Sitting of 28 February 1882

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—Ennerdale Railway.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh) *.
Ordered—First Reading—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* [92].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ENNERDAL RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he had placed upon the Paper a Notice of opposition to the second reading of this Bill, and the ground upon which he had done so was that it proposed to take a quantity of common land on the borders of Ennerdale Water, in Cumberland. The pro-

    1831
    moters of the Bill had now satisfied him that although the land proposed to be taken was so described by them, it was not in reality common land, and was not now subject to any commonable rights; and, therefore, he offered no opposition to the second reading.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  OPIUM CULTIVATION (INDIA).
  MR. J. W. PEASEasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether, in reference to Lord Salisbury's reply to a deputation in 1876, that he "entirely disclaimed any intention to push the Bengal system (of opium cultivation) further," he can inform the House what was the number of acres in cultivation under that system in 1876, and how many are under cultivation at the present time; whether any attempt has been made, especially in the north-west provinces, (the agency of Benares) to bring more land under poppy cultivation, and what has been the result of such, attempts; whether he can lay upon the Table a Return of the Opium held in stock at the commencement of each financial year, and the quantities received into and taken out of stock each year, during the last period of ten years, for which he may have received Returns; and, whether, in accordance with his speech on the 29th April, 1881, the noble Lord has
  "formally invited the consideration of the Government of India" "to review their position as regards the Opium Revenue, and see whether they cannot adopt some alteration of the system which would render their connection and interest in the trade less direct, and place them in a sounder and better position; "
  and, if so, whether he will lay upon the Table a Copy of his Despatch, and of any reply he may have received?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I do not know to what report of Lord Salisbury's reply my hon. Friend refers. The report in The Times contains merely this sentence—"The Government of India did not view with any favour the idea of extending the traffic." The number of acres under poppy cultivation in Bengal was, in 1876, 556,012, and is, in 1881–2, 562,263. The price paid to the cultivator for raw opium
  1832
  was, in 1877, reduced from 5 rupees to 4½ rupees per seer. This caused a decrease in the cultivation, which, added to bad seasons, seriously affected the outturn of opium. It was, therefore, determined to revert to the price of 5 rupees a seer in the Behar Agency in 1880, and in the Benares Agency in 1881, with the result of a small increase, as stated above, over the cultivation of 1876. The Return asked for can be given. The despatch promised was addressed to the Government of India, and a very full reply has been received. I have been in communication with the Foreign Office as to the immediate publication of these Papers; but it was considered inexpedient to do so pending certain negotiations in which Sir Thomas Wade is engaged at the present time. When it is possible to publish Papers relating to these negotiations the despatch and reply of the Government of India will be either included or laid separately on the Table.
  MR. J. W. PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Article III. sec. 3, of the Convention made at Chefoo in 1876 between Sir Thomas Wade and the Government of China, relating to the Opium Trade, has been ratified; and, if not, whether he can lay upon the Table any Papers giving information on this subject; whether it is true, as reported in the papers, that the Chinese Government has sanctioned an increase in the import duty on opium of 140 taels, equal to £40 sterling, a chest, or any other sum; and, whether Her Majesty's Government has acquiesced in an addition to the 30 taels import duty provided for by the Treaty of Tientsin?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The arrangement respecting opium conditionally agreed to in the Chefoo Convention has not yet been ratified; but no complaint is made by the Chinese Government of the delay which has arisen in the settlement of this question, as other arrangements have been proposed on each side which are the subject of friendly negotiations between the two Governments at the present time. Until those negotiations are concluded it would not be convenient to produce further Papers. Her Majesty's Government are not aware that the Chinese Government have sanctioned any increase in the import duty on opium.

STATE OF IRELAND—THE "CHILDREN'S LAND LEAGUE."
ME. REDMONDasked, If it is a fact that on December 4th 1881, Sub-Inspector Pattison and a body of police forcibly burst open the door of a private room, where a children's meeting was being held, in Castlecomer, co. Kilkenny; that Sub-Inspector Pattison ordered the children to go out or he would "forcibly disperse them; "whether it is a fact that every weekly meeting of the Ladies' Land League held in Castlecomer is attended by the police, although the objects of the Society and the names of its leading members are well known; and, whether these proceedings on the part of the police have the sanction of the Government?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): I am informed that a meeting was held at what are known as the Land League Rooms in Castlecomer, with the object of forming what was called a Children's League. The doors were locked, and the police, believing the meeting to be of an illegal character, required admittance. On refusal, they forced the door open and called on the meeting to disperse, which it did. Two policemen, pursuant to their directions, attend the weekly meetings, and it is the fact that the objects of the League and the names of the leading members are pretty well known.
MR. REDMOND: Is it a fact that it was a meeting of children?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): No, Sir; the meeting was one of children and adults.

FRIENDLY AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES ACTS—PUBLIC AUDITORS.
MR, JACKSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, If it is true that a Memorial has been presented to the Lords of the Treasury, signed by a number of the public auditors, appointed for the purposes of "The Friendly Societies Act, 1875," and "The Industrial Provident Societies Act,1876," suggesting that the appointment of duly-qualified persons as public auditors, under the Act referred to, be permanent; whether any reply has been given by the Lords of the Treasury to the Memorial; and, if
1834
he will lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Memorial and of the reply thereto?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: A Memorial has been received, as described in the Question, and has been answered. If the hon. Member wishes to move for Copies of the Memorial and reply, I shall be happy to lay them on the Table.

FRENCH CUSTOMS DUTIES—COPPER SHEATHING OF SHIPS.
MR. WIGGINasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the French Government has issued instructions that, from and after the 1st of January last, Foreign sheathing supplied to Foreign ships in French ports shall be subject to the same Duties as those charged on similar supplies to French vessels, although the latter are compensated by the premium allowed by the State; and, if so, will he call the attention of the French Government to the unfairness of this Duty?
SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: The French law of January 29, 1881, on the Mercantile Marine, enacted that on and after the 1st of January, 1882, copper sheathing of foreign make supplied to any ship, French or foreign, in French ports, should be subject to the Customs' duty chargeable on that article. As there has been no breach of Treaty stipulations, Foreign Governments have no ground for complaint.

POST OFFICE—TELEGRAPH CLERKS.
MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in applying his recent scheme for improving the position of the telegraph clerks, he is aware that an undue proportion (75 per cent.) of the superior appointments have been given to postal clerks of limited service, while telegraph clerks of fifteen and twenty years' service have been passed over; whether he will endeavour to allay the dissatisfaction which such alleged partiality has occasioned; and, if the delay in applying the scheme to Bristol and Plymouth cannot be shortened?
MR. FAWCETT: In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that when the scheme which was sanctioned last year for improving the position of the postal

1835
clerks and telegraphists with regard to pay and promotion came into operation, it was necessary to introduce a new classification into every post - office in the United Kingdom where an established force was employed. This has necessarily been a work of much difficulty and complexity. Many hundreds, I may say thousands, of promotions have had to be considered; and I can with confidence assert that there has been no intention whatever of doing the slightest injustice to the telegraphists, but that in every instance the claims arising from seniority and fitness have been most carefully weighed. With regard to the latter part of the Question, I may say that the scheme for the new classification of the Plymouth Post Office has been already sanctioned, and the scheme for Bristol will be in the course of a few days.

MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT, 1876— LENGTHENED STEAMERS—THE "CITY OF LIMERICK."
MR. CAINEasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to a paragraph in the "Daily News," February 25th, under the heading of "Telegraphic News from New York," that
"the agents of the steamship 'City of Limerick,' forty-seven days out, believe she is lost. She belonged to the" Centaur Line, as did the 'City of London,' and, like her, was a lengthened iron steamer;"
and, whether he is aware that the "City of London" is also lost, and if, since two lengthened steamers belonging to the same owners have been lost on the same route within a short time, he will direct a Board of Trade survey to be made upon any other steamers of this Line which may have been lengthened since built?
MR. CHAMBERLAIN: My attention has been called to the paragraph stating that the agents of the steamship City of Limerick, 47 days out, believe she is lost. My attention has long been directed to this ship. She is, or was, an iron steamer, was lengthened and otherwise altered by Messrs. Inman, in 1870, and a spar deck added. She was sold by them in 1880 to a Mr. Thompson, of New York. In his hands she was altered for the carriage of cattle, and a superstructure added above the spar deck. The Board of Trade were advised
1836
that after these alterations her peculiar proportions and structure rendered her an unsafe ship. A passenger certificate was refused to her, and ultimately the Board of Trade detained her at Sunderland in May last, in order to have the question of her safety determined by a Court of Survey. The owner appealed to a Court of Survey, and this Court, consisting of the Wreck Commissioner and two Assessors, after hearing the Board of Trade evidence, and without hearing the other side, pronounced her to be safe, and released her unconditionally. The owner brought an action against the Board of Trade under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1876, for having detained the ship without reasonable and probable cause. The case was tried at Liverpool before the Lord Chief Justice, and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, with full damages. The Board of Trade applied for a rule for a new trial, which was refused by the Divisional Court. The Board then appealed, and the Court of Appeal has granted a rule nisi, which now stands for argument. On the 8th of January last the City of Limerick left New York for London with a full crew and cargo, besides 275 head of cattle. I have inquired at Lloyd's, and she is not insured there, nor is she yet posted as "missing;" but she has not been heard of since she sailed, and it is feared she has gone to the bottom with all hands. I have communicated with the registered owner, both at Liverpool and New York, but have not yet heard from him. The City of London has not been heard of since the 14th of November, 1881, and is supposed to have been lost. I do not know, from any official records, whether the ownership or management of the City of Limerick is the same as that of the City of London. Both are lengthened ships. If any ships similar in construction to the City of Limerick are known to be sailing from ports in this country, I shall, notwithstanding the decision of the Wreck Court, and of the Assize Court already referred to, feel it my duty to order a survey upon them.

STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED MURDER AT BELMULLET
MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether the sub-inspector against whom a coroner's jury at Belmullet, county Mayo, have found

1837
a verdict of murder has been suspended; and, whether the sub-inspector will be allowed to hold his position in the police with such a charge hanging over him?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): The Sub-Inspector has been, removed from that district, but not suspended. The course to be ultimately taken must depend on further proceedings, if I shall direct them, as I mentioned last night.

THE ROYAL IRISH CONSTABULARY— ALLEGED EXCESS OF DITTY AT CAPPAMORE, COUNTY LIMERICK.
MR. REDMONDasked, If it is a fact that a girl named Bourke, twelve years of age, was assaulted recently in the village of Cappamore, county Limerick, by a sub-constable, who, because she was singing "Harvey Duff," drew his bayonet and inflicted a wound upon her, fracturing her skull and endangering her life; and, whether the child is still in a precarious state, and what steps he will take in the matter?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON), in reply, said, that this Question was altogether one of facts, and as he was not acquainted with, them, he would ask the hon. Member to postpone his Question until the Chief Secretary was in his place.
MR. REDMONDsaid, he would repeat the Question on Thursday.

