Sitting of 2 May 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Sunday Closing (Ireland)*[148].
Second Reading—Gas Provisional Orders*[136]; Inclosure (Arkleside) Provisional Order*[128]; Inclosure (Bettws Disserth) Provisional Order*[127]; Inclosure (Cefn Drawen) Provisional Order*[126]; Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order*[138]; Water Provisional Orders*[135].
Committee—Municipal Corporations (re-comm)*[113]—R. P.; Distress Amendment [73]—R.P.; Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment [107]—R. P.
Third Reading—Militia Storehouses*[116]; Places of Worship Sites*[97], and passed.

QUESTIONS.

  STATE OF IRELAND—DISTURBANCES IN BALLINTUBBER.
  MR. HEALYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can state what outrages or disturbance have taken place in the parish of Ballintubber, county Mayo, recently; whether it is true that the attempt on the life of Mr. C. Crotty was made some ten or twelve years ago; whether there has been any such subsequent attempt; whether Mr. Crotty was under police protection so far back as ten or twelve years ago, and had a police barrack built within a few yards of his house; and, whether such protection has ever been withdrawn; and, if so, what was the date of its renewal?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I have telegraphed for information on this subject, and have not yet received a reply.
  MR. HEALY: The right hon. Gentleman is aware that this Question arises out of a prievous statement made by him.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELEASE OF PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If there is any reason for the further detention of Mr. Edward Slevin, of Ballinrobe, county Mayo, who has been imprisoned for thirteen months under the Coercion Act; whether there is any reason for the further detention of Mr. Thomas Dunleavy, of Kilmovee, county Mayo, who has been imprisoned as a suspect since the 23rd of November 1881; whether he will consider the advisability of releasing Mr. Martin King, a suspect imprisoned in Ennis-killen, or give him an opportunity, according to the ordinary process of Law, of meeting the charge alleged against him; whether the time has not come when Mr. John McCarthy, of Loughrea, who has been detained for more than eight months as a suspect, may be released; whether Mr. Edward Connor, of Ballymore, county Roscommon, who has been detained for the past five months as a suspect in Galway Prison, may now be released; whether he will give the House a statement of the dimensions of the cell which Mr. Connor has been forced to occupy during that time; and, whether the cell is so small and dark as to have injuriously affected Mr. Connor's sight?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: The hon. Member asks me Questions as to several prisoners, and I have to say that their cases have all been considered, but up to the present time I have not been able to recommend to his Excellency the release of any of them. With respect to Mr. Connor, of Ballymore, Roscommon, I have made inquiries, and find that he occupies a cell in Galway Prison measuring 17 feet long by 8 feet wide. The medical officer certifies that he can find nothing wrong with Mr. Connor's eyes, and that, if his sight is defective, it must have been so before his admission to the prison.

  MINES (COAL) REGULATION ACT, 1872—ABRAM COLLIERY EXPLOSION.
  MR. BURTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the verdict of the coroner's jury in the Abram Col-
  1930
  liery explosion, and to the report of Mr. Young, who represented the Home Office at the inquiry; whether he has noticed that Mr. Young complains of the unsatisfactory nature of some of the special rules at the Colliery, and makes the following statement:—
  "Having heard the whole evidence, I feel bound to state that, in my opinion, a similar explosion may occur at any time, and will occur almost certainly if another outburst of gas takes place when the men are at work. I quite concur with the jury as to the unsatisfactory character of the regulations at the Colliery in question with regard to the lamps generally, and especially to the re-lighting of lamps which have been accidentally extinguished;"
  and, whether, considering the fiery nature of the seams in the locality, he has instructed, or, if not, he will instruct the inspector of mines for the district to urge that the Mines Regulation Act be strictly enforced, and that every possible precaution be taken to insure the safe working of the Colliery?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, that he had seen Mr. Young's Report, and that instructions such as those suggested in the hon. Member's Question would be sent to the District Inspector of Mines.

