Cornwall objected to connection with the rest of the Empire, while he would respect their opinions they would have no influence on him; and he said exactly the same with respect to Ireland. ["Oh, oh!"] He did not expect that that would find unanimous approval below the Gangway. If it were proved that 90 per cent of the Irish people disapproved of British con-

    845
    nection, it would not have the slightest effect on himself or on any loyal subject of the Queen. The Attorney General for Ireland had with great force laid down the grounds on which the Government had based their opposition to the Land League; but, in his opinion, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had adduced some very cogent reasons showing that the salutary course of putting the League down should have been followed at a far earlier date. Among other quotations referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman there was one from a speech made by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), who had said—
    "If the Land League is put down the people will be face to face with the forces of the Government."
    The right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to consider those words most objectionable—
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): "Treasonable" was the word.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: Those words, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman considered treasonable, struck him as bearing a very strong resemblance to some other observations to which his attention had been called last autumn in the speech delivered on October 25 at Liverpool by the President of the Board of Trade. In that speech the right hon. Gentleman said—
    "If the agitation of the Land League had been then suppressed the tenants of Ireland would have had no organization to fall Lack upon."
    It appeared to him that there was a striking family likeness to the words of the hon. Member for Sligo. In the course of the same speech the right hon. Gentleman said—"To stifle agitation at such a time would have been to have prevented reform." The right hon. Gentleman who had used those words, and who had the courage of his convictions, had not attempted any explanation which had removed the natural meaning and construction attached to them by ordinary mortals. What did the right hon. Gentleman mean by saying that the suppression of the Land League would have prevented reform? Did he mean to say that reform—by which it was to be presumed he meant the Land Act—would have been stopped if the
    846
    Land League had been suppressed? If the right hon. Gentleman did mean that—and he presumed that he did—he was justified in saying that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues, although, doubtless, thoroughly detesting the action of the Land League, still utilized its outrages for the purpose of coercing Parliament into passing this revolutionary measure which otherwise Parliament would not have entertained. The First Lord of the Treasury on one occasion went out of his way to eulogize the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon), a Gentleman who had made himself rather celebrated by publicly endorsing the practice of mutilating cattle. [Cries of "No, no!" "Never!" "Quote!" and "Withdraw!" from the Irish Members.] As the accuracy of his statement was challenged, he must refer to its authority—namely, the report of a speech delivered by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. The right hon. Gentleman was certainly reported as having made such a charge against the hon. Member for Tipperary.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERexpressed dissent, and asked the right hon. Member to quote the words to which he referred.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: If the hon. Member for Cavan wished it, he would assume that those many paragraphs in the public prints which he saw containing accounts of the debate on this subject must have been inaccurate; but he certainly did see the statement that such a charge had been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary as regarded the hon. Member for Tipperary, and he believed it was a fact.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I never said so.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that, as the right hon. Gentleman said he did not make that statement, he must have been misinformed; but he believed he had been misinformed together with almost every Member of the House. He believed he should be able before the debate concluded to quote the official records of the House. At present he would not say more than this—that the hon. Member for Tipperary, the hon. Member for Cork, and other Members of the House, were allowed to carry on the organization with which they wore connected without any interference with their personal liberty as long as they did not interfere with the working of

    847
    the Land Act. Now, that was an Act of which he thought there could not be two opinions. They had heard from the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland that night an observation which confirmed a statement made by the President of the Board of Trade. He said it would have been impossible to have passed the Land Act if the Representatives of a great portion of the Irish people had not been in their places in Parliament.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I beg pardon. I said it would have been impossible to have discussed the Land Act.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman by that observation very much strengthened the case he was putting. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said it would have been impossible even to have discussed the Land Act in the absence of the Representatives of a certain section of opinion in Ireland, That being so, it was said that the reason that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary thought it necessary to take action in connection with the arrests of Members of the House was the knowledge that subsequently to their arrest there was going to appear a document like the "no rent" manifesto. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND dissented.] Well, that had been said, and he was glad to hear the right hon. and learned Gentleman deny that it was the case. Well, the Government thought it necessary to interfere with the freedom of those Gentlemen. He was not going to raise that question then. They, no doubt, had good reasons for doing it then; but he thought they would have had far stronger reasons if they had done it many months before. But the "no rent" manifesto had been referred to on many occasions as being the worst act of the Land League. He must say, from his recollection of previous debates in the House, that, compared with the policy of Mr. Parnell in the previous Parliament, the "no rent" manifesto was a moderate programme. Until Her Majesty's Government entered into competition with Mr. Parnell in bidding for the support of a certain section of the Irish people the opinions of Mr. Parnell were comparatively moderate. In the last Parliament, at any rate, Mr. Parnell used
    848
    to advocate the reduction of rents to the level that was known as "Griffith's valuation." Of course, when the Government entered into competition with him he was bound to trump every card they played. It stood to reason that, if the land of Ireland was to be put up to Dutch auction and knocked down to the lowest bidder, it was a very rapid descent from fair rent to Griffith's valuation, from Griffith's valuation to prairie value, and from prairie value to no rent at all. He was bound to say the Land League could not claim the authorship of the policy of no rent. The Land League were guilty of piracy in appropriating as their own the doctrine of no rent. The first information Parliament had as to the propriety of the no rent theory was that which was contained in the Compensation for Disturbance Bill. That Bill established the principle that rent might be legally withheld for a period named in the Bill over a great portion of Ireland. It fell to his lot for a very different purpose to define the limits of what were called distress areas. Those distress areas to the best of his recollection included, speaking roughly, half of Ireland. Well, Her Majesty's Government proclaimed the doctrine for a limited period of no-rent over half of Ireland. The natural reply to that was the affirmance of that doctrine over the whole of Ireland. During the course of this debate it had been intimated that Her Majesty's Opposition had no policy with regard to Ireland, except that of coercion. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade had frequently said "These Tories have no policy, but coercion." He was not himself ashamed of being called a Tory; but he could not accept the definition of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the policy of the Conservative Party. To hear the right hon. Gentleman and others who followed him one might imagine that throughout the whole course of the late Administration nothing was proposed with regard to the government of Ireland except measures of repression. What were the facts? The House, he thought, had heard almost ad nauseam that such was not the case; but, as subsequent to the repudiation of that charge he had heard it repeated over and over again, he thought it necessary to remind the House that during the course of the

    849
    last Government the only measure they introduced with regard to the repression of disorder in Ireland was a moderate addition to an enactment then on the Statute Book, which owned its existence to a Liberal Administration. During the time that his right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Colonies (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) administered the affairs of the Irish Office many Acts were passed which conferred great advantages upon the people of Ireland. During the short time that he (Mr. Lowther) was collected with Irish affairs, the subjects which engaged the attention of Parliament, and in which the initiative was taken by the Irish Office, included coercion in no shape or form. The "upas tree" of the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was dealt with at the hands of the late Government, as were the questions of intermediate education, University education, and the pensions of those engaged in elementary education. All those were dealt with by the late Government. It fell to his lot, also, to introduce to the House of Commons a comprehensive measure in regard to the system of county government in Ireland. Owing to the pressure of other matters, it was true that that measure did not proceed to any great extent, although he must say that it proceeded to a far greater extent than any measure on that subject seemed likely to do in the present Session of Parliament. He had been twitted with the fact that the measure for the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act had been placed by him in a position of safety, and was not laid upon the Table of the House. What was the reason that that Peace Preservation Bill was not introduced into the House of Commons? Parliament was engaged at that time with the consideration of a measure with regard to the relief of distress in Ireland. Her Majesty's then Government had assumed a responsibility during the Recess as to which they were constitutionally bound to avail themselves of the earliest opportunity of asking the sanction of Parliament, and until that measure had received the Royal Assent no Ministers would have been justified in interpolating to the attention of Parliament any other legislation. He did not think the Prime Minister would for one moment contend that, with the assumption by
    850
    Her Majesty's Government of powers outside the Constitution, they would have been justified in asking Parliament to consider any measures which would have delayed the progress of the Act sanctioning what they had done. Then it might be said—why did they not bring it in before the dissolution of Parliament? When the Cabinet decided that an appeal should be made to the constituencies, they were bound to lose no time. If he were to accept the right hon. Gentleman's estimate of the time which would have been required to pass this Act—which he was far from doing—it would more than justify the conclusion at which the late Government had arrived. The Prime Minister had said that there was not sufficient time when he came into Office to renew the Peace Preservation Act before it expired. In that remark the right hon. Gentleman had misled himself and misled the House. He had forgotten that he had 10 days, according to his own calculation, to do it in. He would not analyze the number of days at the disposal of the Government within that time; he would merely remind the right hon. Gentleman of another statute. The first vote that he (Mr. Lowther) ever gave in that House was in support of a statute of a kindred character, but a far more stringent measure, which passed through that House on Saturday, then through "another place," and received the Royal Assent on the same day. No doubt, a great deal had happened since then. That, he need scarcely say, was a measure introduced by a Liberal Government, the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister being then Leader of the House. Of course, he did not assume that any measure could be passed with equal facility at the present time; but this essential fact should be remembered. If the clock had struck 12 on the 31st of May, and the Act had then expired, its renewal could have been brought about without detriment to the Public Service. This was altogether unlike an ordinary renewal Bill, such as frequently passed as a matter of course at the end of a Session. Even if the Act had actually expired, no harm would have been done; it would have been well known throughout the length and breadth of Ireland that it was only a question of time. The moral effect of the Act would have remained; and, even

    851
    if it had taken the Government a month beyond the 31st of May to pass it into law, no serious injury would have occurred to the peace of Ireland. It was the very want of the moral effect of legislation of this kind which caused such a serious responsibility to rest on Her Majesty's Government. It was known throughout Ireland that the Act was not going to be renewed, and that the ground for its non-renewal was that Her Majesty's Government did not believe in the efficacy of measures of the kind. That was at once accepted as an invitation to disorder; and, if he were not mistaken, there was no Member of the Treasury Bench, except one or two, who did not amply regret the step taken by the Government at that time. What did the Government do with regard to Ireland? The late Government had in every way in their power dealt with what they considered the real wants of the country. He mentioned just now the education question, the relief of distress, county government, and other matters; but he was told they did nothing towards the settlement of the Land Question. But the present Government had not settled that question. The right hon. Gentleman talked of a final measure; but on the subject of land the late Government could not proceed far in. the face of the inquiry into the flagrant and manifest defects of the Land Act. A Royal Commission was appointed, and was sitting at the moment when the late Government left Office. It was conducting special inquiries into the state of agriculture in Ireland; and the Duke of Richmond's Commission was holding sittings in Dublin for the consideration of the question. The First Commissioner of Works, moreover, presided over a Committee appointed by that House to inquire into the failure of a very much vaunted clause in the Land Act of 1870. He thought that he had shown that the late Government had in no shape laid itself open to the charge, which had been very lightly and inconsiderately made, that they had neglected in any way the requirements of the people of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister said the other night he doubted if the Opposition would have supported a proposal for the renewal of the Peace Preservation Bill. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] The right hon. Gentleman was so re-
    852
    ported in The Times; but he was very glad to get the right hon. Gentleman's emphatic disclaimer. The right hon. Gentleman, in the course of his speech, proceeded to pass a most warm panegyric on the Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Lowther) was too familiar with the difficulties with which the Chief Secretary had to contend to grudge him one syllable of that panegyric, and he thought that anyone occupying that position required the cordial support of every Member on both sides of the House. But he thought the passing of a panegyric on a Colleague would be more appropriate if it were not accompanied by observations of a not altogether analogous character with regard to others who had held positions in official life. But the right hon. Gentleman said, or the Chief Secretary said, that the Government were entitled to be congratulated on having preserved the peace of Ireland without having shed one drop of blood. He could not lay his hand on the exact speech; but the words were in the recollection of the House. The words were "a drop of blood." Whose blood? Had the right hon. Gentleman entirely forgotten the blood of those of Her Majesty's loyal subjects who had lost their lives and suffered mutilation during the course of the last few months? The right hon. Gentleman was only thinking, he feared, of what he must call the disloyal element; and as to that element, he would ask whether it had any reason to congratulate itself upon what he could not help characterizing as the unfortunate vacillation of the right hon. Gentleman with regard to the people of Ireland? What did the 400 or 500 persons who were now in gaol without trial think of the policy which had landed them in that position? He ventured to think that timely advice by the Government and prompt action on its part would have probably averted the fate that had now overtaken them. Then the Government congratulated themselves on the condition of Ireland, asserting that there had already been a change for the better. He could not find anything to confirm those optimist sentiments. A great deal had been said about the juries having returned to the discharge of their duties in Ireland. [Mr. BIGGAR: Packed juries.] He did not know anything about that, and he did not undertake the responsi-