ENGLAND AND FRANCE—THE CHANNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.
LORD EUSTACE CECILasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will state to the House the names of the members of the Committee appointed to consider the Channel Tunnel scheme?
MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my noble Friend, I have to state, in the first place, that the Committee to which he refers is not appointed to consider the Channel Tunnel scheme generally, but, as the House already knows, only to investigate one incident of that scheme—that is to say, they will make a full and exhaustive examination from a scientific point of view—and without reference to the ulterior question of national expediency—into the practicability of closing
1838
effectually the projected Tunnel. They will satisfy themselves whether it is certain beyond any reasonable doubt that, in the event of war, or apprehended war, the Tunnel and its proposed approaches under the existing Acts of Parliament, and the Bills now before Parliament, can be rendered absolutely useless, and in what manner. They will consider and report what appliances, whether of destruction, of obstruction, of flooding, or of all combined, should be provided, including any work defending or commanding the exit, so that the use of the Tunnel, in every imaginable contingency, may be, beyond doubt, denied to an enemy. Great pains have been taken in constituting the Committee, which is eminently a scientific body, to make sure that the scientific opinions on both sides are fully brought out; and I think that its composition will undoubtedly secure this. The Committee, as appointed, consists of Sir Archibald Alison (head of the Intelligence Department) as Chairman; Mr. Barlow and Mr. Graves, civil engineers; three military engineers; Major General Galwey (the Inspector General of Fortifications); Sir Andrew Clarke, the present, and Sir John Stokes, the late, Commandant of the School of Military Engineering; Colonel Alderson (Assistant Director of Artillery); Colonel Majendie (Inspector of Explosives); and Professor Abel. Since the Committee was appointed, Mr. Barlow has informed me that he has been consulted as to one of the Tunnel schemes, and his place on the Committee will, therefore, be filled by another engineer, unconnected with either Company. The Instructions to the Committee will be laid on the Table with the other Papers.

PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARMS LICENCES.
MR. CALLANasked, Whether the Chief Secretary for Ireland had issued, or authorised the issue, of a circular or any instructions to the stipendiary magistrates appointed to grant licences under the provisions of "The Peace Preservation (Ireland) Act, 1881," to the effect that—
"There is an objection, as a rule, to letting publicans have arms,"
or—
"That it would be their duty, before returning the arms deposited, to see that the owners

1839
are persons who absolutely require arms for the purpose of protecting their person or property in the case of danger, or in certain cases for the purpose of amusement;"
whether it is in accordance with his instructions, or has his approval, that sub-section 4 of Clause 4 of the said Act, which enacts that—
"If any person who may be appointed to grant licences to have or to carry arms in any district shall he bound to grant the occupier of one or more country holdings a licence to have arms, or to have and carry arms, who shall produce a certificate, signed by two justices of the peace in the same petty sessions district, that he is of their own personal knowledge a proper person to have such licence,"
has been disregarded by Captain Keogh, the stipendiary magistrate, during the last week, in the county of Louth; and, if the facts are as stated, whether he will inform that official that the provisions of the Act of Parliament must be complied with? In putting the Question, he said, he could only expect an answer got from the clerks in the Office. ["Oh, oh!"] By that he did not mean to cast any reflection upon the Attorney General for Ireland, who was a personal friend of his, but simply that the Attorney General for Ireland would read an answer furnished by those engaged in the Castle Government.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, in reply, he did not think it was necessary, or that the House expected, that he should take any notice of the observations of the hon. Gentleman. His answer to the Question was this. No such instructions as those suggested had been given to the licensing officers; and he was informed by Captain Keogh, the resident magistrate mentioned by the hon. Member, that he had not in any case disregarded the provisions of the Peace Preservation Act, the terms of which, as quoted in the hon. Member's Question, were not strictly correct.

IRISH CHURCH FUND—TITHE RENTCHARGE (IRELAND).
DR. LYONSasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will take it into consideration to afford relief, by extension of time for the payment of tithe rent-charge in Ireland, to persons who can show that they have not received the rents due for the gales in which tithe rent-charge is now claimed,
1840
or to accept payment thereof pro ratâ on the rents actually received?
LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: The tithe rent-charge is payable to the Irish Church Fund. About 13 months ago the then Church Commissioners were instructed not to press for immediate payment in cases were no rent had been received by those liable for the charge, and these instructions still hold good. As this Question was only put upon the Paper last night, I inquired by telegraph from the Land Commission, and learn that steps have been taken to recover only in cases where it is believed that the rents have been paid. Where this is not the case the Commissioners do not press for payment until the rents have been collected.

MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE AND COMMERCE.
SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he would inform the House what arrangements have been made to carry out the Resolution of the 13th May last with reference to the formation of a distinct administrative Department, and the appointment of a responsible Minister to preside over the official business especially relating to agriculture and commerce?
MR. MONKalso asked the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, Whether the attention of the Government has been directed to that portion of the Third Report of the Official Statistics Committee, which recommends the removal of the Statistics Department from the Board of Trade to the Treasury; and, whether it is proposed to take any, and, if so, what action upon it?
MR. GLADSTONE: Both of these Questions belong virtually to the same subject-matter. The Government have, of course, not been unmindful of the engagements into which they entered with the House during the last Session; but they do not think it expedient to state their plan to the House until the time is approaching, at any rate, when they can obtain the judgment of the House upon it through the medium of whatever financial arrangements it may require. That will apply, I think, to the Question of my hon. Friend, and, of course, to the larger Question put by the hon. Baronet.

MARRIAGE OF H.R.H. THE DUKE OF ALBANY.
VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, in view of the date for the marriage of H.E.H. the Duke of Albany being now fixed for April 20th, he can state on what day the Government intends to make a proposition to this House in relation thereto? The noble Viscount explained that since he gave Notice of the Question he understood the date had been altered, and he would therefore like to alter the Question accordingly from the 20th to some day in April.
MR. GLADSTONE: The noble Viscount is right in supposing that the 20th is not the day that has been fixed. It will be a day in April; but a later day than the 20th. With regard to the Question itself, of course, when we think we see a convenient opportunity it will be our duty to make an announcement to the House at once. We must have some regard to the state of Business. We should not wish to introduce it in the midst of one of our entangled controversies. We do not anticipate any difficulty on that matter, and we hope to make a proposal upon a convenient and not distant day.

MOTIONS.

  METROPOLITAN COMMONS SUPPLEMENTAL BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. HIBBERT, Bill to confirm schemes under "The Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866," and "The Metropolitan Commons (Amendment) Act, 1869," relating respectively to Acton Commons, Chiswick and Turnham Green Commons, and Tottenham Commons, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HIBBERT and Mr. DODSON.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 92.]

  ROADS PROVISIONAL ORDER (EDINBURGH) BILL.
  On Motion of The LORD ADVOCATE, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of one of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State for providing that "The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, 1878," shall come into force in the county of Edinburgh on the 1st day of September, 1882, subject to certain conditions, ordered to be brought in by The LORD ADVOCATE and Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for SCOTLAND.
  Mar 1—Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 93.]

PARLIAMENT—PRIVILEGE—MEATH ELECTION.—RESOLUTION.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES), in rising to move—
"That Michael Davitt, returned as a Member for the County of Meath, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for fifteen years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House,"
said, that, in moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice last night, he could assure hon. Members who took part in that discussion that there was not the slightest wish, on the part of the Government, to press forward this Motion with undue haste, and he thought they were only pursuing the usual course that had always been pursued in cases where such a matter was before the House. As soon as the Return of the election was received by the House, it was necessary to obtain a copy of the conviction of Michael Davitt. That was obtained, and brought before the House yesterday. This being a matter of Privilege, it was thought it should be brought forward on the first occasion that presented itself. When the question involved was placed before the House, he thought it would be seen that the Resolution was one of such a simple character that there could be no reason for any delay in arriving at a conclusion on the matter. The facts the House had to deal with were very simple. On the 11th of July, 1870, Michael Davitt was convicted of the offence of treason-felony, under the Act of 1848, on two counts, and received a sentence of penal servitude for 15 years, which sentence had not, as was evident, yet expired. A few days ago Michael Davitt had been chosen by the electors of Meath to represent them in that House; and the only question on which the House had to determine was whether a person who had been convicted of treason-felony, who had not suffered the full term of his sentence, and had not received a pardon, could be eligible to be elected a Member of that House, and could sit in that House as such a Member. The House had not often to deal with the question of persons elected to sit in Parliament while undergoing a sentence of penal servitude, though it sometimes came under consideration.

1843
He was not now referring to such a case as that of Mr. Smith O'Brien, who had been expelled from the House in consequence of having been convicted of treason. More direct precedents were to be found. The first was that of the election of O'Donovan Rossa for Tipperary, in 1870, while he was still undergoing a sentence for felony. The House, after full consideration and debate, came to the conclusion, by Resolution, that O'Donovan Rossa, having been convicted of felony, and not having completed his sentence nor received a pardon, was not eligible to sit in that House as a Member of it. There was a second precedent in 1875, when John Mitchel was returned also by Tipperary as a Member of that House, he not having completed the sentence passed upon him for treason-felony, and not having received a pardon. By the Common Law of this country, as well as the law of Parliament, it was, for good and sufficient reasons, held that a felon who had not served the full term of imprisonment or who had not received a pardon had no right to sit in that House. Apart from that, in the view of the Common Law of this country, such a person was not a fit and discreet person. But he need not go back to the two instances to which he had referred, for since the Resolution of the House in the ease of O'Donovan Rossa a Statute had been passed, which finally determined this question beyond possibility of dispute. In 1870 a Bill was introduced by his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Sir Charles Forster), for the purpose of relieving persons convicted of felony from some of the consequences which used to attend such a conviction. It was thought advisable to show a certain consideration to those who had an interest in the goods of the person convicted. That Bill became law, and the 2nd section of the Act provided that if any person should be thereafter convicted of treason-felony, for which he should be sentenced to death or penal servitude or to hard labour for a period exceeding 12 months, he should be incapable of holding certain offices; and another part went on to say that such a person, until he had suffered his sentence or received a pardon from Her Majesty, should continue incapable of holding any civil or military office under the Crown, or of being elected to sit or vote as a Member
1844
of either House of Parliament. If a person should be convicted of any felony and should not have suffered the punishment to which he had been sentenced, or had not received a free pardon, he was not eligible to sit or vote in that House. That Statute must be obeyed. He thought no one could contest the fact of the Statute being obligatory, to all intents and purposes, upon every Member of the House. What had the House to consider? If it should be found that Michael Davitt had been convicted of felony, and had not suffered the imprisonment to which he was sentenced, and had not received a free pardon, the Statute declared that he was ineligible to be elected or to sit in that House. He would suggest to the House that there could be no question about the facts they had to deal with. A copy of the record of the conviction was upon the Table; it showed that Michael Davitt had been convicted of felony, and that the conviction and sentence of 15 years' penal servitude dated from July, 1870. He had not, therefore, suffered the punishment of his offence, and no one suggested that he had received a free pardon. Therefore they arrived at a conclusion that it was impossible to shirk—the conclusion that Michael Davitt was a person, in the words of the Statute, ineligible to be elected, or to sit or vote in either House of Parliament. Now, he submitted, these were the only matters which could be taken into consideration in this question. There were no other subjects upon this question of Privilege, the Motion for the issue of a Writ, which could be entered upon. They did not give up to the Election Judges their right to determine whether a proper person had been elected. The right to determine that still rested with the House. The only question was whether Michael Davitt, having been elected by the electors of Meath, was capable of sitting and voting in that House, it having been established by the record laid before the House that he had been convicted of felony, had not served his full term of punishment, and had not received a free pardon from the Crown. The hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution which stood in his name.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That Michael Davitt, returned as a Member for the County of Meath, having been