  PRISONS (IRELAND)—THE GOVERNOR OF LIMERICK PRISON.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether there have been numerous complaints made from time to time against Mr. Egan, the governor of the County Limerick Prison, regarding the treatment of untried prisoners under his charge; whether he has been reprimanded on more than one occasion by the prison authorities; and, whether His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant will continue this officer in so responsible a position?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERasked to have the Question postponed till Thursday, as he had not yet received an answer to his inquiries on the subject.
  MR. HEALY: Would the right hon. Gentleman have any objection to publish as a Parliamentary Paper the result of the inquiry in the same way as the letter of Captain Barlow has been published?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I must ask the hon. Gentleman to give Notice of the Question.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—THE MARQUESS OF ELY'S ESTATE—INTERFERENCE OF THE POLICE.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true, as stated in the "Freeman's Journal" of 28th April, that, on the previous day, the tenants of the Marquis of Ely to the number of 200 assembled at Fethard, county Wexford, for the purpose of discussing a circular received from their landlord; whether the meeting was attended by two members of the Constabulary force who refused to leave when requested to do so; whether the meeting in consequence broke up without considering the propositions for a settlement which were to have been submitted; and, whether the action of the police had his approval?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Yes, Sir, I find it is a fact that a number of tenants—about 200—on the estate of the Marquess of Ely assembled at Fethard, County Wexford, on the 27th ultimo. The police were not sent thither with the object of interfering with the meeting; but it was necessary that a few should be present, as it was believed a difference of opinion existed among the tenants, which might lead to a breach of the peace.
  MR. REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman has not answered that part of my Question asking whether the meeting broke up in consequence of the presence of the police?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Most certainly the police did not break up the meeting.

  ARMY (AUXILIARY FORCES)—CAMPS OF INSTRUCTION.
  MR. GRANTasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, considering the advantages enjoyed by the Volunteers in the Metropolis and the South of England in the way of facilities for training along with the troops of the regular army in camps of instruction, by experienced officers, he will consider the desirability of extending those advantages to the Volunteers of the North, by the establishment of a camp of instruction of a permanent character in some locality in the South of Scotland, to which the Volunteers of Scotland and the North of England may resort for the
  1932
  purpose of being trained with the Regulars and Militia, in the same manner as is done at Aldershot?
  MR. CHILDERS: In reply to my hon. Friend, I regret that I cannot at present hold out any hope to him of establishing a camp in Scotland at which Scotch Volunteers and Militia could be trained with the Regulars as at Alder-shot. But we are now considering how to utilize the ground purchased for a tactical station at Strensall, in the North of England, and next year I may be able to make some communication to the House on this subject.

  IRELAND—MR. CLIFFORD LLOYD, R.M.—CIRCULAR BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CO. CLARE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he can yet lay upon the Table a Copy of the communication which has been made to the Sub - Inspectors of the County Clare, withdrawing the circular issued on the 4th of March by County Inspector Smith; whether he will now say what course the Irish Executive proposes to take with regard to County Inspector Smith; and, whether a similar circular to that issued by County Inspector Smith was issued in any other county? The hon. Member also asked if County Inspector Smith was the same gentleman who, some time ago, in consequence of suspicious misconduct, had been removed from the County Down?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I cannot answer this Question without appealing to the House as to the unfairness of the hon. Member imputing misconduct without giving Notice that the statement would be made, and thereby conveying an erroneous impression, without my being able to answer the Question at the time. I am only to-day able to read the Minute which I have signed, after full consultation with his Excellency, in order that it might be communicated to the Inspector General of the Royal Irish Constabulary—
  "The Lord Lieutenant desires me to inform you that, while he entirely approves of the object in view in the instructions issued on March 4 to the Inspector under your command—videlicet, to secure the personal safety of Mr. Clifford Lloyd in the discharge of duties exposing him to imminent danger, his Excellency must express his disapproval of the terms in which these instructions were conveyed. They might be supposed to suggest, though his Excellency

  1933
  is confident that they were not intended to do so, the use of firearms without reasonable apprehension of imminent danger to the person under protection; and, his Excellency adds, should such use of firearms result in killing any person, no assumption of responsibility on the part of the County Inspector can confer any immunity on the constable who so uses his weapon. You will, therefore, withdraw the instructions, and admonish County Inspector Smith to use greater care in future."
  I may add that it is not correct to speak of these instructions as a Circular at all. These instructions were private and confidential instructions sent to the Sub-Inspector, and no similar instructions were issued in any other county. The County Inspector of Limerick had, indeed, issued instructions to the Sub-Inspectors to take care and give full protection to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but, at the same time, they were not to make any unnecessary display in doing so.
  MR. SEXTON: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman, Does the Government intend to retain County Inspector Smith in office in the county where these private and confidential instructions were issued?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: We do not consider that it is necessary to remove him in consequence of these instructions.
  MR. HEALY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since County Inspector Smith received the reprimand he has gone about the district bragging that he does not care one pin about it or the House of Commons?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I do not believe that statement.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member has not put a Question to the right hon. Gentleman, but has made a statement which is quite irregular.
  MR. REDMONDwished to know how it happened that Inspector Smith's instructions were issued without the knowledge of the Inspector General?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that, undoubtedly, County Inspector Smith made a mistake in that matter. He was not now justifying the terms of these instructions; but it was not an unnatural mistake that he made, because instructions were sent to him, and also to the County Inspector in Limerick, to issue to their Sub-Inspectors a particular caution with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and he (Mr. W. E. Forster) had no doubt that
  1934
  County Inspector Smith thought he was merely carrying them out, and that, therefore, it was not necessary for him to send the particular wording to the Inspector General. He was not aware of other cases with regard to the Constabulary in which a similar mistake had been made.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he must, under all the circumstances, give Notice of his intention to submit a Motion calling for the removal of County Inspector Smith.