    853
    bility of saying anything of the kind. They had been told that a great number of favourable verdicts had been arrived at, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had described the manner in which the jury panels were dealt with. He (Mr. Lowther) did not think it was generally realized by the House that of all the measures passed by the Government there was scarcely one that had worked such unmitigated mischief as the alteration in the Jury Laws which was associated with the name of Lord O'Hagan. ["No!"] He repeated that the degradation of the jury panel had brought about unmitigated mischief. ["No, no!"] The right hon. and learned Gentleman's ideas of mischief and his might not coincide. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had congratulated the House upon the fact that after a vigorous exercise of the right of challenge verdicts were secured in a number of cases, which, in his opinion, showed a very decided improvement with regard to the spirit of juries in Ireland. He could not claim to be versed in all the technicalities of the Four Courts; but he did not think it likely that the country at large would draw any very great distinction between standing down and standing by. But, at any rate, after considerable efforts, juries, they were told, had been induced to give honest verdicts in certain cases. Special reference had been made to juries in the City of Cork, and the Attorney General for Ireland had repudiated the allegation that those jurors had been selected and ordered to stand by or stand down, he cared not which, on the ground of their religion. But he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman a question, which had, to his mind, a far more important bearing on the administration of justice in Ireland—namely, whether those juries included any appreciable agricultural element? He asked whether the improvement which they were told had taken place in the spirit of the agricultural classes was proved by the agricultural element in the juries? But the Attorney General could afford him no information on this subject. Could it be denied that those juries in Cork were almost entirely composed of the urban element? It would be at least premature for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to speak confidently of the resto-
    854
    ration of public spirit on the part of juries in Ireland; and he confessed he should wait with much anxiety to see what action the rural juries took before he brought himself to believe that what had proved a monstrous farce, trial by jury, could be long maintained under present circumstances in Ireland. If, then, it was only after a vigorous exercise of the right of challenge in a purely urban element that convictions could be obtained, they were justified in asking whether the recommendations made by an influential Committee in the House of Lords could safely be disregarded by the Government? He might be told that he had criticized the acts of the present Government, but had not said what he thought should be done in view of the policy that had been adopted by the Government. No doubt, he might be travelling out of his proper path by entering into that question at all; but he should not be deterred from saying now what he had said 12 years ago in that House—namely, that all the plans that had been tried in Ireland had failed with the exception of one, but that one was a word which he did not like to mention in its integrity, because in its integrity it was misleading—he meant emigration. He objected to the first letter of that word. What he had always advocated as the only remedy for the state of affairs in Ireland was migration to other portions of Her Majesty's Dominions. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would not take exception to that, because in the measure of last year he recognized the importance of that subject, but he thought in a very disproportionate manner. There were some who were so sceptical as to doubt whether it was ever seriously intended by the Government to give effect to that proposal; and he believed that the amount of money placed at the disposal of the Government by Parliament was so small that it might as well for all practical purposes have been omitted from the Act. What was the main course of the agrarian difficulty in Ireland? It was "land hunger." "Land hunger" was caused by the excess of the demand over the supply of land. They could not materially add to the supply of land in Ireland. Some persons had extravagant notions respecting the reclamation of waste lands. He thought, on the other hand, that it would

    855
    be idle to expect any great practical results from a scheme of reclamation. It might be done to a slight, but not to any great extent. If they wished to reduce the "land hunger" they must open up fresh tracts of territory. A very great prejudice existed in Ireland on that subject. In former days the letter "e" in emigration was properly used. The transportation, as it was called, of large masses of the population, without proper arrangements being made either for their transport or their reception on their arrival, did much to discourage a healthy movement of emigration in Ireland. He might, however, be accused of taking no steps to carry out this view when in Office; but he might tell the House that when in Office he was engaged in communication with most of the Colonies, and with Her Majesty's Agents, with a view to the development of a plan of that kind. The House was aware that the Government, from whichever side it was recruited, could not by themselves take up that question. The invitation must come from the Colonial Governments. It was a matter requiring very careful consideration and anxious negotiation before a proper plan could be submitted to Parliament. And the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded him in Office knew that those negotiations were not sufficiently matured to be brought before his Colleagues. They were bearing fruit in that able despatch of the present Governor General of Canada, which so clearly set forth the views of the Dominion Government on the subject. In conclusion, he would no longer stand in the way of the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. He was glad to think that they would have an opportunity of clearly and explicitly hearing the right hon. Gentleman's views on the important subject which he touched the other night. He trusted that, recognizing the extreme importance of all doubts being removed on so fundamental a matter, the Minister at the head of affairs would inform Parliament and the country whether or not he was prepared even to consider as a possibility any scheme for the disintegration of the Empire.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he should be under a very great obligation to the House if they extended to him its indulgence for a very few moments before the right hon. Gentleman at the
    856
    head of the Government rose to reply to the speech which had just been delivered. He did not rise with any Party feeling, or to achieve any Party object; but so much attention had been directed that evening to the question of the self-government of Ireland that he desired, in the first place, to address a few brief observations to the Prime Minister on that subject; and, in the second place, he believed he was bound, as a matter of courtesy, at all events, to offer a few observations upon the speech to which they had just listened. He agreed with the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) in thinking that the Prime Minister's declaration on the subject of Irish self-government was one of the most statesmanlike utterances in reference to the condition of Ireland which had been heard in the House, perhaps, for the last three quarters of a century. He merely wished to say, in reply to the challenge of the Prime Minister, that when he called upon the Representatives from Ireland to produce some plan of self-government which should be consistent in all its details with the maintenance of Imperial unity, he called upon them to act in the present stage of the controversy in a manner that, so far as he was acquainted with Parliamentary history, was without precedent. He was not aware that when the Prime Minister designed the establishment of religious equality in Ireland by the overthrow of the Established Church, he proceeded in the first instance by means of a detailed plan. He proceeded by means of abstract Resolutions, and when he got the assent of the House to the principle involved in these Resolutions, and when he knew that the House was prepared to discuss the question in detail, he then brought forward the measure which certainly had almost entirely established religious equality in their country. He might ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Bright), who took such a distinguished and honourable part in the Free Trade movement, whether before Free Trade was established in this country the advantages of that reform were not presented by means of abstract Resolutions? He might ask—How did Sir Robert Peel proceed in preparing the country for the acceptance of that reform? He might go back to the time of Catholic

    857
    Emancipation in support of his statement that the House should not be called upon to consider the question of self-government for Ireland until the English people had declared that the Irish people ought to have the management of their own affairs. While he said that, he would not hesitate for a moment in seconding the suggestion of the hon. Member for Northampton in reference to the self-government that prevailed in the different States of the American Union. Notwithstanding the declarations that had proceeded from the Irish Benches denying that it was any part of the Irish national policy to disentegrate the Empire, they had been accused by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that they entertained the fell purpose of breaking up the unity of the United Kingdom and the Empire at large. Now, there happened to be at the present moment no less than 40 Home Rule Parliaments in the United States, and the recent Diplomatic Correspondence between this country and the United States would support him when he said that whenever they touched America upon any question of international importance, and when the United States was brought into conflict in its international relations with any other Power, they touched a chord of patriotism which vibrated from New York to San Francisco. Would any man tell him that the United States would be enfeebled and less strong in case of war because the Central Government had sense enough to disembarrass itself from the management of local affairs? The Prime Minister was the first modern statesman who had used language on this subject upon which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) did not set, perhaps, as high a value from an Irish Nationalist's point of view as others did. He did not wish to commit the Prime Minister to anything one inch beyond what he chose to go; but he said that, taking his statement as a whole, and considering the present state of the country, it was one very valuable and one worthy of the serious attention of the Irish Representatives. But, at all events, in former times, when this question of the integrity of the Empire was under discussion, they had a declaration from a statesman whose name would never die. They had the testimony of Edmund Burke, who told them that a
    858
    cheerful alliance was a more secure link of connection than subordination borne with grudging discontent. Fox, in 1800, said—
    "We ought not to proceed upon the abominable presumption of thinking that we can legislate for the Irish people better than the Irish people themselves."
    If the Prime Minister was ashamed of the language of Burke and the testimony of Fox, and if he could be frightened out of his manly and straightforward attitude with regard to this question by the threats of the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, then he would be a very different man from what he was taken to be by the people of Ireland and Great Britain. He thought the speech of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland might be summed up in one or two sentences. He objected to the policy which Her Majesty's Government had pursued in reference to the condition of Ireland, and about nine-tenths of his speech was devoted to denouncing his political opponents. While he was engaged in that terrible operation he received the hearty cheers of the Irish Members; but when he commenced to explain the Conservative policy which he would have substituted for the policy of Her Majesty's Government he received not one solitary cheer from the Irish Benches; and he (Mr. O'Connor Power) said, therefore, that if the ex-Chief Secretary was still intrusted with the conduct of affairs in Ireland he would have to encounter the great initial difficulty of having to carry on the government of that country without any moral or practical support from the great body of the Representatives of the people. One-tenth alone of the speech of the late Chief Secretary was devoted to a constructive policy, and what was that? He told them that he found fault with the Act of Lord O' Hagan, which put trial by jury on a constitutional basis, which relieved trial by jury from the stigma which at the memorable trial of Daniel O'Connell one of the most eminent lawyers in the Upper House cast upon it when he denounced trial by jury in Ireland as a mockery, a delusion, and a snare. That was the right hon. Gentleman's remedy, and he had yet another remedy—perpetual coercion. He objected to the Government because three weeks after they came into power they did not immediately perpetuate a policy of coercion. Failing