1845
adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for fifteen years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, there was more in the discussion that the Attorney General had raised than a dry legal argument. It involved grave political and social issues, and its treatment might be made the means of either lessening or increasing the friction that now unhappily existed between the English Government and the Irish people. It was allowed on all hands that Ireland was in a state of great disorder, and that wide discontent prevailed. An hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, who might fairly be accepted as an authority on the subject, said a few days ago that the South and West of Ireland was seething with disaffection. He did not attempt to say what truth there was in that figurative expression; but it was an incontestable fact that the authority of the Administration and the power of the Law was only maintained over the greater portion of Ireland by the presence of an imposing force of military and constabulary, by the suspension of the Constitutional liberties of the people, the destruction of the right of public meeting, by restrictions on the Press, and by the incarceration of 500 or 600 of the leading citizens without trial. The Land Act had failed, so far, to produce the political pacification that its promoters anticipated from it, and any agrarian advantage that it would confer was yet in the future. Notwithstanding all that had been done, it was still only through abnormal means and by the exercise of repressive and despotic powers that the authority of the Executive could be upheld. In any great social and political upheaval, such as had taken place in Ireland, a man or men always came to the surface who embodied the ideas, personated the aspirations, and typified the hopes of the population. History afforded abundant examples of men of this character. There had never been any great social movement in any country that did not supply representatives of that kind. Mr. Davitt was the exponent, interpreter, and exemplar of the opinions and principles of the Irish peasantry. He was the apostle of their emancipation. The English Government and the English people called him a convict, and
1846
they sought to attach odium by the use of that word, but Irishmen regarded him as a patriot. His self-sacrifice, his courage, his suffering, his integrity, his unselfishness, and his moral chivalry had won for him the confidence—the enthusiastic confidence—of his Colleagues and contemporaries, and it would secure for him the undying gratitude of his country. He said it in all sincerity and in all earnestness, that if the Government could see their way to release Mr. Davitt they would lighten their load. He knew of nothing—of no one act that it was in their power to perform—that was more likely to clear their pathway from difficulties, and hasten the establishment of amicable feelings between the two peoples, than such an act. It would be the most effective message of peace they could send just now to a disturbed and afflicted country.
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the question of the release of Michael Davitt cannot properly be raised upon the Motion now before the House. The discussion must be strictly confined to the question raised by the Attorney General. If the hon. Member desires that the question of the release of Michael Davitt be raised, it should be done in the properly recognized form of an Address to the Crown, after Notice given in the usual way.
MR. JOSEPH COWENsaid, he knew he had no power to contest the Speaker's ruling, and if he had the power lie had no desire to do so. As the Speaker had ruled that the case of Mr. Davitt could not be discussed on its merits on the Attorney General's Resolution, he would bow to the decision of the Chair; but in doing so he would take the liberty of reading to the House, if the Speaker would permit him, the Amendment that he had intended to propose. If he had been allowed to continue he would have submitted for the decision of the House the following:—
"That, having regard to the circumstances under which Mr. Michael Davitt was convicted of treason-felony, to his release, re-arrest, and subsequent return as one of the Members for the county of Meath, an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to grant the newly-elected Member a free pardon."
On the first opportunity that he could obtain he would move the Amendment as a substantive Resolution.
MR. LEWISsaid, he could not help submitting to the House that it went very far, indeed, from propriety in its decision with regard to the case of O'Donovan Rossa. In the year 1867 or 1868, the House decided to give up to a Court of Law the right of trying the question, whether a certain person was or was not duly elected to a seat in the House of Commons. But he supposed the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for England would tell them that the case of Michael Davitt stood apart from the ordinary practice of deciding by law the qualifications of Members to sit in that House; that inasmuch as Michael Davitt was undergoing a sentence for treason-felony, there could not be any fact in dispute which might make it necessary to remit the election to the decision of the ordinary Election Tribunal. It occurred to him to press upon the House this question—What difference existed between the case of Michael Davitt and the case of any other elected person found guilty of bribery, and thereby prevented from taking a seat in the House for a certain number of years? It seemed to him that, in spite of Davitt's graver offence, the cases were, from the legal point of view, perfectly analogous; because the fact that the offence of treason-felony might be more odious than the offence of bribery made no difference whatever in point of law. As regarded the method for testing the validity of the election, the sole question was—What was the proper tribunal to decide whether or not Michael Davitt was entitled to sit in the House—the House of Commons itself or the ordinary legal Election Tribunal? He contended the case should be decided by the legal Election Tribunal, for the House had already given up its right to decide upon controverted elections. He did not assert that in this case there was any question of identity; but what judicial facts had the House to show that a question of identity might not be raised? Was the House to call witnesses at the Bar that they might be convinced upon intelligent and reliable testimony that the Michael Davitt who was convicted for treason-felony was the same Michael Davitt whom the constituency of Meath desired to honour? The case was not concluded by simply laying on the Table the record of a conviction against some one named Michael
1848
Davitt for treason-felony. It might be necessary to inquire whether the proceedings of conviction were all regular. Was the House to say that, having given up deliberately its right to inquire into controverted cases of election, it was to retain the power of interfering with cases in which the persons elected had been found guilty of odious crimes? The degree of the disqualification made no difference whatever as regarded that point. It seemed to him that in the case of O'Donovan Rossa the House had been led astray by the fact of a person being sent here for the purpose of insulting the House. There could not be two jurisdictions. Was a Judge appointed in Ireland qualified to try this case, supposing a Petition had been or were to be presented? If in the affirmative, how could that House have competent jurisdiction to try it also? Was it ever intended that that House should reserve to itself this right in particular cases? Why, the whole thing showed that even this High Court, the House of Commons, might make great mistakes in matters of grave importance. He (Mr. Lewis) was, perhaps, in a better position to urge this point than hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, because there was no man in or out of Ireland who would for one moment suppose that he had the smallest sympathy either with Michael Davitt or the electors of Meath who had returned him. But it seemed to him that the House was asked by the Attorney General to adopt in the present case a very uncertain, fickle, and irregular course of proceeding. In the case of the Tipperary Election Mr. Moore was returned by the verdict of the Election Tribunal, although he was a minority candidate, the person who headed the poll having been a convicted felon. Now, a few years after that proceeding it was proposed that the House should deal with the Meath Election before the statutory time had expired for the presentation of an Election Petition. The House should not deal with it until the time for presenting a legal Petition against Mr. Davitt's return had expired. They knew nothing authentic of the circumstances of Davitt's return. They did not know, except by common report, whether or not there had been a poll, or whether there was any person in existence who could claim the seat in the

1849
event of Davitt's disqualification. If he might be allowed to express a speculative opinion, he would say that Mr. Egan, who he understood was put forward along with Mr. Davitt, had a claim to the seat as the only legal candidate who was nominated. All these circumstances were proper matter for inquiry by the ordinary Election Tribunal. Suppose Mr. Egan did petition and claim the seat, after a new Writ had issued, and the place was filled up, did they not altogether foreclose the right of Mr. Egan to be returned? ["Hear, hear!"] He feared he was speaking to unwilling ears. But when they heard so much about the dignity of Procedure in the House, would it not be well that they should be careful now, especially when they happened to be dealing with a man who belonged to a miserable minority—["No, no!"]—the Irish Members. They would understand the sense in which he used the expression in that House. He wished to ask the Law Officers of the Crown and hon. and learned Members near him what was the difference in point of principle and of law, or in point of fact, between this case and that of a man clearly disqualified by his having been found guilty of personal bribery at an election for a Member of Parliament? What was the reason for that House reserving to itself the right of deciding upon the disqualification of a candidate when it had transferred to a Court of Law the power of deciding as to the validity of an election? He further asked how that House, within a few days after the election, and very many days before the expiry of the time for lodging a Petition, having transferred its jurisdiction in these matters to a Court of Law, could now act in such a way as to preclude any person interested from asking such Court of Law to decide whether he had been properly elected? To sum up what he had already said, he reminded the House that if they issued this new Writ, they would be doing an act of injustice to the other candidate, who would thereby be precluded from appealing to the proper Court of Law to decide whether he had been duly elected. On these grounds, therefore, he should vote against the issuing of the new Writ at this time, and he regretted that the House, having got hold of what it thought an ugly customer, should proceed to take
1850
an exceptional course on this occasion.
MR. WARTONsaid, he thought there was a great deal of force in the arguments just used by the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis.) This was not the first time, he believed, that the Attorney General had laid down what was not the law. The Attorney General had quoted from a Statute which no lawyer in that House expected to be cited—namely, the 33 & 34 Vict. c. 23, which was an Act for abolishing forfeitures for treasons and felonies. The Attorney General in quoting that Act had omitted to read the words which governed the whole of the section—namely, "who shall at the time of his conviction hold an office." [Laughter.] He hoped that those who smiled would be able to argue. At the time of his conviction Michael Davitt did not hold an office, neither was he a Member of Parliament. He hoped that the hon. and learned Solicitor General, who, as a rule, was more accurate in his law than the Attorney General, would correct the error into which the latter had fallen.
MR. GRAYsaid, he had been a good deal impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). His recollection of the Ballot Act was that it enacted that if a greater number of candidates be nominated than there were seats to be filled, any candidate could withdraw in a specified manner, and at a specified time; but that if only a sufficient number of candidates be nominated to fill the vacancies there was no power of withdrawal. Thus supposing Michael Davitt to have been ineligible for election, as the Attorney General contended, his nomination was void. Mr. Egan was, therefore, the only legally nominated candidate before the constituency, and it was possible to raise the point whether, under the circumstances, Mr. Egan had any power to withdraw. Mr. Egan, might, therefore, be entitled to claim the seat. In the case of Mr. Stephen Moore, at the Tipperary Election, the House had proceeded with the same haste as now to declare the election void and to issue a new Writ. What position would Mr. Moore have been left in? Mr. Egan might have just as much legal right to claim the seat for Meath as Mr. Moore for Tipperary. Why should the House seek to take that right away from him?