    859
    these, there remained the expatriation of the Irish people—emigration, as he termed it. In the time of the Famine years it might have well happened that emigrants left the shores of Ireland in numbers. Those emigrants were flung upon the shores of the United States like the wreck of some noble vessel that had broken down in a fierce storm. But the elements of that wreck had been brought together; they had been consolidated into a power which was now holding terms across the Atlantic by its support of the Land League, and that was what had come of the forcible expatriation of the Irish people. But the right hon. Gentleman would not send the Irish emigrants to the United States. Certainly he was a bountiful statesman. He would not allow the departing emigrant, taking the last look at the green fields of his country, the poor privilege of choosing his new home. He would deny him the privilege of choosing to remain in Ireland, for he would refuse to stop the policy of eviction; and he would deny him the poor privilege of selecting in what distant shore he should seek to establish his new fortunes. But all these were the proposals of political quackery. They had now heard the last of them. As one who had made no attempt to rouse the passions of his countrymen, he could tell the right hon. Gentleman, in the name of those whom he represented, that the Irish people who were now on the soil of Ireland intended to remain there. No matter what English Government was in power, no matter whether a Land Act was passed, or whether the justice of a Land Act was dispensed with, they were resolved to hold possession of the inheritance which God had given them. He owed an apology to the House for interposing between it and the Prime Minister; but having had some experience of the action of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, he felt he should be wanting in his duty if he did not give expression to his strong dissent from his policy. He would, however, guard himself against bringing an accusation of the same kind against the great body of the Conservative Party. He recognized with gratitude the statesmanlike attitude assumed last Session by the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) when the discus-
    860
    sion of the Land Act was taking place in the House. He recognized the right hon. Gentleman's patriotism as an Englishman in his treatment of that measure, and, no doubt, he represented a large body of opinion in the Conservative Party, which had great and deep sympathies with Ireland. But the section of that Party represented by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down (Mr. Lowther) was one which would perpetuate for ever the differences which had kept Ireland and Great Britain apart; and he prayed God it might never be in the power of that section of the Conservative Party to establish the long reign of coercion and misgovernment which had done so much to perpetuate the hostility between Great Britain and Ireland.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I think the House will be very generally disposed to agree that the speech delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for North Lincolnshire (Mr. Lowther) is a memorable speech. Let me advert briefly to one or two of the points contained in that speech. The right hon. Gentleman has availed himself, as he was well entitled to do, of the opportunity of self-defence, and of adverse criticism upon his opponents. Well, on the point of self-defence, how does the matter stand? In the latter part of October I referred to an appeal which I had presumed to make, and which I think, in the position I held, I was justified in making, to all classes and degrees of the loyal subjects of Her Majesty in the Three Kingdoms, to support the Government in the arduous conflict in which we were engaged in Ireland on behalf of law, order, and property. I could not expect, from a limited number of Gentlemen sitting in the House, or from those who follow or agree with them outside, any favourable response to that appeal; but I did expect from the right hon. Gentleman, not only as a Member of the Conservative Party but as the organ of that Party, with respect to Irish policy a different reply from that which I received when I adverted to the struggle into which we had entered, to the tremendous nature of the conspiracy which had been established, and which was then endeavouring to carry its objects by force and by intimidation. The right hon. Gentleman, called upon to give his support to the Govern-

    861
    ment in the performance of a duty elementary and common to all Governments, replied by saying that, in his opinion, it could not be too widely known that the person against whom we were acting received the support of the large majority of the people of Ireland, and that Mr. Parnell, who had just then been incarcerated, was the chosen Representative of the great bulk of that nation. [Cheers from the Irish Members.] I can quite understand the cheers with which they greet the repetition of those words; but what I wish to point out to the House is the manner in which the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the organ of his Party for their Irish policy, has answered to an appeal made to all loyal citizens to support Her Majesty's Government in maintaining the cause of law and order. I ask the right hon. Gentleman now, does he think that those words of his were calculated to strengthen our hands or to weaken them in the conflict in which we were engaged? It is quite obvious that by those words the right hon. Gentleman, at a critical moment, did his best to add force to the cause of those with whom we were endeavouring to contend and to decrease the force of those who, for the moment, were the representatives of every social interest and right. Well, Sir, the right hon. Gentleman has not been content with referring, I must say most ingenuously, to that subject; but, as the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. O'Connor Power) has pointed out, he has likewise shadowed forth to us the policy which he thinks ought to be pursued for Ireland. He would go to Ireland, I suppose, to recommend to the people of Ireland the careful and studious observance of the law; but what liberty does he himself allow to himself in speaking of the law? The Land Act of 1870 and the Land Act of 1881 have been treated by other and wiser Members of the Conservative Party with perfect freedom of discussion, yet, notwithstanding, according to the rules of policy and prudence. But to those Acts the right hon. Gentleman points as the sources of deep demoralization. Upon this footing we take our position. But those Acts, which have caused such demoralization, were Acts to which the Party of the right hon. Gentlemen in this Assembly, when it had power and responsibility,
    862
    did not seek to offer opposition. The right hon. Gentleman boasts of what he did when he was in Office; but it is not very profitable, perhaps, to enter at great length upon a retrospect of his official history upon his rejuvenesence. To the people of Ireland there was one portion of the land legislation which carried no poison in it, and that was the legislation with respect to the clauses of the Act which were intended to promote the creation or extension of the body of small proprietors in Ireland. And what did the right hon. Gentleman and his Friends do on that subject? They offered every impediment and objection to the proposal that they could.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: How?
    MR. GLADSTONE: By opposing it in Committee.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I was not a Member of it.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I said "He and his Friends;" I did not say "He." I will come to the right hon. Gentleman by-and-bye. Those who were there on the part of the right hon. Gentleman opposed any attempt to obtain an increased extension of the clauses of the Land Act, and then they opposed any step that might be proposed to be taken in this House for the purpose of giving effect to the proposal of the Committee.
    MR. PLUNKET: If the right hon. Gentleman is referring to me, I may say that I was a Member of that Committee, and I took a prominent part in its deliberations, and on no occasion did I oppose the policy of the Government; but there were some small points on which I did differ.
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman; but he will admit that we have a right to form our opinion on the subject too. His acts are upon record; and I say that, in our opinion, he did in that Committee pursue the course I have described. But I will pass that over. Does the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) say that he favoured the adoption by this House of the Resolution by which the House declared its anxiety for an extension of those clauses?
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I gave an assent to that Resolution.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The right hon. Gentleman may have assented to it as

    863
    a Member of a Government may not infrequently assent, and as the Members of the late Government were often in the habit of assenting, to propositions when they knew that the sense of the House was against them. But the right hon. Gentleman, unless I am much mistaken, objected to that Resolution before he assented to it, and after it had been passed he did nothing to give effect to it. I am speaking of the Resolution founded on the Report of the year 1878.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: 1879.
    MR. GLADSTONE: The Resolution was in 1879, and the right hon. Gentleman gave no indication of any disposition to give effect to it. As the hon. Member who has just sat down (Mr. O'Connor Power) said, the proposition of the right hon. Gentleman goes much further than this. He not only denounces the Act by which trial by jury became a reality—and a constitutional reality in Ireland—but he declares that trial by jury in Ireland is a monstrous farce which ought not to be permitted longer to continue. He is prepared, then, to strike at the very foundations of Irish liberty.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: What I said was, trial by jury should be discontinued in agrarian cases.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad that I have given the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of introducing a limitation into his speech.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: My remarks applied to a statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland in which he was dealing entirely with agrarian cases.
    MR. GLADSTONE: When the right hon. Gentleman spoke he did not found his declaration upon the statement of the Attorney General for Ireland, but in the most distinct terms he made the tremendous proposition which I am now glad to find he has thought it better materially to limit. I should like to know whether the proposal would be part of the policy of the right hon. Gentleman were he to succeed in the legitimate object of Parliamentary opposition, and if he were to resume the Office which he lately held? But that is not all. The right hon. Gentleman takes the most exact measure of the value he attaches and the rights he assigns to Irish opinion on Irish matters. No doubt, it was most gratifying to some
    864
    of the Gentlemen sitting in that portion of the House to hear the avowal of the right hon. Gentleman's opinion, which, in my view, is most libellous to the people of Ireland—the opinion, namely, that the action of the Land League represented the true sentiment and desire of the great mass of the Irish people. But the satisfaction with which that avowal was received must be somewhat qualified when the right hon. Gentleman tells us that he does not care a rush for Irish feeling, and that if 90 per cent of Irishmen are disposed in certain matters to express a particular view he is prepared to set that view aside whenever it trenches upon Imperial matters. In the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman, Irishmen have no title whatever as Irishmen to be heard on Imperial matters. That, as it appears to me, is the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. J. LOWTHER: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. I did not say that Irishmen had no right to be heard on Imperial questions. What I did say was, that I would not consider their opinion when it was in favour of the disintegration of the Empire.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I must again thank the right hon. Gentleman for having greatly and effectively limited the terms of his previous speech. There is no one here who holds that any of us is entitled to promote the disintegration of the Empire. As has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down, the right hon. Gentleman has another remedy for Irishmen who are now in Ireland. If they do not like it they may leave it, and their leaving it is the remedy he recommends to us. It is his panacea for every evil. He is so far from contemplating with regret the vast expatriation which terrible necessity brought on Ireland in former times that he is prepared to administer more and more of this nostrum to that country; and he says that if you can get a sufficient number of Irish out of Ireland, the country will be comfortable, peaceful, and happy. This is a very remarkable exhibition of the Conservative, or what is called the Tory creed. It is most important and desirable that when the other Chiefs of the Party come to speak, they should, as I have been called on for distinctness upon a certain subject, show how far their views, with respect to

    865
    Irish policy, are the views of the Gentlemen by whom the right hon. Gentleman is surrounded, and afford an indication of the lines on which their Irish administration is hereafter to be conducted. Well, Sir, I am now about to submit myself to examination on a matter to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, and to which I think he was quite justified in referring—namely, the speech recently made by me—not, indeed, upon the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth), but upon the general subject of what is called. Home Rule, and in particular to speeches upon Home Rule which have been delivered by two hon. Members of this House. Sir, my great difficulty in referring to the subject is that I feel that I might, perhaps, if one of the Resolutions it will be my duty to propose in a very few days were already in force, be liable to be arrested by you in the middle of my speech for what you would consider tedious and unnecessary iteration. So often have I repeated, upon so many occasions, the sentiments that I delivered last week, and so innoxious have they been deemed upon those occasions, that I own I am taken by surprise at the sensitiveness of the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who rose to take notice of the dangerous matter they contained. But I do not think that even his attack upon them would have succeeded in producing any excitement on the subject, had it not been followed by what was much more fatal—namely, the expression in remarkable language of the qualified approbation of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton). It is naturally felt that whatever the hon. Gentleman the Member for Sligo could approve must necessarily contain something objectionable and full of danger and mischief. Well, this is a subject on which I have very clear and distinct opinions—opinions which I have never scrupled to declare. They are not shared by many Gentlemen, probably, in this House. They may be considered of a speculative character. It is highly unlikely that I shall ever be called upon to take any practical part in any matter relating to those opinions; but I have the very strongest opinions upon matters in the nature of local government. I have the strongest objections to the tendency which I see constantly prevail to
    866
    the centralization of government, not for Ireland merely, but for England. I hold this tendency to be open to the gravest objection; and I will take it and press it at all points as a cardinal rule of policy, so far as I can, with regard to the general structure and safety of the Empire. I believe that local institutions—the institution of secondary authorities—is a great source of strength, and that in principle the only necessary limit to those powers is the adequate and certain provision for the supremacy of the central authority. I believe that when the demand is made from Ireland for bringing purely Irish affairs more especially or more largely under Irish control outside the walls of Parliament, the wise way to meet that demand is not the method adopted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket), who, if I understood him aright, said that anything recognizing purely Irish control over purely Irish affairs must be necessarily a step towards separation, and must, therefore, be fraught necessarily with danger. That I do not believe to be the wise or the just method of dealing with the subject. In my opinion, the wise and just method of dealing with it is this—to require that before any such plan can be dealt with or can be examined with a view to being dealt with on its merits, we must ask those who propose it—and this is a question I have universally put—What are the provisions which you propose to make for the supremacy of Parliament? That has been my course, and that is the course in which I intend to persevere. I am bound to say that I have not yet received an answer. I never heard in the time of Mr. Butt, or from the mouth of any other Gentleman, any adequate or satisfactory explanation upon that subject. And to this declaration of my opinions I have only one limitation more to add, and it is that I am not prepared to give to Ireland anything which in point of principle it would be wrong to give to Scotland if Scotland requires it; and that is a condition—that is a limitation—which I am sure Irish Members of the most popular class will be ready to accept. These declarations, regarded on my part as a formidable novelty, were made in Mid Lothian, the scene of so many of my misdeeds, and they were made in the Guildhall, which might

    867
    have been considered a more consecrated precinct, and also in Aberdeen. I cannot recall all the speeches in which I have adverted to this subject; but I have taken the pains to recall six of them—it seems to me a tolerable allowance. One was in 1872 at Aberdeen, when I was Prime Minister; one was in 1879–80 in Mid Lothian; and another was in the Guildhall, in 1881. But the three speeches made out of Parliament were balanced by three speeches made in Parliament. For in 1872, as Prime Minister, I made a reply to Mr. Butt precisely in the same spirit—in the spirit of the declaration I have now made, and in the spirit of the sentences I uttered last week. I made the same declaration in 1874, when I was not Minister, but Leader of the Opposition; and I made the same declaration in 1880, when I sat on those Benches as an independent Member. But perhaps I may be allowed to quote a few words which exhibit better than anything else the accuracy of my statement as to the spirit in which I have endeavoured to deal with the subject. My hon. Friend the Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), on the 27th of February, 1880, made a remarkable speech on this question. He made a proposition which I could not accept any more than I could accept the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Tipperary (Mr. P. J. Smyth) the other night. Professing himself an advocate of what he termed "Home Rule," he argued and pleaded for it in a spirit which won my sympathy and regard, and I did not scruple to rise in my place and use these words—
    "I, of course, am not of the opinion professed by my hon. Friend upon the important question to which he refers; but I must say that the spirit of thorough manliness in which he approaches this question, and which he unites with a spirit of thorough kindliness to us, and with an evident disposition to respect both the functions of this House and the spirit of the English Constitution, does give hope that if the relations between England and Ireland are to become thoroughly satisfactory, the most important contribution to that essential end will have been made by my hon. Friend and those who speak like him."—[3 Hansard, ccl. 1587.]
    That was the spirit in which I received the declaration made by the hon. Gentleman as Leader—for at that time he was Leader—of the Home Rule Party of Ireland. Every one of the speeches to
    868
    which I have referred is, I believe, in complete and exact conformity with the opinions I have just read. And now I am afraid I must say a few words upon the leading point of attack made upon the Government in the course of this lengthened and, of necessity, greatly divergent debate. The attack which has been made with regard to the Sub-Commissioners who have been engaged in administering the Land Act has been continued. With reference to that attack, I must point out that those gentlemen are entitled to our confidence, only acting as they do in the discharge of their judicial duty, until they have done something to forfeit that confidence. The burden of proof is upon those who assail them. The burden, however, of presumption is not adverse to them, but is entirely in their favour, and there are two or three presumptive tests, all of which severally throw more or less light—and conjointly considerable light—upon their conduct. One of these is the nature of their treatment which their judgments receive upon appeal; and I understand that, as far as those judgments have been tested by appeal; the effect has been to confirm and sustain in general the proceedings of the Sub-Commissioners. If that is so, this is a point of great importance. Another presumption is the nature of the agreements made between landlords and tenants out of Court; because, although you may say, and justly so, that they are not conclusive proofs, yet they do afford a considerable presumption in favour of the proceedings of the Sub-Commissioners. No one has said that the nature of these agreements tend to show that the Sub-Commissioners are proceeding upon any other than judicial principles. But, Sir, there is a third test, and it is this—It is in the power of every man to go, if he likes, not to the Sub-Commissioners, but to the County Courts, a power which has been exercised by some suitors. But I have not yet heard either of two things. I have not heard that the County Courts were suspected of undue partiality to the tenants as to the working of the Land Act of 1870, and I have not yet heard that the proceedings of the County Courts under the present Land Act have indicated any difference of spirit and aim in the treatment of cases brought before them as

    869
    compared with the Sub-Commissioners. I say this, not in defence of the Government, but because the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) said that what the House was on-titled to expect was that the Government should make choice of the best men they could get to fill the office of Sub-Commissioner, and, if that choice were made, the Sub-Commissioners must stand or fall by their own merits. Of course, that is a matter upon which we are prepared to stand the fire of criticism, and I do not think the attempts to review the proceedings of the Irish Government induce us to imagine that our task will be one of very formidable difficulty. Then several hon. Members have adverted to the question of compensation, and it has been stated with perfect truth, as far as I am concerned, that I said if Parliament were, by an arbitrary Act, to reduce rents to Griffith's valuation, then there would be a case for compensation, because that reduction would be an act resting upon no principle of justice—an arbitrary act resting upon no principle that could be sustained. But this I must venture to point out—that it cannot be safely or justly assumed that when Parliament deals with the incomes of a class in such a way as to produce a diminution of their amount, that there a case for compensation arises. In such cases much has to be examined before that proposition is established; and I may quote an example very familiar in the earlier years of my Parliamentary life in proof of what I have stated—I mean the case of the Irish tithes. When that question was dealt with in this and in the other House of Parliament, with the full consent of the Conservative Party of that day, but without any consent at all on the part of the clergy of Ireland, and without the slightest regard to the vested interest of any one of them, 25 per cent was struck off the amount of tithes which each of those clergymen was entitled to receive in respect of his benefice. Nor have I ever heard any serious complaint of that proceeding, for it was founded, I apprehend, upon the belief that while this severe operation of mulcting was inflicted on the clergy of Ireland, it was an honest attempt on the part of Parliament to secure for them the remaining 75 per
    870
    cent, and to give that a stronger basis than it before possessed; and therefore I must say that, although I do not at all retract what I said with regard to Griffith's valuation, I am by no means prepared to say that a diminution of income brought about as the effect of legislation does in itself, and apart from examination of other portions of the case, constitute a claim for compensation. I believe Parliament has been acting as vigorously and as honestly in the interests of property, and has been endeavouring to give as much security to proprietary rights in passing the provisions of the Land Act of last year, as it did when it deducted 25 per cent from the stipends of the clergy in Ireland, in order to give them a better chance, or rather a greater certainty, of receiving the remaining 75 per cent. Then, Sir, come the questions of the administration of Ireland, and the administration of this Act by the Government. The noble Lord the Member for Middlesex (Lord George Hamilton) has referred at length, as have other hon. Members, to a speech delivered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade, and I have heard repeated by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the charge that "in some way or other," according to one expression, "Her Majesty's Government have used the Land League as a lever to obtain the Land Act;" in another form of expression, I think it was that "we tolerated the proceedings of the Land League in order to help us in obtaining the Land Act." Now, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has emphatically repudiated that construction of his speech, and I beg to echo that repudiation. I assure the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex—of course, I am not in any way imputing to him intentional misrepresentation—that there is not in our minds the slightest shred or shadow of any idea or consideration corresponding to that which he seems disposed to think we entertained. I do not hesitate to say that, in my opinion, it would be a great guilt, hardly to be too severely visited by any measure that Parliament could adopt, to compel any Executive Government to waive its duty in the maintenance of order and proprietary rights, for the purpose of promoting legislative measures, however good those objects might be in

    871
    themselves. I repudiate the doctrine, root and branch, from beginning to end; and I will make no terms with it, or entertain it in any way; and the true answer to this charge is not merely that we did not do it, but that we could not do it. If it is said that we tolerated the Land League, the meaning of that is that we allowed its operations to go on when we had the power to stop them by means of the Act for the Protection of Person and Property. [An hon. MEMBER: The Common Law.] Stop it by the Common Law! We tried to stop the operations of the Land League by means of the Common Law. We brought an action against the Leaders of the Land League, and we failed in that action; we did not believe it was in our power to stop them by the Common Law, and I believe any attempt to do so would have been a miserable failure, and that it would probably have ended in wrecking all law and order in Ireland. I understood that we were reproved for not continuing to apply the provisions of the Act for the Protection of Person and Property; but I cannot help observing that those who now reproach us with having failed to put down the Land League, whether by Common Law or by the Act referred to—that those who so reproach us in 1882 did not, to my knowledge, give us that advice in 1881. I am tolerably familiar with the debates of last year, and I have refreshed my own memory as well as I could by reference to the better memories of others; but it appears to me that this suggestion—I do not say it is not legitimately devised as part of the apparatus of political warfare that evokes it—does not in the slightest degree represent any opinion which was entertained, or which found vent upon those Benches during the long-continued debates of last Session. Moreover, there was good reason why it should not have found vent. I believe it would have been impossible for you to find fault with us for not taking effectual measures against the Land League without condemning yourselves; and although I do not pretend to condemn the inaction of the former Government—I make no accusation on the subject—but it appears to me that they make a great accusation against themselves, for the Land League was in full force during the time that they were in Office. It held between 200 and 220 meetings,
    872
    and professed the same objects which it continued to profess down to the month of October last. The right hon. Gentleman says that the declarations made by its Chiefs were at that time comparatively moderate. Sir, upon that point I entirely join issue with him. I am not going to canvass the declarations of any man who is not here to defend himself; but I maintain that the whole idea of proceeding to illegal combination, and the most violent and disloyal language in connection with it, had been used during the time that the right hon. Gentleman was in Office. For my own part, I well remember the impression which those declarations made upon me, and the confident expectation I had that the right hon. Gentleman and the late Government would, and must, exercise all the powers of the law, such as they were, for the purpose of vindicating it against such declarations. I think it was the noble Lord the Member for Middlesex who stated that we had made capital of the political prescience of Lord Beaconsfield, apparently referring to the letter of Lord Beaconsfield to the Duke of Marlborough, at the time of the Dissolution of the last Parliament. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: Hear, hear!] The worthy Alderman takes it in at once. I suppose he recollects the letter of the late Lord Beaconsfield; that it was full of prophecies about the state of Ireland, which were afterwards fulfilled; that it pointed out the dangerous character of the Land League; that it referred to a social agitation that was going to be so widely spread, and that it warned us to prevent its consequences. He recollects all that; but, unfortunately, there is not a word about it in the letter. The hon. Member has, indeed, a marvellous memory; he remembers not only that which has happened, but that which has not happened, for the letter, in emphatic terms, only warns us against a great scheme for the disintegration of the Empire. Of the social agitation with which, since then, we have had exclusively to deal, it does not say one word. [An hon. MEMBER: The same thing.] It is not the same thing. The two things are absolutely distinct; and the reason why the letter to the Duke of Marlborough contained no reference whatever to this dangerous social agitation is that it is an entirely different thing from political dismemberment, which might take place