1851
The High Sheriff, at his own risk, might have refused the nomination of Mr. Davitt. He might have said, as was done, he believed, in another case—"I decline to receive the nomination of Mr. Davitt, because he is not eligible as a candidate," just as he would decline to receive the nomination of a woman or an infant. If he had adopted that course, then Mr. Egan would have stood nominated, and would be the Member. The fact of the High Sheriff not having assumed that responsibility, it might be contended that Mr. Davitt's nomination from the very commencement was void, and if so that Mr. Egan was now the Member. He merely raised that point to show that this was a matter that ought not to be decided in a rough-and-ready fashion. Having regard to the representative character of Mr. Davitt in Ireland, it would be unseemly for the House to proceed without due deliberation in this matter and without taking care to avoid a legal blunder. He submitted that the proper, and the seemly, and the only course for the House to adopt was to refer this question to a Select Committee.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was satisfied that it was the desire of both sides of the House that justice should be done in this matter, and that there should be no unnecessary waste of time in discussing the question. He agreed that if this question were now raised for the first time a good deal might be said in favour of either view of it. He, however, would remind the House that in 1863 the transfer of the jurisdiction of the House in Election Petitions to the Judges took place, and two years afterwards, after careful consideration, they determined that they would settle the case of O'Donovan Rossa themselves, and issue a new Writ. The question arose again in the case of John Mitchel, and the House then came to the same conclusion. These precedents had been 12 years in operation, and it would lead to most unsatisfactory results if they were not regarded as binding upon the House. If when the House had solemnly decided a question of this kind it were to refuse to be bound by precedent and were to follow different and conflicting rules great confusion would be introduced into the practice of the House. The Courts of Law found it necessary to lay down that succeeding Judges should
1852
be bound by precedents, and a similar rule must be applied to the House of Commons. He hoped the House would not re-open the whole legal argument again, and that hon. Members would, as a matter of Parliamentary law, issue the Writ.
MR. GRAYasked the right hon. and learned Gentleman to state what took place on the second nomination of O'Donovan Rossa.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman had, quite unintentionally, a little misled the House. He said that the precedents which had been accepted for 12 years should be undisturbed and should be received at once as binding in the present case. But there were no such precedents for 12 years. In 1870, it was true, the question was decided with regard to O'Donovan Rossa. On the second nomination the House accepted the evidence which was laid upon the Table of his disqualification, and proceeded to declare the seat vacant. But there was a far more recent precedent directly against that; that was the precedent of Mitchel in Tipperary five years later. In that case, on the second election, there was a contest, and then the House refused to exercise its power of disqualifying Mitchel, and left the matter for the decision of the Judicial Tribunal. There was great danger in acting as the Government proposed in that matter, for this reason—that although the House had then upon the Table the record of a conviction which showed that somebody in the year 1870 had been convicted of treason-felony, there was no evidence of identity nor of transactions which had taken place at the election it was desired to annul. He believed there was a good deal in the point which had been raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). There would be no inconvenience in leaving the matter to be dealt with by the Judicial Tribunal to which it should be referred; while, on the other hand, the matter was one in which the House should be very careful before it took action. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary carefully avoided giving an answer to the suggestion of his hon. Friend; but really the disqualification was in some sense similar to that of having been convicted of bribery. If, before

1853
an election took place, notice of disqualification were given, the second candidate must, of necessity, take the seat. The matter before the House was not one which required to be dealt with immediately. Whatever might be done that evening, Mr. Davitt would not take his seat; and therefore he thought the House might well take time before it decided on a matter which concerned its jurisdiction.
MR. SERJEANT SIMONsaid, that all the arguments they had heard that night had been urged with considerable force in the case of O'Donovan Rossa in 1868. The answer to those arguments was to be found in the title of the Act of that year, which ran—"For the Better Trying of Election Petitions and for the Prevention of Corrupt Practices." That Act was intended to take cognizance of the matters which had been dealt with by Election Committees. The House had parted with its jurisdiction to that extent, but no more. The whole machinery given by the Statute of 1868 rested upon the right to petition given to electors. Without a Petition there was no jurisdiction. If the construction urged by hon. Members of the Act of 1868 was correct, it would lead to this. The electors might return a person ineligible by law—a woman, for instance—and because there was no Petition, she might sit, and the House would have no power to question the return. Surely such a condition of things could not have been intended. The House, in his opinion, had full power over the return as before, except in cases which formerly went before the Election Committees. It might be that there was a concurrent jurisdiction in other cases, but not an exclusive jurisdiction with the Election Judges; and, even where concurrent, the jurisdiction of the Judges depended upon the Petition. It was not necessary that the House should wait till the time for petitioning had expired, unless hon. Members were prepared to hold that during the 21 days for petitioning an unqualified person might take his seat and sit and vote in defiance of the law, the House all the while having no power to prevent it, because they had no right to question the return.
SIR JOHN MOWBRAYsaid, he thought the question the House had to decide was not a question of nisi prius,
1854
but a question of Parliamentary law and Parliamentary precedent. They had precedents before them, and he hoped they would not be led into an elaborate discussion on the wording of a Statute. The House of Commons, both in 1870 and 1875, had set aside an election when a felon had been returned, and he hoped they would do the same then.
MR. HEALYwished special attention to be given to the circumstances of John Mitchell's second election, and he felt sure that the most modern precedent would be the one upon which the House would act. In the case of Mitchel the House did not wish to usurp the functions that properly belonged to the Judges, and they should not do so then. No case had ever come before the House in which political malignancy had been so ingeniously veiled behind legal technicalities. It was really a political rather than a legal antagonism which animated right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and which biassed their judgment in this matter. Was it for one moment to be supposed that the Government would have adopted this course in an ordinary case? The election took place on Thursday, the Government received the return on Friday, and although they had ample time on Monday, it was not until early this morning that Notice had been put on the Paper for that Sitting. Where was the necessity of their haste? Would it have been followed in the exemplary cases of A B? He ventured to say it would not. His belief was that if they were not now dealing with Michael Davitt, a political convict and the founder of the Land League, the Home Secretary would have been much more scrupulous than he was on this occasion. There need be no hurry. Mr. Davitt could not rush up the floor of the House and take the Oath. He was in prison. They did not even give him the privilege which Mr. Bradlaugh's Colleagues desired to give that distinguished Atheist—namely, to be heard on the floor of the House. He presumed that the Home Secretary was rather afraid of the emotions of disgust which would be excited in the House at the sight of that noble patriot with manacles on his hands and clothed in convict garb. [Laughter.] No doubt, that was a subject of laughter to hon. Gentlemen; but they were very indignant when Mr. Bradlaugh, their Colleague in Atheism and Radicalism,

1855
was expelled the House. [An hon. MEMBER: He was not a convict.] Mr. Bradlaugh was not a convict, no doubt, in the technical sense; but perhaps he deserved conviction a great deal more than Mr. Davitt. Indeed, if he were properly advised, he even believed that on a former occasion Mr. Bradlaugh was convicted, and of a much more indecent offence than any alleged against Mr. Davitt.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I rise to Order. I want to know whether the hon. Gentleman is in Order in applying to hon. Members on this (the Liberal) side of the House the term "Colleagues in Atheism with Mr. Bradlaugh?"
MR. SPEAKERnot interposing,
MR. HEALY, resuming, said, that if he was straying into paths of disorder, he would not pursue the argument further.
MR. MITCHELL HENRY: I wish to know, Sir, is not the hon. Member bound to withdraw the expression "Colleagues in Atheism?"
MR. HEALY: On the point of Order, Sir—["Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I consider the expression used by the hon. Gentleman unbecoming; and I should certainly have interposed myself if called upon to do so, and have called upon the hon. Gentleman to withdraw those expressions, but Mr. Bradlaugh not being at this moment a Member of the House, I did not feel called upon to interpose.
MR. HEALY: I really was not aware that Mr. Bradlaugh considered Atheism as anything but an honourable belief.
MR. H. SAMUELSON: I rise to Order, Sir. The hon. Gentleman has applied the epithet "Colleagues in Atheism" to hon. Members sitting on this side of the House, and he has not withdrawn it.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: On the point of Order, Sir, I wish to ask is it not necessary—["Order, order!" and "Chair!"]
MR. SPEAKER: I understood the hon. Member for Wexford to state that he did not intend to pursue that kind of argument further; and in coming to that conclusion I am bound to say he exercised a very wise discretion.
MR. HEALYsaid, he did not wish to say anything offensive to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and he was very glad to find that they were not Colleagues with Mr. Bradlaugh in the sense in which he
1856
had made the remark. He could now only conclude his remarks by expressing the hope that the Government, having had several arguments in favour of delay, and having themselves admitted that there was a case for delay—the Attorney General having admitted that morning that if the Irish Members considered there was too much haste on the part of the Government in this matter they could plead for delay—that was putting in their mouths a kind of argument which they should now utilize. He would, therefore, respectfully ask, seeing that the constituency of Meath had not complained of the return of Mr. Davitt, and also that several legal points were involved in the matter, that the Motion for a new Writ should be postponed to some more fitting season.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYconfessed that he felt some difficulty on the occasion as to the vote he ought to give. He could not shut his eyes to the great differences of opinion expressed by the lawyers on both sides as to the proper proceeding in the case. But as no Amendment had been moved to the Motion, he would be compelled to vote either for or against it. If the question was to be fairly and honestly raised, those who objected to the Motion ought to propose an Amendment in favour of postponement until, at least, the time for petitioning had expired. This was not a time to aggravate Irish differences. Whatever the opinions of Constitutional lawyers, the Irish people would always say that the Government acted in haste in the matter. But he was always in favour of smoothing over differences. He thought it right to bear his testimony to the character of Michael Davitt. He differed very much, indeed, in his (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) opinion, from those who were now condemning the action of the Government. He had never disguised his opinions. If he had been permitted to come into the House, he would have refused to take the Oath of Allegiance. Let hon. Members opposite follow his example. He had heard Mr. Davitt himself express his astonishment that certain hon. Members, holding the opinions they did——
MR. HEALY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the only Question before the House now is whether a new Writ shall issue for Meath?
MR. SPEAKERnot interposing,
MR. MITCHELL HENRY, resuming, said, it was noteworthy that when anything disagreeable to hon. Members opposite was said, there were no such sticklers as they for Order—that Order which they so frequently violated themselves. He only met Mr. Davitt twice, and he then expressed his astonishment that Gentlemen, holding the opinions they did, could contemplate coming to the Table to take the Oath of Allegiance. [Cries of "Name!" from the Irish Members.] It was in reference to the question of putting forward candidates for Irish constituencies who were known not to bear in their hearts allegiance to Her Majesty, and Mr. Davitt felt a strong objection to that practice.
MR. SEXTON: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask whether it is in Order, on a Motion that a new Writ shall issue for Meath, to discuss the opinions of Mr. Davitt?
MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he would not pursue the subject further. He had said enough on the subject to show that if Mr. Davitt were to come to the House of Commons he would not take the Oath, because he was an honourable man who would not perjure himself.
MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, that, in order to bring this matter to a practical issue, he intended to move an Amendment in the following terms:—
"That a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the precedents in the Law of Parliament involved in the Return of Michael Davitt for the County of Meath, and report to the House on the stops that ought to be taken under the circumstances."
He would refer to the precedents that had already been quoted in that debate. In Mitchel's case, in 1875, a Motion for the postponement of the Writ was made, and it was supported by most of those who now sat on the Treasury Bench, including the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, the Secretaries of State for India and for War, and the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Speaking on that occasion, the present Chief Secretary for Ireland said—
"He should he extremely loth that any Irish constituency, more or less reluctant to join in the British Imperial Parliament, should find that the Member they did send from that constituency should be refused admission on any hut the most distinct and decided grounds."—[3 Hansard, ccxxii. 529.]
1858
That was said by the Chief Secretary in the case of Mitchel. Times had, however, changed a little since that declaration was made. Liberal statesmanship was very like the fabled fountain, whose waters ran chilly in the sunshine and warm at night. Its warmth had entirely departed since the cold shade of opposition was withdrawn from it, and it was now very chilly indeed in the sunshine of the Treasury Bench. It was a remarkable circumstance that the Motion now made was not identical in terms with those passed either in. O'Donovan Rossa's or in Mitchel's case. It was said that the Act of Parliament had made an inquiry no longer necessary since O'Donovan Rossa's case. But they had nothing in law before them; it was not even certain that the legal views stated by the Attorney General were correct. He thought that the House, under all the circumstances, and considering the importance of the matter, could not do less than appoint a Committee to inquire and report upon the facts. They had not yet even settled the identity of the man who was the subject of the discussion, and the House was usually very particular in such matters. He remembered when a sudden question arose about the swearing in of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell)—there was a trifling inaccuracy in the Return, the name was not given correctly. What was done in that case? An hon. Member had to come forward who was able to state that the Gentleman at the Table was the person mentioned in the Return, and upon that he was allowed to be sworn. That was a small matter; but it showed a deliberate and judicious principle on the part of the House. He contended that the present case, which involved a great national question, and which concerned a man who represented a large section of the Irish people, ought not to be rushed through with unseemly haste. By adopting the Amendment they would give themselves time for consideration, and perhaps it would enable them to find some safe and satisfactory way out of the difficulty.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "a Select Committee be appointed to examine into the precedents in the Law of Parliament involved in the Return of Michael Davitt for the County of Meath. and report to the House

1859
on the steps that ought to be taken under the circumstances."—(Mr. Justin M'Carthy.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
MR. SHAWsaid, he had been in hopes that the Solicitor General would get up to say that the Government would consent to a postponement of the Motion. He thought the law of the question was clear enough; but, still, this case was peculiar, inasmuch as another candidate had been proposed, and no one knew whether a Petition against the return would be presented or not. He thought, therefore, it would be a very wise thing to postpone the Motion for 21 days. But there was another and a more serious reason for which the matter should be delayed, and he urged it with all respect and earnestness upon the Government. That reason had been already thrown out by the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen)—namely, that the Government should have some time to consider the wisdom and propriety of offering a free pardon to Mr. Davitt. He did not utter these words lightly. He had had several interviews with Mr. Davitt. The very night before Mr. Davitt's arrest he had a conversation with him, occupying over an hour; and he could say, without the slightest hesitation, that he had seldom met a man of greater intellect, of more powerful mind, and with a more thorough honesty and earnestness. He did not agree with him in all his views, and felt the greatest anxiety to get him on the path of patriotism. He intended to write him a long letter on the questions they had discussed, when he heard that he had been taken and put into prison. He maintained that the presence of Mr. Davitt in that House would be of very great importance.
MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that I have already ruled that the question of Mr. Davitt's release does not come within the scope of the discussion before the House.
MR. SHAWsaid, he was sorry that he had departed from the Speaker's ruling. He again urged that no harm could result from a delay, and that at the end of a fortnight some new light might be thrown on the matter.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTreferring to what the hon. Member for the
1860
County of Cork (Mr. Shaw) had just said, remarked that if the issue of the Writ were delayed it could not possibly effect the object the hon. Gentleman had in view, because, if Mr. Davitt were to be pardoned to-morrow, still the Writ must issue, because he was ineligible at the time of the election. The proposed appointment of a Committee was equally inexpedient, because the Committee could only inquire into a matter that the House had formerly decided, and that would be a waste of the time and energy of the House. The proposal that the issuing of the Writ should be delayed until a Petition could be filed was open to the objection stated by his hon. and learned Friend behind him (Mr. Serjeant Simon). There could be no answer to that objection, which was conclusive against the argument of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). If the issue of the Writ were delayed until the time for petitioning had expired, how would it be possible to prevent a convict, supposing he had a ticket-of -leave, from sitting and voting during the interval? On the other hand, there could be no doubt that such a person would be prevented from sitting and voting if the Writ were issued at once. This principle, which had been laid down in former cases, would be entirely broken down by delay.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would not enter into the questions that had been discussed at all; but it appeared to him that in this case the Government were following precisely the precedent set by the late Government in the case of John Mitchel. In that case the greatest care was taken by the Government to ascertain whether they were proceeding on the right grounds. He could see no difference between that case and the present one, and therefore he was prepared to support the Motion of the Government.
THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir FARRER HERSCHELL)said, that it had been suggested in various quarters that the Government, in bringing forward this Motion, were actuated by some feeling of personal hostility and spite—[Mr. BIGGAR: Hear, hear!]—against Michael Davitt, whose return was now in question. He did not envy the state of mind of those who could indulge in imputations of that sort. He should have thought it possible to under-

1861
stand that those who were responsible as a Government, and whose duty it was to act in cases of this description, might act honestly and fairly, and with a just conviction that they were doing their duty, without regard or feeling towards particular individuals. He maintained that in taking the present course the Government had distinctly followed the precedents set on former occasions. If any ground had been suggested as to the impropriety of the Resolution, or any new facts had been brought before the House, then the Government would have been willing to delay the matter and appoint a Committee. But not the slightest particle of solid doubt had been raised on the present occasion. It was said that they were not following the precedents of O'Donovan Rossa and Mitchel; but he maintained that they were. They were following the precedents which applied to this case, and not those which did not. A suggestion had been made that the Motion was premature until the time had elapsed for an Election Petition. He understood the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) even to state that the House had transferred the whole of its power to the Election Judges, and had no power to interfere. In 1870, and again in 1875, there was a discussion on this question, and the House came to the conclusion to interfere with a return when it came to the House as in the present case. If a constituency returned a woman or a child under 21, would it be necessary to allow 21 days to elapse and permit those persona to take the Oath and their seat before interfering with the return? He thought it was clear that the House had the power to interfere; it had twice acted upon that power in cases similar to the present. No one had ventured to suggest to the House the existence of such a state of facts as would make it improper for the House to exercise that power by passing the Resolution. With respect to the identity of the person named in the return with Michael Davitt not a single hon. Member had ventured to suggest any doubt. The return to the Writ actually described him as being a convict in Portland Prison. Upon that very man the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. M'Carthy) had pronounced a high eulogium, and there could be no doubt as to his identity. In his opinion, the wiser and better course would be to pass
1862
the Resolution. There was no reason for making inquiry in the present case that there was in Mitchel's case. In the latter case there were special circumstances. He had escaped, and his term of imprisonment had expired, and it was necessary to decide whether he were disqualified to sit or not. That was the only question raised. A Committee was suggested, and he and his hon. Friend near him supported the proposal, believing that the question was one which required consideration. The Motion for the appointment of a Committee was, however, opposed, and finally they acquiesced, and did not press even that point further. Was the House on each new occasion, when exactly the same set of circumstances arose, to discuss the matter all over again? It would be less invidious to act upon the lines already laid down by the House, because then there could be nothing personal in the matter. It would, therefore, be unreasonable to open a question which, with the general acquiescence of both sides of the House, had been formerly agreed on.
MR. STAVELEY HILLsaid, he agreed entirely with what had just fallen from his hon. and learned Friend. In the case of O'Donovan Rossa the House had most fully thrashed out the whole question. The matter was then discussed at considerable length, and the House had the advantage of the advice of the present Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor in the debate. There could be no doubt that after full discussion the House came to the conclusion that there was no reason for delay at all; and as this case was admitted to be similar to that of O'Donovan Rossa the matter was clear, and he did not see that there was the slightest reason for postponement. In fact, this case was even strengthened by the Statute, for he felt sure that the words "such persons" referred to persons convicted of treason or felony, and that the present case came within the words.
MR. SEXTONsaid, if a free pardon were granted to Davitt the question before the House would lose its significance, for the electors of Meath or of some other constituency would soon settle the question of his right to sit in the House. As they had heard so much about precedent, he was entitled to say that Her Majesty's Government had. by

1863
their haste and precipitancy, violated all the precedents in this matter. In 1870, when the election of O'Donovan Rossa came under consideration, Members received 48 hours' Notice between the laying of the Record on the Table and the Motion to void the election. He should oppose the Motion of the Attorney General on the ground laid down so clearly in a calm and judicial spirit by the hon. Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Lewis). The question of Davitt's incapacity was not a Parliamentary, but a legal question. It was a question which should be left to a Court of Law to be determined upon a Petition brought by any elector of the county of Meath. Lately they had had before the House that question of another Member, in whose case the grave Constitutional question of eligibility to be elected did not arise; the question merely was whether he was eligible to submit himself to a certain matter incidental to the taking of the seat—namely, the taking of an Oath. Yet upon that question, lower in character and minor in degree, the Prime Minister and many other Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench rose, and with animation and emphasis argued before the House that that question was not one which the House ought to decide. They told the House that it was a question for judicial determination, which should be removed to the calm and judicial atmosphere of a Court of Justice. Now, if upon that minor question the Government contended that it ought to be removed to a Court of Law, he wished to know why this far graver and deeper Constitutional question of the eligibility of a man to be elected and sit in the House should not be referred to a Court of Law as well. Lawyers at both sides of the House had attempted to hunt the meaning of the Act of 1868; but the language was most absolute. The 50th section stated that after the next Dissolution of Parliament no election or return should be questioned except in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The provisions of the Act were that the objection should be presented to a Court appointed for that purpose. In the case of Mr. Bradlaugh no legal tribunal was reserved to consider the question raised. In this ease there was a tribunal specially reserved; and it was stated in the Statute passed in 1868 that if any question had to be challenged re-
1864
garding any election it should be challenged before the proper legal tribunal. Then the Act of 1870 had been referred to, which was an Act abolishing the penalties for high treason and introducing the offence of treason-felony. That Act, which was intended to lighten the burden of disability, was now sought to be used to make the burden heavier. The section relied on by the Attorney General was correctly quoted by the hon. and learned Gentleman so far as it stated that—
"Any person hereafter convicted of treason, or treason felony, shall not be capable of being elected, or of sitting or voting as a Member of Parliament."
But that enactment was subject to the condition—
"Until he shall have suffered the punishment for which he has been sentenced, or such other punishment as by competent authority may be substituted for the same."
He was not a lawyer, and fortunately for the debates of that House the number of lawyers in the House was not very considerable; but even he could see that several legal questions arose in the present case. It appeared that Davitt's conduct while a convict had been so exemplary that he had obtained the remission of a considerable portion of his sentence. He believed that in the case of a convict part of whose sentence had been remitted the judicial opinion was in favour of the remission having the effect of absolutely releasing him from the remainder of his sentence. In Davitt's case he was released at the end of seven-and-a-half years. What was the effect of the document by which his ticket-of-leave was granted? Taking the time he had served in prison and the time in respect of which he had obtained his release had he not, in fact, served his sentence? That was a legal question, which should be brought before a competent tribunal, and not be determined by the debates of that House. A question had been raised about the identity of Mr. Davitt. He confessed he had no doubt but that the Michael Davitt now in Portland Prison was the Michael Davitt returned by the constituency of Meath. But if the House was to proceed with nice exactitude in this matter, the question of identity ought to be judicially settled. The Act of 1868 gave power to any constituency to present