    873
    without social anarchy, as social revolution might take place without political dismemberment. On the 15th of March Lord Oranmore and Browne raised this question, and endeavoured to lay before the House of Lords the very dangerous condition of Ireland in respect of this social agitation, and Lord Beaconsfield, who replied, declined to recognize that in that aspect it was dangerous at all. He said that the expiring Act would be renewed; but he afterwards advised a Dissolution, which made that renewal absolutely impossible. ["No!"] I am bound to say, differing in this altogether from the right hon. Gentleman, that if that Act had been revived, it would hardly have had the slightest, probably no appreciable, effect whatever upon the subsequent course of events in Ireland. The Land League grew and throve under the Act, and in the month of May, 1880, when it had not expired, I believe that the Land League had become a power throughout the whole of Ireland. If there are any circumstances which might tend to qualify this view, I shall be glad to be made acquainted with them; but, so far from our being able to make any political capital out of this prescience, I shall be obliged to anyone who will point out to me the prescience in any shape or form. There was another very grave circumstance indeed, which we were naturally led to notice, and that was the course taken by the late Government with respect to certain trials. They instituted proceedings against certain persons, though not conforming to the doctrine on which we have endeavoured to act—namely, the doctrine of striking at the Leaders of the Land League. Still, they instituted certain trials; but in those trials they did not attempt to press forward with expedition. Now, that is a fact of the gravest importance. They did institute certain trials, but they did not choose to carry forward those trials with expedition to their consummation; and they, at least, saw nothing dangerous in the condition of the country with regard to which they felt themselves at liberty to deal so lightly. The charge, then, that we tolerated the Land League during the summer months of last year I meet, not only by observing that it was never then contemplated to undertake so hazardous and so Quixotic an enterprize as an effort to put it down by
    874
    the Common Law; but, likewise, that that advice was never given to us at the time. It would, I think, have been very bad advice at that time, and I doubt whether so shrewd a man as the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) would have counselled his Party to adopt it. But that right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared to labour under one misapprehension, which I should like, if I can, to dissipate. I am bound to say I do not like to pass by his speech without noticing particularly the concluding part of it. The whole of it was a most able production, and the earlier part of it was the effort of a cool political gladiator using his weapons, I will not say unfairly, but effectively. In the latter part of his speech, however, I found matter to which I would refer as an absolute contradiction to the closing portion of the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend. I recognized in that latter part of his speech the patriot and the statesman, when he gave a luminous and impartial review of the state of Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman recognized, in guarded terms—the very same description of guarded terms we have always been careful to use, as it was our duty to be careful—that there was improvement in Ireland. Still, he said this—that we had created a crisis in October, and he thought that I had admitted or stated that we created the crisis. I did nothing of the kind. What I said was this—that the Land Act had created the crisis in October. It created the crisis by compelling the promoters of the Land League to take choice between a good course and a bad one. It compelled them either to advance or recede, and they chose to advance; but by that advance they created for us a completely new state of circumstances. That new state of circumstances led to the arrests, which have been naturally enough the subject of much observation and comment in this House; but I own I am astonished at the misapprehensions which still prevail as to the causes of those arrests. There are Gentlemen who suppose that the Member for Cork City was arrested—and when I speak of him I only proceed upon the doctrine laid down the other day by the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that his name is synonymous with the Land League—

    875
    and that the others were arrested in like manner, because, instead of demanding a diminution of rent to the standard of Griffith's valuation, they were supposed to be demanding a diminution of rent to the prairie value. Undoubtedly, that was an important factor in the case; but it was no cause, and no part of the cause of the arrests. Then, it is again supposed that the arrests took place because of endeavours to persuade the tenants not to use the Land Act, but to set up test cases under the control of the Land League. That action was an important fact in the history of the whole transaction; but we could not possibly have been justified in directing any of those arrests on account of a mere extension of the purposes of the Land League, or the doctrines that had been professed by it. What we required was that if anyone were to be arrested under the Act he must be arrested because he was reasonably suspected of some crime punishable by law—
    "Being an act of violence or intimidation, or inciting to an act of violence or intimidation, tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order."
    These words, and these words alone, were the words under which the arrests were made. We did not believe, up to that time, that we could allege any case to Parliament that we had this reasonable suspicion of such persons individually. We then had belief, and upon that belief we have acted, and we are ready, of course, to be responsible for the acts which we have done. But then, when that was done, our position towards the Land League was fundamentally changed. When we were able to adopt this doctrine, that the Leaders of the Land League were, in our opinion and belief, guilty of crimes punishable by law—
    "Being acts of violence or intimidation, or inciting to acts of violence or intimidation, tending to interfere with or disturb the maintenance of law and order"—
    MR. O'DONNELL: Where and when?
    MR. GLADSTONE: That is not the question before us. The question before us is the motives on which the Government acted, and not the propriety of the Government's action.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I was asking for proof.
    MR. GLADSTONE: When we found ourselves in a condition—as we believe with justice—to hold that the acts done by the leaders and directors of the Land League amounted to crimes punishable by law and to acts of violence and intimidation, or intimidation, or inciting to such acts, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will at once see that then our whole position towards the Land League itself as a body was essentially modified; and we were then in a condition—I do not say to suppress the Land League, because I really do not know whether at this moment the Land League is suppressed or not—but to prohibit the meetings of the Land League and run all risks which we were then satisfied we might encounter without alarm. That is an account of our proceedings, which, in our opinion, could not be taken at an earlier period, or, again, could not have been properly delayed. Of course, it was our hope that when the Land Act passed we should be permitted to find ourselves in contact with a happier state of things. Sanguine friends and lovers of Ireland urged us to celebrate, as it were, the passing of the Land Act by a release of the whole of the "suspects." We did not think we should be justified in an act so daring—so daring, I mean, not in a sense adverse to the law, but as to the proclamation it would have entailed of the sanguineness of our anticipations. We thought it our duty to wait till we learnt from experience that we could, with safety, adopt that course. And, as is well known, when we thought it could be done with safety, no inconsiderable number of persons were released. But then we became cognizant of the fact that that fatal resolution had been taken by the Leaders of the Land League, which placed them in direct conflict with the law and institutions of the country, and made them directly responsible, for so we thought them, for the consequences produced; and we saw, after that doctrine of "no rent" had been propagated, that the fact of the payment of rent became a crime in the view of those whom I must regard as virtually the Leaders of the Land League. The hon. Member for Sligo, in a speech marked throughout by great ability, and, in part, a most touching speech, gave us a most pathetic account of the sufferings of himself and those who had been immured with him in Kilmainham. We most

    877
    deeply regret suffering or inconvenience of any kind, great or small, inflicted through our immediate agency upon any one of our fellow-subjects. But we had, Sir, to take into view other sufferings of a different order. What were the principles that these gentlemen had been sowing broadcast through the country? Here, in this House, we have had the speeches quoted, and we have found in them saving clauses provided as places of retirement, and to show that the law was to be respected; but while these clauses were few, the glaring and flaming letters of a general exhortation of the Land League went forth, not only to dissuade from paying rents, but to denounce the paying of rent, and to exhibit the man who paid rent as guilty of a social crime; and when we saw that these exhortations were followed by what I may call their natural, necessary, and inevitable results, then I say we had other sufferings to take into view. It might be very inconvenient for hon. Members to be confined in a small cell; but we had to think of those who, in the sanctuary of their own houses, for no offence except that of having discharged their legal obligations, were liable, sometimes to ruinous losses, sometimes to cruel alarms, sometimes to mutilation of their persons, and sometimes to death itself. These were the sufferings which we thought it our duty to avert by every means in our power. For that end we have laboured, and for that end we shall labour. None will rejoice so much as we when we can do that within the lines of the ordinary law in which we have shown from the very first our disposition and desire to trust. By whatever weapons Parliament may place in our hands, we shall endeavour to protect innocent lives and the persons and property of the people of Ireland against the cruel and destructive oppressions that are inflicted on them in the name and in conseqnence of the ill-advised action of her professing friends.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
    MR. GORSTsaid, that, seeing the course the debate had taken, they could not but regret the great waste of public time that occurred on Tuesday night. That evening the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had made a most important
    878
    and eloquent speech, and the Attorney General for Ireland was quite ready to get up and answer him. He was brim full of matter—so full, in fact, that he could only deliver it in a speech three hours long to-night. Last year the Attorney General for Ireland gained for himself the distinction of having made the longest speech in a great debate; and this Session he had won for himself the distinction of having, so far, made the longest speech of the Session. The country would see by whom these debates were prolonged; and he should like to ask the Members of Her Majesty's Government why the three hours' speech of the Attorney General for Ireland was not made last Tuesday night, and why they allowed the debate to collapse then, when it must necessarily be renewed again, and might extend over another night in the present week?
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I can only say what I feel sure the hon. and learned Member is aware is the usual practice in the House—namely, that an important Member of the Government does not generally rise to answer an important speech just at the time hon. Gentlemen are going to dinner.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERexpressed a hope that an opportunity would be given his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) for raising the question of which he had given Notice the other day
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate further adjourned till To-morrow.

CHURCHWARDENS' ADMISSION BILL.
(Mr. Monk, Sir Gabriel Goldney.)