1865
Petitions. Here the time for the presentation of Petitions had not elapsed. If before the time had expired for the presentation of Petitions the House had passed a Resolution voiding the election, the House had done that which it was not competent to do—namely, to override the express provisions of the Statute. Then Mr. Egan was the second candidate for the Meath election. The House had no personal knowledge of his having withdrawn. If Davitt was not legally nominated, Mr. Egan was the only person legally nominated, and that being so he had no right to withdraw; and, therefore, he was the sitting Member for Meath. Therefore, the rights of Mr. Egan, as the possible Member for Meath, would be affected by the Resolution. Then a singular phrase had been used by the Attorney General. The words of his Resolution were that Davitt had been "adjudged guilty of treason-felony." This phrase occurred in the Resolutions proposed regarding O'Donovan Rossa, John Mitchel, and William Smith O'Brien. It was instructive to ascertain how the phrase was used regarding Mr. O'Brien. The words in the Resolution originally proposed by the Government were—" convicted of treason-felony." Sir Frederick Thesiger, then Attorney General, and one of the most eminent English lawyers, rose and said he wished to state an objection to the words of the Resolution—
"The noble Lord; (he said) might be aware that attainder did not follow upon conviction, but upon the judgment; and he suggested that the words of the Resolution should be attainted of treason-felony."
Acting, no doubt, upon the principle which prevented all Government lawyers accepting wholly any suggestions from a lawyer of the Opposition, the Attorney General rose and said a middle course might be the best, and he suggested that the word "adjudged" might be used. The Resolution then read, "adjudged guilty of treason-felony," which word "adjudged" brought within the purview of the Resolution, not merely the conviction, but the sentence of death. He contended that in using the word "adjudged" on this occasion, as well as having used it regarding O'Donovan Rossa and John Mitchel, the Government was conveying a meaning which the facts with regard to Michael Davitt
1866
and the others did not Constitutionally warrant. It had force in the case of Mr. William Smith O'Brien, because sentence of death followed upon conviction, and attainder deprived him of the citizenship right to hold a seat in Parliament. There was no attainder in the cases of Rossa and Mitchel, neither was there an attainder in the case of Michael Davitt. On this subject he would quote the opinion of a very able lawyer, Mr. Henry Matthews, who, during the discussion on O'Donovan Rossa, said—
"The only legal disqualification for election was attainder for treason or felony. The universal current of opinion of all esteemed writers was that attainder, and attainder alone, carried disqualification with it."—[3 Hansard, cxcix. 133.]
He would also quote from a speech delivered on the 18th of February, 1875, in the case of Mr. Mitchel by the present Attorney General for England. He was then in Opposition, which might account for his sentiments. He said—
"It is quite true that Mr. John Mitchel has been convicted of treason-felony and sentenced to 14 years' transportation, that he has not completed his sentence. But looking at the question in a merely technical view, it is a question which can, perhaps, be best discussed before a judicial tribunal, whether that conviction produced the disability sought to be imposed by that Motion."—[3 Hansard, ccxxii. 499.]
["Hear, hear!" from the Irish Members, and a remark from the Attorney General.] He was quoting the hon. and learned Gentleman's words from Hansard, in which he advocated in 1875 precisely the course the Irish Members were now advocating. The hon. and learned Gentleman added—
"In early times, with few exceptions, all felonies wore capital offences, punishable with the sentence of death, and with the sentence of death attainder necessarily followed; and it is to attainder that the disability is attached."—[Ibid.]
The right hon. and learned Gentleman now Secretary of State for the Home Department, who was so anxious that the House should not open this question, and who, in vague language, advocated precedent, said, in 1875, with regard to Mr. Mitchel's case—
"As he understood the matter, until the case of O'Donovan Rossa there was no authority for stating that any offence whatsoever, except one which was of a capital character, and on which, of course, attainder followed, constituted a

1867
disability for a seat in the House. He believed there wag no such authority to be found in the case of O'Donovan Rossa."—[Ibid. 606.]
Therefore, if there was no authority before the case of O'Donovan Rossa, and no authority in that case, where had the Government the authority for the Motion now? The idea forced upon them by contrasting the speeches of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in 1875 with their observations now was, that promotion to seats upon the Front Treasury Bench produced mental gymnastic exercises similar to those of Jim Crow. He regretted exceedingly that the Rules of Order forbad his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle (Mr. J. Cowen) laying his Amendment before the House. Though he (Mr. Sexton) might not have moved such an Amendment, coming from an Englishman it was a wise and statesmanlike proposal. Had it been put to the House the Irish Members would have been able to show from the public acts and words of Michael Davitt that he was a man of pure and unselfish character, and that he was sincerely and honourably devoted to the public good. He believed the House could not have more wisely used its prerogative of mercy than in carrying out the course indicated by the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle, and that House would derive a most salutary experience from admitting to its councils a man such as Michael Davitt, who was loved as no other living man was loved by the whole of the Irish race.
MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he did not think he had been guilty of the absurdity suggested by the Home Secretary and the Solicitor General. He admitted that when the period for presenting a Petition against a Return had expired without one being presented the House itself must deal with the question; but during the 21 days, if it interfered, it might affect the rights of the constituency or of a candidate. The Solicitor General said there was no ground in this case for supposing that the rights of any persons would be affected. The Return did not show that one way or the other; while, on the other hand, there could be no possible disadvantage in allowing the matter to stand for 21 days. There was really nothing in the fear that a woman or a child might get
1868
elected, for the House knew how to protect itself.
MR. CALLANsaid, they knew, as a matter of fact, that Mr. Egan's candidature was not withdrawn until 25 minutes past the hour for receiving nominations, and the probability was that within a month it would be declared that Mr. Egan had been duly elected.
MR. P. MARTINcontended that though the cases mentioned by the Attorney General showed the House had, since the Parliamentary Elections Act, exercised the right of deciding upon the qualifications of its Members, yet, if the facts in reference to this Election had been correctly stated by some Members opposite, the House was now asked to go beyond any precedent, and very possibly to deprive a third person of rights vested in him by Statute. It might be legally contended—and, as he thought, with good reason—that the disqualification of Michael Davitt was a matter notorious and well known to the returning officer, shown on the face of the nomination paper; and as Mr. Patrick Egan was the only eligible candidate who was duly nominated the returning officer ought to have declared Mr. Egan elected. Mr. Egan was entitled to ask the proper tribunal to declare that the Return should be amended, and, if their decision was in his favour, he had as clear right, under the Act, in that case to obtain relief against the returning officer for having wilfully neglected to return the person whom he was bound to return as Member for Meath. Mr. Egan, assuming a Petition to be presented by him, therefore, had the power of suing the returning officer, and recovering damages under the Statute. By the Motion of the Government the House was about to take away that right which the law gave him to proceed against another; and he maintained that, in these circumstances, there was nothing unreasonable in asking the House to allow that case to stand over until the time for petitioning had expired.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 242; Noes 29: Majority 213.—(Div. List, No. 32.)
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 208; Noes 20: Majority 188.—(Div. List, No. 33.)
Resolved, That Michael Davitt, returned as a Member for the County of Meath, having been adjudged guilty of felony, and sentenced to penal servitude for fifteen years, and being now imprisoned under such sentence, is incapable of being elected or returned as a Member of this House.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Sir) HENRY JAMES)said, that in relation to the second Motion which stood on the Paper respecting the issuing of a "Writ, he asked permission to state the course which it was thought right should be taken. They had asserted the in eligibility of Michael Davitt, and they had asserted the right of the House to declare his ineligibility, and the Resolution passed arrived at that result. In the course of this discussion it was stated by one hon. Member, at any rate, that there was a person who, according to that statement, claimed to have some legal right which he asserted, and which could only be asserted by means of a Petition under the Act of 1868. In these circumstances the House should consider whether it should issue a Writ, and so come in conflict with the person asserting that right. It seemed to him and his Colleagues, when that statement was brought to their knowledge, that they should follow the precedent set in the case of John Mitchel, and not shut out the person from assertion of his legal rights by presenting his Petition. The Government were disposed, therefore, to allow time to be given to the gentleman said to have been nominated, and of whom it was said he had a legal right which he wished to assert. Therefore he did not at present move the Motion which stood in his name for the issue of a Writ.

NATAL (ME. SENDALL).

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. E. N. FOWLER, in rising to move the following Resolution:—
  "That this House regrets the indecision of Her Majesty's Government, by which Mr. Sendall was withdrawn from the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor of Natal, to which he had been nominated, and for which, in the opinion of the Colonial Office, he was eminently qualified,"
  observed, that Mr.Sendall was appointed to the Lieutenant Governorship of Natal during the Recess; but the appointment had since been withdrawn by the Government, on the ground, he believed, that it was against the feeling of the
  1870
  people of Natal: but, from his own observation, he gathered that while one party among the Colonists was strongly in favour of the appointment, the other was willing to wait to see what kind of man Mr. Sendall was before actively opposing him. There was, however, a gentleman named Statham, editor of The Natal Witness, who organized an agitation, to which Her Majesty's Ministers succumbed, and he wished to point out that this powerful Government, with an irresistible majority in that House, had been defeated by Mr. Statham. The Under Secretary of State for the Colonies told his constituents at Liskeard that Mr. Sendall was, in the judgment of Lord Kimberley, the most proper person that could be appointed. Why, then, did not the Government adhere to the appointment? Either the appointment was originally a mistake or it ought to have been adhered to. Apart from this consideration he thought it a mistake that the Government in their new appointments should have reverted to the old plan of nominating a full Governor for Natal instead of a Lieutenant Governor, as they thereby threw an impediment in the way of a union of Natal and Cape Colony. Moreover, it seemed to him that with full Governors in Natal and Cape Colony there would be a conflict of jurisdictions. The Native races might be treated differently by the two Colonies. A great deal had been said about Confederation in South Africa, the dream of statesmen in the House for many years past. Although such a Confederation could be regarded as at present nothing more substantial than a dream, the question of a union between Cape Colony and Natal was one which came within the limits of practical politics, and the course the Government had taken had directly tended to prevent such a union. He feared that neither side wished it, and it was not for a British Minister to urge it; but he ought to be very careful not to hinder it. The appointment of a full Governor seemed to him distinctly a step in the wrong direction. In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman said a great hardship had been inflicted on a most deserving public servant.
  MR. SALT, in seconding the Motion, thought that the prospects and position of our public servants were well worthy

  1871
  of the consideration of that House. In supporting the Motion of the hon. Member he was acting without having been requested to take any part in the discussion by Mr. Sendall. It was no controversial matter that Mr. Sendall was an important and a valuable public servant, and it was most undesirable that his conduct should be the subject of misapprehension. What were the qualifications and what had been the career of Mr. Sendall? As a young man at Cambridge he had passed first-class in classics and third-class in mathematics. Soon after leaving the University he went to Colombo on the staff of the Government College, and he held that appointment for 18 months. He then obtained the appointment of Inspector of Schools there, and afterwards became Director of Public Instruction in Ceylon—a post of very considerable administrative importance. After 12 years' service in that position he returned to England, and in 1872 was appointed Assistant Inspector to the Local Government Board, in 1876 General Inspector, and in 1878 Assistant Secretary to the Local Government Board. He possessed very high testimonials from those under whom he had served in the course of his career. For instance, Sir Hercules Robinson, in a letter dated Queen's House, Galle, 9th February, 1880, says—
  "During the last four months Mr. Sendall has been acting as Director of Public Instruction, in which capacity his ability, tact, and sound judgment have proved of signal assistance to the Government in inaugurating the extensive and difficult changes in the educational system of the Colony which have recently been determined on. I consider Mr. Sendall well fitted for a far higher and move responsible sphere than that which he has so efficiently held here for the last ten years."
  Then here is another letter, dated August 14, 1872, signed Arthur Helps. He says, speaking of Mr. Sendall—
  "I have every reason to think that he is a man of much administrative ability and experience."
  He need not trouble the House by quoting more. From information he had received on the best authority he believed that the resistance to Mr. Sendall's appointment, though undoubtedly violent, proceeded from a very small knot of persons, and it was unfortunate that Her Majesty's Government should so soon have arrived at a decision to
  1872
  cancel his appointment. He had been informed that the whole of the communications which had taken place between the Home and the Colonial Governments on this subject had been conducted through the telegraph. This was a very serious matter, especially in a case requiring the utmost deliberation and consideration. He had no desire to turn this Motion into a serious attack upon the Colonial administration of the Government; but presented it rather in the form of friendly criticism. South Africa had a history, and he hoped for it a great future. The difficulties and the character of the Colony were often misunderstood in England; but he trusted that the able Under Secretary would devote his talents and his energies to mastering the details of questions by no means easy, and to promoting the welfare of one of our most important Possessions.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That this House regrets the indecision of Her Majesty's Government, by which Mr. Sendall was withdrawn from the appointment of Lieutenant-Governor of Natal, to which he had been nominated, and for which, in the opinion of the Colonial Office, he was eminently qualified."—(Mr. Robert Fowler.)
  MR. COURTNEYcongratulated the hon. Member for the City of London upon his brevity, and the hon. Member for Stafford upon his courtesy, in bringing this matter under the notice of the House. The course taken by the Government in this matter was extremely simple. Mr. Sendall was selected for the post entirely on the strength of his own merits, and as being the person best fitted for it within the range of choice open to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. When his nomination was made known in South Africa there did undoubtedly occur a manifestation of feeling in the Colony against the appointment. There was a good deal of evidence of that manifestation in the newspapers; but to that the Government, of course, paid very slight attention. But those manifestations were made known to the Government through their Agents, and, what was more important, by two Votes in the Council. One was of a practical character, offering to raise the salary from £2,500 to £4,000, if the Government would send out a Governor instead of a Lieutenant