[BILL 45.] SECOND READING.
Order for Second Reading read.
MR. MONK, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he should trespass but a very few moments on the time of the House in describing this measure, which was introduced to Parliament some years ago. When he introduced the Bill in 1874 he was told by the Home (Secretary of that day (Sir R. Assheton Cross) that it would be better not to deal with the question in a fragmentary way. The right hon. Gentleman had told them to wait for a more comprehensive measure, which he (Mr. Monk) understood the Government intended to introduce. He waited, and waited in vain, for the right hon. Gentleman, during the six years he was in

879
Office, did not introduce any measure. Last year the present Bill was introduced again, and for more than seven months it was blocked by the hon. and gallant Member for South Essex (Colonel Makins). That hon. and gallant Member, however, had not blocked it now, and he wished to express his acknowledgments to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for having refrained from blocking it. He would now explain the objects of the Bill and leave it to be dealt with by the House. The measure merely provided for the admission of Churchwardens to office at an early period. The office of Churchwarden was a very ancient one. The Churchwarden was guardian of the parish church, and was also guardian of the parish property and legal representative of the parochial body. The Churchwarden had temporal duties imposed on him—he was, by Common Law, a temporal as well as an ecclesiastical officer. Parochial Churchwardens were overseers of the poor, by virtue of their office. By various Statutes, important duties were thrown upon them, and they were required by law to make a declaration before their admission to office. This was requisite to give them a legal status. Their admission usually took place at the Archdeacon's Visitation; but, every third year, the Archdeacon was inhibited from visiting, and the admission was postponed till the Bishop held his Visitation in October or November, six months after the election of Churchwardens; consequently, during that period the Churchwardens were not in office, although they had been elected at the previous Easter. He thought that, as they undertook onerous duties, for which there was no payment, they, at all events, should have their title made good by admission as soon as possible after election; and he did not know what objection his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins) could raise to the Bill. Many of the Members of the Episcopal Bench—the Archbishop of York and many right rev. Prelates—had expressed their desire that this Bill should become law; and the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol had expressed a hope in the Upper House of Convocation that the Bill would not be opposed, as it was simply a Bill to facilitate the admission of Churchwardens and could not do any harm, while it might do much
880
good. The Bishop of Peterborough had written to him (Mr. Monk) last year describing the delay between the election of Churchwardens and their appointment at a subsequent Visitation as objectionable. In his Bill of 1874 a fee was made payable to the Registrar on registering the admission; but it was totally unnecessary to have any registration, for the Incumbent or the Rural Dean could attest the signature of the Churchwarden's declaration, and that declaration would be produced at the subsequent Visitation. With regard to the opposition of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins) he would remind him that when they were both Members of a Select Committee appointed to consider the Ecclesiastical Offices Bill in 1877, he (Mr. Monk) proposed his Bill word for word as he had brought it in last year, and one of his warmest supporters on that occasion was the hon. and gallant Member, while the only hon. Member who opposed the Bill was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope), who divided the Committee, but was defeated by 10 to 1. But when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge found himself in a minority of one he proposed that the Bill should only apply to cases where there was no Visitation within three months of the election. He (Mr. Monk) should not have much objected to that; but a division was taken, and the numbers were the same—10 to 1 against the proposal. It was, perhaps, a small matter; but it was most desirable that gentlemen who undertook offices of this nature, in which temporal as well as their ecclesiastical duties were performed, should have every facility given them by the Legislature. He, therefore, begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Monk.)
COLONEL MAKINSsaid, he must plead guilty to the crime—if crime it was—of having opposed his hon. Friend last year, despite the fact that on a previous occasion he supported his hon. Friend in the Committee. He wished now to assure his hon. Friend that his object in opposing the Bill was not to throw any difficulties in the way of Churchwardens

881
being admitted to their office. His chief reason for opposing the Bill was that he thought it unnecessary, because, as he thought his hon. Friend would admit, there were in most places, if not in all places, Surrogates who could admit Churchwardens to their offices if no Visitation took place. That was one of his objections; the extreme course of passing a Bill was not necessary when a Churchwarden who desired to be admitted could, without any fee and by going a short distance, be admitted by the Surrogate. Another objection was that the Churchwarden was an officer of the Ordinary, and, therefore, he took it, ought to be admitted by the Ordinary, and not by the clergy, of whom he was an overseer, or, at all events, an observer of what was done by them. In his view, it would be rather anomalous for an officer who had to look after the clergy to be appointed or admitted by the clergy. The Easter Visitation of the Archdeacon nearly always took place, he believed, as soon after Easter as possible, and, therefore, the delay was not of great importance. Prideaux, the great authority upon the duties of Churchwardens, laid it down that their lay duties were not interfered with by the fact of their not having obtained admission. He was bound to accept the authority of one who had been so often quoted—the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol—but he believed the effect of the Bill would be to diminish the attendance of Churchwardens at Visitations, and he would leave it to the House to consider whether that was desirable. Visitations had a social aspect; they brought the Churchwardens of a diocese in communication with the Ordinary, the Bishop, or the Archdeacon; and for that reason he thought it desirable to continue thorn. He would like to ask whether his hon. Friend thought that farmers and men of business of the sort out of whom Churchwardens were usually chosen were likely, after being admitted under this Bill, to take the trouble to go to Visitation when they had no necessity for doing so, and no object beyond going for a jaunt. The objections of those with whom he had communicated rested upon the fact that the Bill would deter Churchwardens from attending Visitations; but there was another point. The Incumbent, by admitting a Churchwarden, would add to that absolutism of the clergy which
882
had been so much complained of. If a clergyman was to select one of his Churchwardens, and admit both, it would seem clear that there would then be no check upon him, and those who were intended to look after him would be mere appendages. That, he thought, would be objectionable; but there was still another objection. In the hon. Member's Bill the declaration was very simple—it was merely a declaration by the Churchwarden to do his duty; but in the ordinary form of declaration—the declaration in use in most Archdeaconries—in addition to declaring that he would faithfully do his duty as a Churchwarden, the Churchwarden declared that he would present such persons and things as were by law presentable. The Bill, as a whole, was, he thought, an uncalled for innovation; there had been no Petitions in favour of it; but, on the other hand, he had received several letters from persons holding high office in the Church strongly objecting to it. He should, therefore, think it right to take the sense of the House upon the Bill.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHsaid, he was sorry that he could not agree in the remarks of his hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Makins), for this appeared to him to be a proposal for useful reform in a matter which, though small, was of some practical importance. What was the effect of the present system? If a Church warden did not attend the Archdeacon's Visitation, because it was not convenient for him to do so, he was made to pay considerable fees for the privilege of admission. If he did not pay these fees, he was not admitted, and the result was that very many Churchwardens did not get admission at all, and so were not legally occupying their offices. There might be some Amendments which, on consideration, might be necessary; but, so far as this stage of the Bill was concerned, he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would not persist in his opposition.
MR. STANLEY LEIGHTONobserved, that there was great ignorance upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach) said fees were payable for the admission of a Churchwarden to office. The right hon. Gentleman was quite wrong, for a Churchwarden was made a Churchwarden before any fees were demanded,

883
and if he refused to pay any fees he was a Churchwarden all the same. There was no necessity for him to pay a single farthing; the fee was a registration fee, and only payable if there were funds, such as church rate or sustentation fund, out of which it could be paid. The objection to the Bill was well put by the hon. and gallant Member (Colonel Makins). The effect of the Bill would be to destroy a Court of First Instance—it would destroy the gathering together of Churchwardens at the Archdeacon's Visitation. This meeting was of great advantage to the Church, for it gave the Churchwardens an opportunity of making presentments with reference to the Church and to the incumbent before the superior officer of the clergyman of the parish. Who had asked for the Bill? Not the Churchwardens; not the Archdeacons, who had condemned it—the Convocation of the Southern Provinces, who knew more about it than the hon. Members, had also condemned the Bill in its present form. It, therefore, came before the House with a condemnation, and he hoped the House would refuse the second reading.
MR. ILLINGWORTHconfessed that this had been a most interesting and instructive discussion. The only reason in favour of the Bill that he had heard was that it was condemned by Convocation; and he appealed to the House whether, in every other respect, it was not a most favourable argument for Home Rule in the Church. For his part, he thought it would be wiser for the Church, as a spiritual institution, to bear the inconveniences of their present position until such time when they could make up their minds to take up the management of their own affairs. He was satisfied that attempts to smuggle through legislation at these untimely hours could not be of advantage to the Church, but were rather humiliating and derogatory to the House. He ventured to hope that his hon. Friend, if he should find out that this Bill was scarcely acceptable to the majority of Churchmen, would regard his defeat with indifference, and hope for better years when Churchmen might meet together, not in Convocation, as at present constituted, but in some better form, when Church matters would receive the consideration that all such questions required. He confessed that he felt altogether out
884
of his element when matters of this kind were brought forward. Some years ago, when a Church matter was before the House, an innocent Dissenter asked what he was to do, when the question was one of entire indifference to him, and one about which he knew nothing. The answer he received was, that he ought to walk out of the House. ["Hear, hear!"] He was delighted to hear that cheer. It was a sentiment in which he concurred; and he thought there ought to be a Parliament for Church matters in which Nonconformists would be out of place. He believed that he was doing his duty to his constituents, and that he was acting in the interests of the Church itself, in pressing upon Churchmen the desirability of providing some means whereby they would be prevented from coming continually before the House of Commons for the settlement of matters in which they only were concerned.
MR. WHITLEYsaid, he did not intend to follow the hon. Member who had just spoken. It was certainly the custom for Churchwardens to pay fees before they were initiated. He had been a Churchwarden for many years and had always had to do so, and the more he looked into this Bill the more he was satisfied that it was a measure that ought to be passed. The Bill itself was only of a permissive character, and simply enabled the Churchwarden, if he wished to be sworn before the Incumbent, or before the Rural Dean, to do so. He trusted that his hon. and gallant Friend would not divide the House.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 86; Noes 20: Majority 66.—(Div. List, No. 10.)
Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday next.

MOTIONS.
  ANCIENT MONUMENTS.

    RESOLUTION.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: I trust I shall not be thought pertinacious in seizing the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the desirability of taking some steps to put a stop to the continued destruction of our ancient national monuments; and I venture to

    885
    hope that, in doing so, I shall not be running counter to the feeling of the House, because the House has so often expressed its opinion that something should be done. The Bill, indeed, which we introduced on the subject has been, over and over again, approved by the House. Obstruction, however, has prevailed where active opposition would have been useless. Our Bill has been read a first time no less than nine times. It has passed the second reading six times. It has passed through a Select Committee upstairs. It has passed through a Committee of the Whole House twice. Once it was read a third time and sent to the House of Lords, where it passed the second reading unopposed, but was lost afterwards from want of time. If we brought it on again I believe it would be supported by an overwhelming majority; but we also know that it would meet with inveterate obstruction from two courteous, but irreconcilable, antagonists. Under these circumstances the House, last year, adopted a Resolution requesting Her Majesty's Government to take some steps to prevent any further national loss. I understand that Her Majesty's Government have prepared a Bill on the subject; but, in the meantime, there is one step which, if anything at all is to be done, might be taken at once. Whatever may be the character of the Government Bill, someone, no doubt, will be intrusted with the duty of inspecting and reporting on the monuments. We do not say that without additional powers the appointment of such an Inspector would effect all that is to be desired, or entirely prevent further mischief. Neither, on the other hand, can it be questioned that such an Inspector might do much good. The number of these monuments which have been destroyed in the prosecution of any great undertaking, or for any important purpose, is comparatively small. They have generally been sacrificed, from ignorance of their value and interest, for the most trivial reasons. They have been carted away to manure the ground, or broken up to mend the roads. At present there is no one who has the right, in the name of the nation, to say a word to prevent such acts of Vandalism; but, if there were some authority, who, speaking in the name of Parliament and his countrymen, could point out to the owner or
    886
    occupier the interest and value of a monument he was about to desecrate, the hand of destruction would certainly often be stayed. And now as to expense. The best Inspector would be one whose heart was in his work; and Her Majesty's Government would have no difficulty in finding a thoroughly qualified archæologist, with whom it would be a labour of love, and who would perform the duty at a salary little more than the expense of a few shots from an 80-pound gun. I trust that Her Majesty's Government will not op-pose this Resolution. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would be one of the first to condemn anyone who destroyed an ancient monument for the sake of a few shillings. But is it not almost as bad to stand by and see irreparable, wanton, and useless destruction going on before our eyes, when it might be so easily prevented? I will not occupy the time of the House by bringing forward evidence as to the sad and wanton destruction of these monuments. On that part of the subject, I believe the House entertains no doubts. But I may be just permitted to mention to hon. Members who have recently entered this Assembly that I have, on previous occasions, brought forward long lists of monuments which have either been grievously mutilated, or, alas! have entirely disappeared; that I have presented Petitions from, I believe, every Archæological Society in England, Scotland, and Ireland; and that I have read to the House earnest and pathetic appeals from our most learned and distinguished archaeologists. My hon. Friends the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Beresford Hope), the hon. Member for Cornwall, who bears a name historic in the records of our science, and which he himself has done much still further to adorn, and other hon. Members will, I am sure, support me in these assertions. I beg, Sir, to move—
    "That, pending the introduction of a general measure dealing with the Ancient Monuments of the Kingdom, and in order as far as possible to protect them from further injury, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should appoint one or more inspectors with authority to inspect and report upon such Ancient Monuments."
    And, Sir, speaking, as I feel I may venture to do, in the name of our an-