  1873
  Governor. He confessed he did not know any better teat of the reality of the feeling manifested than the readiness to vote an additional sum of money to carry it into effect. The second Vote was one limiting the supplies to six months, in order to force the Government at home, if they were unwilling, to re-consider the situation. The Government at home had no desire whatever to force upon any Colony a gentleman who would be unacceptable there, unless there were grave circumstances requiring that he should be sent out. In this case, when it was made known that the Colony of Natal were prepared to pay a much larger sum, the area of choice was, of course, very considerably enlarged. Mr. Sendall, in the most handsome manner, tendered his resignation, and said that, in the interests of the Public Service, he thought it better for him to withdraw. The Secretary of State said it was impossible not to accept that withdrawal, though he did that with great reluctance. As regarded the estimation in which Mr. Sendall was held, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Salt). In support of that statement he would read to the House an extract from a letter of the Secretary of State—
  "It is only due to you that I should say that my opinion of your capacity for that post remains unchanged, notwithstanding the opposition which your appointment has met with, and that I have no doubt you would have fully justified my recommendation of you to Her Majesty, which was made after very careful inquiry and consideration; hut, looking to all the circumstances, I have come to the conclusion that it will be for the advantage of the Public Service that the wish of the Colonial Legislature for the appointment of a Governor instead of a Lieutenant Governor should be complied with, and that your appointment as Lieutenant Governor should, therefore, not be proceeded with."
  With respect to what bad been said as to the creation of a Governorship tending to impede a union between Natal and Cape Colony, he (Mr. Courtney) believed that no federation and no union would ever be brought about in South Africa except with the willing co-operation of the Colonists, and that no step could be taken that was more calculated to impede such a movement than to attempt to force anything upon any of the parties. The hon. Member for Stafford had deprecated the action of the
  1874
  telegraph in the matter; but from what the Government had since heard, they had reason to believe that the case had not been materially affected thereby. He hoped he had been able to show that in accepting Mr. Sendall's resignation they were fully sensible of his merits; but that the Government had acted entirely in deference to the wishes of the Colony.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he was afraid that the Government had made a mistake in making such hasty use of the telegraph in respect to the withdrawal of Mr. Sendall, and had done an injustice to a useful and most deserving public servant. He did not doubt that his hon. Friend did not desire to press his Motion to a division, especially as any division of a Party character must be injurious to Mr. Sendall. He rose to say that he quite agreed with what had been said as to Mr. Sendall's capabilities by the hon. Member for Stafford. While he was at the Local Government Board that gentleman had been appointed by him entirely on the ground of his merit—first to an Inspectorship, and then to an Assistant Secretaryship of the Local Government Board. He thought that the statement which had fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies with regard to the matter was of a satisfactory nature.
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Post Cards (Reply) * (23).
Withdrawn—Shop Hours Regulation (7).

SHOP HOURS REGULATION BILL.
(The Earl Stanhope.)

(NO. 7.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL STANHOPE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, it was a Bill very simple in its character and short in its provisions, being comprised in four clauses. It was, however, of some importance, as its object was to protect those persons who were not able to protect themselves by combination or other means—namely, women and young persons—from working in shops beyond certain hours. The Bill was only intended to apply to warehouses and shops in which textile fabrics and articles of wearing apparel were sold, and therefore would affect only one branch of trade. It proposed that the hours of labour for women, and for young persons between the ages of 14 and 18, should be reduced to 10. However, as a longer time would be required at certain periods of the year for the convenience of customers, he proposed that, on application to the Home Secretary, an extension of the hours of labour during 60 days in the year might be obtained. This proposal was not at all a new departure, but was very similar to the Act of 1874, and still later the Consolidation Act of 1878, which limited the hours for working in factories and workshops from 10½ to 10 hours. He had no intention of asking for any exceptional powers in respect of adult male labour, as it seemed to him that that would be impossible to limit their hours by legislation. The long hours of female labour had been reduced in the West End by the force of public opinion; but there were districts in London, such as Islington, Hackney, and Walworth, and in the large towns of Manchester, Sheffield, Liverpool, and Bristol, where it was no uncommon thing to find the hours of labour extending to 13 or 14 hours, and where shops re-
1820
mained open to 10, 11, and even 12 o'clock. He should not have brought forward the Bill had he not met with some encouragement out-of-doors. But the Trades Union Congress had passed a resolution in the autumn, saying that, though much more was needed than the provisions of his Bill, it constituted a step in the right direction, and the Bill should therefore be supported. His proposal had also been advocated by many of the Sub-Inspectors examined in 1876 by the Royal Commission appointed to consider the effect of the Workshop and Factory Acts. Mr. Sub-Inspector Hudson then said—
"I should strongly recommend a regulation to be made prohibiting retail shops from being kept open later than 8, except Saturdays.…. Such a regulation would be popular among the shopkeepers themselves."
Mr. Sub-Inspector Oswald said—
"The assistants in shops would regard it as a great boon to be put on the same footing as workroom hands; and the masters would not, as a rule, object if all were under the same regulations."
Mr. Sub-Inspector Johnson said—
"I have before stated in my Reports that the long hours and gas are thought to be injurious, and that females ought to have some protection."
Mr. Sub-Inspector Cameron said—
"In my opinion, the only effectual means of bringing about a cessation of the undoubted hardship implied in attendance behind a counter to the late hours referred to would be to legislate for the absolute closing of all retail premises after a certain hour.… As it would admit of no unfair competition, I imagine retail shopkeepers would themselves become its advocates."
Among hundreds of cases that came under his notice, he would refer to the following:—A young woman called on a lady at Brixton to ask whether the Girls' Friendly Society could obtain shorter shop hours, and she went on to say—
"It is not only for myself I care, but for the younger ones. These hours are ruining them body and soul. We all went in to business at a quarter to 8 this morning, and it was exactly 10.15 P.M. when I came out. Fourteen and a-half hours on one's feet! We may only sit down for 20 minutes for dinner and 15 minutes for tea; and to-day I was interrupted to go and serve customers three times from dinner and twice from tea."
In Liverpool, in 1881, in 184 shops the hours of labour were 13 and upwards for five days in the week. In 33 shops they

1821
amounted to 12. It would be said by some that it would be next to impossible to limit the hours of female work, as it would throw women out of employment, and lead to the demand of male instead of female labour. He did not agree in this view; female work would always be the cheapest, and in linendrapers' shops females best understood the requirements of customers. A reply also had been made in the following words by a Sub-Inspector:—
"It is possible that, in the first instance, it might lead a few shopkeepers to attempt to substitute men's labour for that of women and young persons'; but I think this would speedily right itself, for I feel sure that it would not be found to pay, for in these shops there is, as a rule, no necessity for late shopping, and very little is actually done."
Mr. Assistant Inspector Walker, referring to the same question, had said—
"It is possible that this might be the case in a few instances. But it is believed that this would take place to a very limited extent, as female labour is equally, if not more, suitable in many instances than male, and considerably cheaper."
As to the machinery for carrying out the Bill, it would be quite possible to throw upon the police the duty of inspecting shops, in order to see that the provisions of the Bill were complied with. On this point Mr. Sub-Inspector Striedinger had given the following evidence to the Royal Commission:—
"If the Legislature of this country should ever interfere with the hours of opening and closing retail shops, offences against such a future enactment could be proved just as easily as the fact of keeping a public-house open, and the same machinery which is intrusted with the enforcement of the Licensing Act might be used."
The Bill did not contain any clause imposing a penalty; but in cases of non-compliance with the measure, he was advised that a fine of £3 or £5 could be inflicted in a manner analogous to the infliction of punishments under the Factory Acts. Though the Bill might require several Amendments in Committee, he hoped the House would affirm the principle, and allow it to be read a second time.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Stanhope.)
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETrecognized that the Bill was brought forward with good intentions. He admitted that it
1822
would be worthy of cordial support if it could reduce the hours of female labour without having the effect of reducing wages, or of forcing shopkeepers to employ men in the place of women. It should be borne in mind that women found it very difficult to obtain employment, and the Bill would probably have the result of still further reducing their opportunities of service. Under these circumstances, he should propose in Committee to strike out the word "women" from the measure, so as to restrict its application to the employment of young persons. This would involve an alteration of the whole Bill. Women who wanted to earn their livelihood would be incapacitated under this Bill. With regard to the extension of hours in certain seasons, it would be highly inconvenient in those country towns where customers did their shopping at late hours that the shopkeepers should be obliged to apply to the Home Secretary for the requisite permission.
EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that, as the consistent advocate for more than 40 years of general freedom of contract for adults, he must support the noble Duke's proposal. The principle of limiting the hours of employment of children and young persons was first introduced with regard to factories by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury); and the principle, by its excellent results, had commended itself to the deliberate judgment of the country, and had been since extended to mines, workshops, and factories generally. But it was a different thing to interfere with the hours for the employment of women. A body most competent to judge in a matter of this kind—the Society for the Promotion of the Employment of Women—were of the same opinion as the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) They declared, as the result of their inquiries, that the passing of the measure would cause the dismissal of a large number of women from their employments. This was one of the many instances in which the principles of political economy would speedily vindicate their truth—as they were sure to do sooner or later—by results.
THE EARL OF ABERDEENsaid, he quite saw the force of the objections which might be stated to this Bill; but, on the other hand, he also perceived that some substantial advantage might result from its passing into law. He could not help thinking that the Bill, in an