    887
    cestors, by whom these monuments were erected, and of our children, to whom their destruction will assuredly be a source of sorrow and of shame, I trust the House will agree to this proposal. These relics have diminished, are diminishing, and will diminish. Their destruction might readily be prevented; and to suffer these grand monuments, the unwritten records of our earliest national history, to be wantonly destroyed, when we might so easily protect them, is surely unworthy of a wealthy and an enlightened people.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That, pending the introduction of a general measure dealing with the Ancient Monuments of the Kingdom, and in order as far as possible to protect them from further injury, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should appoint one or more inspectors with authority to inspect and report upon such Ancient Monuments."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, he had great pleasure, on behalf of the Government, in assenting to the Resolution of his hon. Friend. He would go further, and say that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a measure on the subject of Ancient Monuments, and to provide for the appointment of a Monument Inspector. He did not think his hon. Friend would expect him to explain at that hour the nature of the measure; but it would be his object to introduce it as soon as possible.
    MR. T. T. PAGETwished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the First Commissioner of Works whether the Inspector he shadowed forth was to inspect only those monuments that were scheduled by the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock) in a former Bill, or was he to have a Roving Commission to inspect other monuments?
    MR SHAW LEFEVREsaid, the Inspector would certainly not have a Roving Commission of that kind; but his duties would be limited to those monuments scheduled in the Bill.
    MR. WARTONsaid, he hoped the House would not agree to this proposition. The declaration just made on the part of Her Majesty's Government showed that the proposal was quite unnecessary, because, accepting, as he did most thoroughly, the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Shaw Lefevre) that the
    888
    Government were about to introduce a measure upon the subject—if such a measure was to be introduced, of course, every measure introduced by the Government would be passed into law very quickly after the New Rules for regulating the Business of the House were passed. As soon as the gagging Resolutions were passed, and the House was handed over to the Government and the Liberal majority, either this or any other Resolution could be passed so long as it received the assent of the Government. He would repeat that, as there was a Government measure in the dim vista of the future, it was not a case of urgency to pass the present Resolution. If the circumstances were different, considering the disappointments the hon. Baronet had sustained in other years, the House might be disposed to assent to the present Resolution; but no such reason for urgency now existed. If the Resolution were passed hastily, he was afraid they would be landed in difficulties. In the first place, who was to decide what was an ancient monument? Last year, some hon. Member called the Giants' Causeway an ancient monument. In many localities there were places which were known as the sites of Cæsar's Camps; but nowadays the railroads ran through many of them. Were the Railway Companies to be called upon to give up their rights because some part of their line was originally occupied by an ancient monument? This was an attempt to invade the rights of property, because, if a man had any ancient monuments upon his land, he was as much entitled to them as anyone else. He objected to Inspectors coming to inspect them, and he objected to any Act of Parliament to take them away.
    Motion agreed to.
    Resolved, That, pending the introduction of a general measure dealing with the Ancient Monuments of the Kingdom, and in order as far as possible to protect them from further injury, it is desirable that Her Majesty's Government should appoint one or more inspectors with authority to inspect and report upon such Ancient Monuments.

POST CARDS (REPLY) BILL.
On Motion of Mr. FAWCETT, Bill to authorise the use of Reply Post Cards, ordered to be brought in by Mr. FAWCETT and Lord FREDERICK CAVENDISH.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 74.]

DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.
On Motion of Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Bill to amend the Law of Distress, ordered to be brought in by Sir HENRY HOLLAND, Sir WALTER BART-TELOT, Mr. JOSEPH PEASE, and Mr. CROPPER.
Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 73.]
House adjourned at a quarter before Two o'clock.

TURKEY (ALBANIA)—ASSAULT ON BRITISH OFFICERS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT BARRINGTONsaid, their Lordships would have observed with great regret from the narrative in the newspapers this morning that a very serious occurrence had taken place at Artaki, on the southern shore of the Sea of Marmora. Captain Selby, of the Falcon, and Captain Grenfell, of the Cockatrice, were out on a shooting excursion, when an altercation ensued with an Albanian shepherd, who objected to their proceeding. A kind of scuffle took place, a shot was fired, and Captain Selby was struck on the head with an

  765
  axe. On their way back to their ships the party were attacked by a number of Albanians, and, had it not been for the appearance of Consul Wrench, more lamentable consequences might have followed. While giving full credit to Consul Wrench, he (Viscount Barring-ton) thought it was greatly to be regretted that any English subjects, whether they were officers in the Service of Her Majesty or not, should go upon sporting excursions in those territories without taking with them an interpreter, or having someone with them who could speak the language of the people. It was quite clear that, had it not been for Consul Wrench's acquaintance with the Turkish language, the party might not have returned to their ships. He wished to ask the noble Earl whether he had any further information with reference to these very lamentable circumstances?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The best answer which I can give to the noble Viscount is to read to your Lordships the telegrams which have been received with regard to this most deplorable incident. The following is the telegram which I received from Lord Dufferin. It is dated the 14th of February, 1882, 9.15 P.M.—
  "I am sorry to say that Captain Selby, of Her Majesty's ship Falcon, while out shooting yesterday near Artaki, on the south coast of the Sea of Marmora, in company with Captain Grenfell, of the Cockatrice, was attacked by Albanian shepherds without having given them the slightest provocation. Selby has been very dangerously wounded on the head with an axe, the blow having fractured his skull. When endeavouring to take the wounded officer to the boats the party was set upon by the villagers; their guns were taken from them, and their hands were bound, until Mr. Consul Wrench, who had gone to shoot in a different direction, returned and induced the villagers to release them. The Falcon has returned here. Selby lies in a very dangerous state. The Admiral at Malta, the Admiralty, and Captain Selby's mother have been telegraphed to by Captain Grenfell. I am in the act of bringing this sad affair to the notice of the Sultan and of the Prime Minister, and will leave nothing undone to secure the punishment of the perpetrators of the crime. The man who first attacked Captain Selby and Captain Grenfell might have been easily shot; but Selby laid down his gun in order that he might not be provoked into firing at him. After he had been felled one of the sailors seized Captain Selby's gun and fired it at the assassin, and Captain Grenfell then fired at his assailant; but as the guns were only loaded with snipe-shot neither of the men were seriously hurt. I should be glad to know if your Lordship has any special instructions to send me in reference to this case."
  766
  The only instruction in our power to send was to state our full confidence in Lord Dufferin to do what is necessary to bring the criminals to justice. The second telegram is dated the 15th February, and is as follows:—
  "Telegram from Lord Dufferin, February 15, 1882, delivered at 12.45 P.M., received 1 P.M. Enclair.—Captain Selby has slept tranquilly for six hours, and has taken some food. There is to be a consultation of doctors this afternoon. He is conscious, but has an imperfect command of the words he wishes to use."
  I have absolutely no further information except that read to your Lordships; and with regard to what was stated by the noble Viscount, that there was some imprudence in shooting without an interpreter, it appears that the party were accompanied by Consul Wrench, who was perfectly capable of making himself understood by the Albanians, though he was at the moment shooting in a different direction.

THE VATICAN—DIPLOMATIC INTERCOURSE—MR. ERRINGTON.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, that, though the matter with which his Question dealt had been made the subject of discussion in "another place," he ventured to think the information given by Her Majesty's Government with regard to it was not very great, nor very well calculated to allay the suspicion that had been aroused. As the matter was of some public importance, he desired to ask their Lordships' attention for a few moments while he stated the considerations which had induced him to put this Question on the Paper. As their Lordships were probably aware, in the year 1848 an Act of Parliament was passed authorizing the British Government to send a diplomatic Agent to the Sovereign of the Roman States. He was not aware whether that Act of Parliament was ever taken advantage of; but from a year or two subsequent to that time, down to 1874, he believed he was correct in stating that regular diplomatic intercourse was maintained with the Vatican, either by some agent of our own attached to the Legation at Florence, or in some other way. During that time this country was represented by various distinguished people, among whom were Lord Lyons and Lord Ampt-

  767
  hill. But in the year 1874 Mr. Jervoise resigned the appointment, and from that time to the present no other appointment of a similar nature bad been made. He was led to think that this mission of Mr. Errington seemed to revive that diplomatic intercourse with the Vatican in everything except the name. He certainly did not desire to draw from the noble Earl opposite, or from any of their Lordships, any information as to the abstract desirability of renewing or maintaining such diplomatic intercourse. He could easily imagine a variety of considerations to be urged on one side or the other. On the one side it would be gratifying to many Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty that we should have a diplomatic Agent accredited to the Vatican; and it also might be thought that, in consequence of the influence which the Vatican exercised, and which it was impossible to disregard, it would be for the advantage of this country that it should be properly represented at the Vatican. At the same time, there might be considerations on the other side. He did not profess to have any decided opinions on the subject. If their Lordships were ever called upon to give an opinion upon it, he had do doubt that, like himself, the majority of that House would be largely guided by the experience of the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, and others who had held that Office. But they knew that at the present time Mr. Errington was staying in Rome, and was, he did not say the channel of negotiations, but, at any rate, the channel of communication or of conversation between the Foreign Secretary and the Vatican. He thought it would be very desirable that their Lordships should be informed exactly upon what footing Mr. Errington was now at Rome, whether on the footing indicated in the Question he had given Notice of or some other. One naturally inquired how long Mr. Errington was to be made an agent of communication between Her Majesty's Government and the Vatican. If it were not unduly trespassing on the patience of the House and the noble Earl opposite, he would like that the noble Earl should tell their Lordships what were the subjects of communication. They knew that Mr. Errington, a few years ago, was elected to Parliament in the interests of that Party known to be
  768
  in favour of Home Rule; but he had recently severed his connection with that Party in what he called himself "the interest of the tenant farmers." He was also known to be in favour of denominational education, whether for primary schools or Universities. It might be that his mission to the Vatican had reference to one or other of these subjects. He had heard, on what he believed to be good authority, that, through the good offices of Her Majesty's Government, a considerable sum of money, which was said to be impounded by the Italian Government, but really belonging to the Vatican, had been, or was about to be, repaid to the Vatican, and it might be that Mr. Errington's mission had reference to something of that kind. Again, he had heard, on what he believed to be very good authority indeed, that a Jesuit priest had been accredited by the Vatican to the noble Lord the Viceroy of India; and it might be that the question of the ecclesiastical jurisdiction which the Archbishop of Goa exercised there over Roman Catholic fellow-subjects was the cause of negotiations which were going on. At the same time, he did not ask to be informed of these things if the noble Earl said it was in any way inconvenient that the information should be given. But he understood, from the answer which had been given in "another place," that it was not that it would be inconvenient to give Parliament this information, but that this mission of Mr. Errington, being not an official mission, there was no official record kept of what he said and what he did. Now, it seemed to him that it was hardly possible for this Gentleman to be the channel of communication between the Foreign Office of Her Majesty's Government and the Vatican without his mission partaking more or less of an official nature; and, for his own part, he would look with much less distrust upon a mission which was said to be of an official character. And if it was said that it was not for the public interest that any information should be given to Parliament about it at present, he would wait patiently until such time as the noble Earl thought it convenient to make a communication on the subject. It seemed to him that matters of communication must be either important or of no great importance. If, on

  769
  the one hand, they were of importance, they should be made the subject of an official record which could be at the command of Parliament, should Parliament see fit to ask for it; and if the mission had reference to matters which were not in themselves of great importance, he did not see, though he spoke with all respect, why the communications and their nature should not be given to their Lordships. He had already said he had no desire to prejudge the question of whether or not it was desirable to resume diplomatic intercourse with the Vatican; and at the same time, he hoped he had justified the Question of which he had given Notice. He would now ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Mr. Errington has received any authority from him to enter into communication with the Vatican on matters of interest to Her Majesty's Government and to the Papal See; whether any letter has been addressed to Mr. Errington by the Secretary of State, with the view of being shown to the Cardinal Secretary of State, pointing out Mr. Errington as a gentleman who could treat confidentially with the Vatican on such matters, and whether Cardinal Jacobini has not in consequence received Mr. Errington as the recommended agent (agente raccomandato) of the British Government; whether any communication has been made by Mr. Errington to the Secretary of State as well as to Cardinal Jacobini as the result of such an arrangement; and, if so, whether those communications will be laid on the Table of the House?
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that, as he had addressed their Lordships at some length last year on the subject of being represented at the Vatican, he would not repeat what he then stated. He was agreeably surprised that the noble Lord had not raised any objection to the appointment of an accredited Agent to the Vatican, a fact which was of some significance. The Prime Minister said last year that they were within a measurable distance of civil war in Ireland. He thought he was justified in saying now that they were within measurable distance of martial law in that country. This circumstance was an additional argument in favour of having an avowed Agent at Rome, for if the Government had made representations to the Court
  770
  of Rome as to the conduct of any of the priests or Bishops, and if the Court of Rome failed to suspend or remove such priests, the Government would then be much more free to act towards them with the necessary severity, without its being possible to raise a cry in any part of Europe of religious persecution. That he might not be misunderstood, he wished to say that he was a personal friend of Mr. Errington, and thought that in the best of times he would have been a credit to any constituency in Ireland; and it was a mean thing of the Government to give him no remuneration at a time when all Irish gentlemen were in such straitened circumstances. But he thought that a Protestant was to be preferred to a Catholic as Agent of Her Majesty's Government at Rome, and the Foreign Office could not do better than go back to Mr. Jervoise. Now, some who objected to the presence, at the Court of Rome, of an Agent of the British Government, said that it was an exchange of spiritual matters for political support. He asked what was the chief bane of Ireland? Was it not the prevalence of murder, and the connivance and sympathy with it of the Irish peasants, which made it impossible to bring criminals to justice? Murder had nothing whatever to do with politics, which were debatable things. Every Government was equally interested in preventing murder. Murder and crimes of violence belonged to the domain of faith and morals. What had the Government done to check these crimes, or what could they do? Protestant preachers could do nothing to moralize the Irish peasants; they would not be listened to. Papal action alone would be efficacious as a remedy for this state of things. In other Catholic countries a cross marked the scene of a murder, and called forth from the wayfarers a prayer for the victim. If a Papal Rescript were issued, enjoining on the parish priests in Ireland to set up a stone cross at their own expense on the scene of every murder, and to bid their parishioners, whenever they passed by it, to recite the usual prayers for the victim, it would do much to moralize the Irish peasantry, and to eradicate the unhappy sympathy with murder and outrage. The law of the land already recognized this principle of invoking alien spiritual authority, when it ad-

  771
  ministered oaths, even in this House, to Hindoos and Buddhists according to Hindoo and Buddhist forms. He refused to believe that the hesitations of the Foreign Office were due to fears of Nonconformist electors, and he refused to believe that bigotry prevailed to such an extent. There had been evidence to the contrary from Ulster, for when the language and conduct of some priests in Ireland had exceeded all bounds, a cry went up from Ulster as to why they were not checked by Rome, thus proving that the people of Ulster believed that the Court of Rome, if appealed to, would not sanction such language. He believed that these hesitations to appoint an avowed Agent at Rome were rather due to the feelings which had dictated the pamphlet of the Prime Minister against the Vatican, and which had culminated in the defeat, by a majority of 58, at the commencement of this Session.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the two noble Lords who have just spoken have entered into the general question whether it is desirable or not that this country should renew its diplomatic relations with the Vatican. The noble Lord who spoke last is strongly in favour of that course; and the noble Lord who spoke first, with that moderation and reserve which he always observes upon all subjects, concurred in that opinion, or seemed to be rather in favour of than against it. Now, Her Majesty's Government have no proposal of this sort to make to your Lordships. I do not think it necessary to go at any great length into any academical disquisition upon the arguments for or against that course. The noble Lord who spoke first said that he put his Questions to me because the answers given in "another place" were unsatisfactory. What he meant by that statement is not quite clear. They could not have been perfectly satisfactory to the noble Lord, because I doubt his having read them, as, notwithstanding the declarations which have been made in the House of Commons, and that of Lord Hartington, for instance, with regard to the Archbishop of Goa, he says he knows, on excellent authority, that those representations had been made. Now, I do not gather from the statements of the noble Lord that the series of Questions which he has put to me is based upon any information which he has received, for it rather ap-
  772
  pears to be a copy of some which have already been put in "another place." I am afraid my answer to the noble Lord will be rather dull, as I have no changes or additions to make in the answers which have already been given, and with which your Lordships have probably, in an informal manner, become acquainted. Mr. Errington did not go to Rome at the request of Her Majesty's Government. He has received no appointment, nor any remuneration for services or for expenses. He has had no authority from me, or any Member of the Government, to negotiate with, or to make any proposal, or to proffer any request to the Vatican. He told me that he was going to pass the winter at Rome, and asked whether he could be of any use to Her Majesty's Government. After consultation with several of my Colleagues, I stated to him that a person of his standing in Parliament, who was well known in Rome, and who had the full confidence of the Government, would have great advantages in communicating authentic information on matters of interest to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Empire.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Authentic information to Rome or to the Government?
  EARL GRANVILLE: To the Vatican. This statement he was perfectly at liberty to communicate to the Cardinal Secretary. There are no official or diplomatic Papers. It is not usual to present any Papers which are not of that character. I may remind the House that it was on more than one occasion asked and refused in Parliament, that the instructions under which the paid diplomatic servants acted, who resided at Rome during a period of more than 40 years, should be presented. In the present case nothing could be more inconvenient than to answer in detail a string of leading Questions, pointing out which of the facts assumed were correct, and which were not so, about Papers which are not to be presented. There is an old French proverb—"Plead that which is false in order that you may learn what is true." I apply that most certainly not to the noble Lord, nor to any other person, but to the statements which are made, and which the Government have great difficulty in answering. But yesterday afternoon Sir Charles Dilke told me that in answer to his as-

  773
  sertion that Mr. Errington had received no remuneration, Sir H. Drummond Wolff had said that he knew as a fact that his expenses were paid out of the Secret Service Fund. Sir Charles Dilke in vain endeavoured to show that to give a negative answer was to create a most fatal precedent. Cheers showed the conviction of the House. There are some who object to Secret Service, and there are those who think that on certain occasions it is a very useful element, if limited in its operation. I am not going to argue that case; but, taking it as it is, evidently secrecy is one of its elements. And if anyone states that he knows certain things as facts, and they are to be taken as true, unless a distinct contradiction is given to them, the position would be almost intolerable. I think that Sir Charles Dilke acted with his usual judgment. After taking the opinion of one or two of his Colleagues, he replied by giving a complete denial; and he added—''I have not the authority of Lord Granville for making this statement"—wishing to cover me from exactly the precedent which such a statement might establish. Of course, I was perfectly conscious of the fact that not one shilling had been given, or authorized to be given, from the Department over which I preside; but, considering the fact that this was announced within the hon. Member's own knowledge, I thought it better to telegraph these words to Sir Augustus Paget—
  ''Sir Drummond Wolff has announced in the House of Commons that he knows Mr. Erring-ton's expenses have been paid out of the Secret Service Fund. Ask Mr. Errington if he has received any money in any shape from Her Majesty's Government in connection with his visit to Rome. Reply by telegraph."
  "From Sir A. Paget, Rome, Feb. 16, 1882.—I have asked Errington the question in your Lordship's telegram of yesterday, and have received from him the following answer:—
  "'In reply to your note, I beg to say I have not received any money, directly or indirectly, from Her Majesty's Government, or any Member of it, for any purpose whatever. I have incurred no expenses except in travelling for my own pleasure.'"
  I really think it is right, my Lords, to state this; and I state it more especially, because if in the future assertions of this kind are made, I am not to be called upon to answer them on the ground that if I do not give a positive contradiction, I admit what is alleged to be true.
  LORD BALFOURsaid, he hoped the noble Earl did not understand him to make any such assertion in the course of his speech.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I am perfectly aware that the noble Lord did not allude to it in the observations he made.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEunderstood the statement which had just been made as an acknowledgment that Mr. Errington was an unofficial and unpaid agent to the Vatican.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I an not going to pass any criticism on the question as to any formal representation being made to the Court of Rome. It is impossible either to condemn or to approve a policy until you know upon what grounds it has been pursued. I can imagine circumstances in which it might be necessary, and circumstances in which it would be highly inexpedient. I rose to point out that the noble Earl used one word as to which I am not quite sure that he fully appreciated the meaning that might possibly be put on it. He said that Mr. Errington had the whole confidence of Her Majesty's Government; and, therefore, he would be in a position to give information to the Vatican. These words may be interpreted by some to mean that Mr. Errington did communicate with the Vatican on behalf of Her Majesty's Government as to the policy they desired to pursue—in fact, that he was an unpaid, unaccredited diplomatic agent. On the other hand, these words may simply be meant to convey that the Government hold in high esteem, which is no doubt justified, Mr. Errington's discretion and personal qualities, and with these qualifications they have full confidence in any information he may give to the Vatican. I do not in the least blame the noble Earl for such communications as he has thought fit to make; I am not in a position to do it; but my impression is that the reticence he has shown will rather tend to injure the object he has in view, and that people will attach more importance to this matter on account of the doubt and ambiguity hanging over Mr. Errington's position than they would if the noble Earl would tell us that Mr. Errington had a message to the Vatican and he had delivered it.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I agree with a good deal of what the noble Marquess has said.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The latter part of my observations?
  EARL GRANVILLE: No; certainly not.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.