1823
amended form, would be very valuable. In regard to the question of overwork, it was quite unnecessary to suppose or suggest that the employers of those young people were more hard-hearted persons, or less interested in the welfare of their employé, than those who employed other kinds of labour. But they could easily understand that when an employer was expostulated with as to the length of hours he kept his employés per day, he would reply that he could not be expected to shorten his hours of business, while his neighbour, a few doors off, continued the long hours of work. It seemed to him that was a position of affairs in which the Legislature might step in with benefit to the class in question, and with hardship to no one. Another excuse might be urged very plausibly by employers—namely, that whenever there was a vacancy on their staff there would immediately be 10 or 20 applications to it. That he believed to be true; but it appeared to him that the very fact that those young persons were not in a position to combine in any organization for their own advantage afforded another reason why Parliament might very beneficially exercise some control in the matter. Attention had recently been called by medical men to the deleterious effects produced on the health of young women by constant standing in shops. He had paid some attention to this matter, and some time ago more than 100 leading tradesmen were good enough to respond to his invitation to meet at his house and discuss this question, and consider whether any remedy could be adopted. He was bound to say the opinion of the majority was that the obstacles were too serious to lead to any hope of immediate reform. But, at the same time, he might mention that several West End firms had now supplied seats for their employés, to their great comfort and advantage. A medical man of great experience told him only the other day that if some fixed time could be provided for meals, and especially dinner, the effect on the health of young women would be much less serious than it was. At present there was, no doubt, often an hour appointed; but the shop girls were liable to be called away from meals to wait upon customers so often, and in such a way, that the appetite was affected, and a dinner became more a name than a
1824
reality. This Bill was not "paternal legislation." He could not help thinking it was a step in the right direction, because it was protective legislation in the best sense. He contended that the protection of life, of which this measure formed a part, was one of the first duties of the Legislature; and he, therefore, hoped Her Majesty's Government would support the Bill, and that their Lordships would give it a second reading.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, that the matter was well worthy of consideration, for, at the very lowest calculation, there would be, at least, 200,000 persons affected by this Bill. It affected their health, their general state, and their future. He heartily approved the principle and the object of the Bill; but he was very much afraid that it had not been constructed in a way that would secure the object in view. In the first place, it began with a provision which would raise very considerable opposition, if not in this House, certainly in the other House of Parliament. His noble Friend said that the Bill should apply to women and young persons. Now, the argument for the limitation of the hours of labour in factories and workshops arose from the character of the employment, and inquiry showed that the employment was so severe, and so oppressive to the health of women, that persons most adverse to the protection of women under the Factory Acts were overwhelmed by the weight of the evidence, and agreed to women being placed under the protection of the Act. The labour of the persons to be protected by the Bill, though severe and trying, could not be placed in the same category. Though he would not vote, in this instance, against a Bill for the protection of women, yet if his noble Friend persisted in keeping in the Bill this provision relating to women there would be no hope of carrying it through either House of Parliament. The Bill also provided that shops were not to be open for more than 10 hours each day. Now, observe the number of inconveniences which would arise and the hostility which would be created by the Bill. In the first place, a great proportion of the traffic of shopkeepers in the East End took place in the evening. He mentioned this to show the noble Lord that he must devise some means of carrying out

1825
the protection intended by the Bill. The Factory Acts said that a person should not be employed more than a certain number of hours during the day. This Bill said nothing of the kind. It said only that shops should not be opened for more than 10 hours a-day; but when the shop was closed, a shopkeeper might keep his young people on his premises to as late an hour as he pleased, and everyone knew that many persons were so kept. There was thus no protection to women and children against undue hours of labour to be found in this Bill. Neither was there any provision for the appointment of Inspectors to see that the Act was carried out; there was no authority under which the Act was to be administered—action was, in fact, entirely left to the outside public, and punishment for breaches of the law could be obtained only by the process of indictment, an expense and trouble which very few indeed would undertake. There were many other matters in which the Bill would be found to be incomplete as it stood, and he did not think it desirable to pass such imperfect measures, which would only bring discredit on legislation. He would vote for the Bill, which related to a subject in which he had always taken great interest; but he would prefer to see it withdrawn and another and more complete measure introduced even in this Session.
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had expressed so much better than he could the feelings of respect with which they all hailed the exertions of his noble Relative (Earl Stanhope) in the cause of overworked women and young persons in shops and warehouses, that nothing he (the Earl of Rosebory) could say would strengthen his words. At the same time, his noble Friend (the Earl of Shaftesbury) had so convincingly exposed the inconveniences that would attend this Bill in the working of its details, that nothing he could point out would strengthen those objections. No doubt, his noble Friend had quoted opinions given by Sub-Inspectors of Factories in favour of some reform of this kind; but his own objection was not that the Bill was mischievous, but that it was absolutely and wholly inoperative to remedy the evils aimed at. He believed it was well known that the shopkeepers at the East End of London
1826
did most of their work in the evening. Had his noble Relative in any way ascertained what were the feelings of the shopkeepers with reference to this Bill? Had he in any way ascertained what the feeling of the customers in those shops would be in regard to this measure? Because those were most important questions. The House would remember that they were not legislating for large West End shops like Marshall and Snellgrove's; they were legislating for large classes of the community, whose wants were narrowed by circumstances, and who had not the same opportunity of making themselves heard and felt in that House as some other classes might have. Then, as regarded the employment of women, there was a great deal to be urged in favour of what was said both by the noble Duke (the Duke of Somerset) and the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as regarded the effect of this Bill on their chances and opportunities of employment. Everything that would tend to make the employment of women more difficult and more paralyzing to employers was to be deprecated. He wished to point out that under the Bill establishments where young men and boys were employed would be absolutely free from inspection; but those where young women and girls were employed would be liable, not only to supervision of a casual kind, but of an authorized kind. It offered temptations to rival tradesmen, actuated by spite or prejudice, to institute proceedings against each other, and to watch for the opportunity to do so. His noble Relative had said that the magistrates would be able, under this Bill, to find out the shops that might keep women at work above 10 hours. He spoke under correction; but the information he had received was to the effect that there was no public functionary through whom an offending shopkeeper could be proceeded against. His objections, however, were all made against the details of the measure, and not against its principle; and one of the chief objections he felt arose from the kind of work which it would throw upon the Home Office. It threatened to transmute the Home Office into a Domestic Office. How would the Home Secretary be able to undertake the duty of seeing whether an application for extension of hours was well-founded or not? There

1827
would be applications made from every village and every hamlet for leave to keep open beyond the authorized hours, and how could the Home Secretary know whether to grant them or not? An army of Inspectors would be insufficient. He did not know that there were any other details on which, to trouble the House, and he could only express his warm sympathy with the objects of his noble Relative, and his belief—which, he held most strongly—that another Bill would be brought forward to effect this valuable reform. It would not be his duty to divide the House against the second reading; but if he had any influence with his noble Relative he would endorse the appeals made from various quarters of the House, and ask the noble Earl to withdraw the measure this year, and try if some more effectual Bill could not be brought in on some future occasion.
EARL STANHOPE, in reply, said, after what had fallen from his noble Relative, and, in particular, after the objections raised by the noble Earl, he felt he had only one course to pursue, and that was to withdraw the Bill; but he might state that it had been drawn upon the lines of the Factory and Workshops Acts.
Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LAW RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF YOUNG GIRLS.

  RE-APPOINTMENT OF SELECT COMMITTEE.
  THE EARL OF DALHOUSE, in moving the re-appointment of the Select Committee appointed on the 30th of May, 1881, to inquire into the state of the law relative to the protection of young girls from artifices to induce them to lead a corrupt life, and into the means of amending the same, said, that the Committee had continued its sittings until the close of the Session last year, and examined 15 witnesses, and the Minutes of Evidence had for some time past been in their Lordships' possession. If their Lordships had had time to peruse that evidence, he felt sure they would be of opinion that the grounds on which the Committee was asked for had been fully substantiated. There was proof, on the one hand, that juvenile prostitution in the Metropolis had, within, the last three or four years, been increasing with alarming rapidity; and,
  1828
  on the other hand, there was proof, chiefly on the evidence of Mr. Snagg, that, under the present state of the law of this country, it was perfectly easy and safe for evil-disposed persons to carry on a traffic or trade in English, girls for purposes of prostitution. That being so, he regretted to say that the Committee had not yet been able to come to any conclusion as to what alteration in the law should be recommended. Towards the end of July the Committee passed a Resolution to the effect that considering the period of the Session, and the evident necessity for taking more evidence than time would allow, they should report by itself to the House the evidence already taken. He now asked for the re-appointment of the Committee in order that it might proceed to arrive at some definite recommendation which might be satisfactory to their Lordships' House.
  Moved that the Select Committee appointed on the 30th of May 1881, to inquire into the state of the law relative to the protection of young girls from artifices to induce them to lead a corrupt life, and into the means of amending the same, he re-appointed.—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
  Motion agreed to.

IRISH LAND COMMISSION.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN. [ADJOURNED DEBATE.]
  Order of the day read for resuming the adjourned debate on the Lord VENTRY'S motion,
  "That the Return of the judicial rents fixed by sub-commissions and civil bill courts, as notified by the Irish Land Commission up to and including the 28th January 1882, be supplemented by a column giving the present gross lotting value of each holding as ascertained by the Sub-Commissioners; and that it be an instruction that in all future Returns the above information be given."
  Debate resumed accordingly.
  LORD VENTRYsaid, that on Friday last the Lord Privy Seal stated that he doubted whether such, a column would be practicable, and also whether it would be useful if furnished, and he should be curious to hear the noble Lord's reasons why such a column could not be granted; and as to its utility, perhaps he (Lord Ventry) might be allowed to say that, as far as the landlords were concerned, and their opinions ought to go for something, they would find such a column of great advantage especially with a view

  1829
  to settlements with their tenants out of Court.
  LORD CARLINGFORD, in reply, said, that with respect to the noble Lord's Motion, "that it be an instruction that in all future Returns the above information be given," he wished to point out that this was a case of obtaining Returns from a Court of Law, and he apprehended that it would not be possible for the Government to issue instructions as to the mode in which that Court should keep its records. As to the substance of the matter, he learned from the Land Commisioners that they were most willing to furnish to either House of Parliament whatever information they could; but they said that the Return desired by the noble Lord could not be furnished without entailing upon the Sub-Commissioners an amount of work which would materially interfere with the discharge of their duties. That was the view taken by the Land Commissioners as to the Return asked for by the noble Lord. He had expressed on a former occasion his doubts of the utility of the Return in question, and he was still unable to see how, as the noble Lord had argued, such statistics would facilitate arrangements between landlord and tenant out of Court. In making those arrangements it was important to know the general practice and principle adopted by the Courts, and this practice would become more and more settled as cases wore re-heard by the Commission or decided by the High Court in Dublin; but it would be useless to have a statement, in a column of pounds, shillings, and pence, of the gross letting value—whatever that might mean—of every holding in Ireland. Landlords would be guided by the general practice of the Courts, but would derive no advantage from the publication of such figures as the noble Lord asked for. With respect to the Question that the noble Lord had placed on the Notice Paper—Whether, in future Returns of judicial rents fixed by the Sub-Commissioners, it would be possible to add a column stating the number of years during which the former rent had remained unaltered?—he had had no means of ascertaining the views of the Commission on that point; but he doubted whether they would be willing to make such a record. To say nothing of the
  1830
  additional labour that would be imposed on them, they might fairly demur to that one particular being picked out for the information of Parliament, while other equally important facts remained unpublished; and he did not, therefore, think it likely that they would undertake to supply such a Return for every holding in Ireland.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he was surprised to hear the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) say the Land Commissioners would demur to giving figures as to the number of years during which rents had remained unaltered. These figures could be easily proved, and several authorities had laid it down that these figures were a principal element in deciding what was a fair rent. He added that the noble Lord had not, in his opinion, given any reason why their Lordships should not have the Return asked for.
  On question, resolved in the negative.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, Two o'clock.