  LAW AND JUSTICE (IRELAND)—THE MAGISTRACY—SUMMARY JURISDICTION.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether he is aware that it is now becoming a common practice with some magistrates in Ireland to exercise summary jurisdiction, and sentence persons to imprisonment either immediately after arrest upon a warrant, or arrest without a warrant, although the Law in these cases as laid down in the Petty Sessions Act, 14 and 15 Vic. c. 93, s. 11, provides that—
  "In all cases of summary jurisdiction the justices shall issue a summons requiring the defendant to appear and answer the complaint;"
  whether it is also becoming the practice of some magistrates to refuse applications by the defendant for adjournment to allow them to prepare defence, obtain legal assistance, and subpœna witnesses, although the Petty Sessions Act provides (c. 93, s. 9, Clause 1) that the defendant shall have the right to have witnesses examined or cross-examined by counsel or attorney, and (s. 3), that the summons should be served a reasonable time before the hearing of the complaint (ten days or a fortnight being the usual time); and, whether the Government will take any steps to point out to Irish magistrates the duty of complying with the Law?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR(Mr. W. M. JOHNSON),in reply, said, that neither he nor his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was aware of the existence of any such practices as the hon. Member referred to in his Question. He would, however, make inquiries if

  1935
  the hon. Member would specify any instances of this sort of practices, or would communicate with him privately.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ARSON.
  MR. SIDNEY HERBERTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following statement in the "Times" of the 1st instant:—
  "The sub-offices and haggard of Jeremiah Doherty, a tenant on the estate of Mr. N. Buckley, near Mitchelstown, were destroyed by fire a few nights ago. Seven young pigs were lost in the flames, and a brood mare was rescued with difficulty. Doherty was suspected of having paid his rent. Three years' rent is reported to be due by some of the tenants on the property;"
  and, whether any person or persons have been arrested for this crime?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that he had no information as to the statement referred to by the hon. Gentleman.

  PEACE PRESERVATION (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—CO. KERRY—SEARCH FOR ARMS.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he has received any information corroborating the statement which appeared in the Irish Correspondence of the "Times" of the 1st instant, viz., that—
  "A daring raid for arms is reported from Kerry. The house of Samuel Morgan, steward of Mr. Mahony, of Dromore, was entered in broad daylight by a party of disguised men during the absence of the family at church, and two guns were carried away. Three men named Sullivan, Shea, and Laveny have been arrested;"
  and, in the event of these men being returned for trial to the next assizes, if he will consider, whether, in the present state of the Country, there can be a satisfactory trial?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he must appeal to hon. Members not to put down Questions immediately after reading statements in newspapers and before it was possible for the authorities to make the necessary inquiries. It was true, however, that there had been a raid for arms in County Kerry. One man had been arrested and discharged, and another, who was suspected of being concerned in the crime, was believed to have escaped to America.

  CONTAGIOUS DISEASES (ANIMALS) ACTS—FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.
  MR. BLENNERHASSETT (for Mr. JAMES HOWARD)asked the Vice President of the Council, What is the present condition of the Country in respect of cattle disease; and, whether the Department can suggest any means for stamping out foot and mouth disease as effectually as has been the case in Ireland?
  MR. CHAPLINasked whether it was not a fact that foot-and-mouth disease was stamped out by the late Administration, and that the country was free from the disease for nine months, until it was imported by the admission of cargoes of diseased animals from abroad?
  MR. MUNDELLA: It would be much more convenient that Notice should be given by the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire. I saw it stated that the hon. Member said that immediately the Liberal Government came into Office they spread food-and-mouth disease over the country.
  MR. CHAPLIN: I beg the right hon. Gentleman's pardon. I should be obliged if the right hon. Gentleman would inform me where he saw that statement? What I did say was that, unfortunately, with the Liberal Government foot-and-mouth disease re-appeared in the country.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I think I shall have no difficulty in supplying the hon. Gentleman with the extract in question. I read it in a Lincolnshire paper during the Elections. It is true that the country was free from foot-and-mouth disease for nine months; but I hope the hon. Gentleman does not imply that we imported the disease any more than our Predecessors, because we were able to take greater precautions, as we had the benefit of our Predecessors' experience. I think I am justified in stating that, in the opinion of the best authorities, the live stock of the country is freer from disease than it has been for many years past. Of course, every outbreak, even if a single animal is attacked, is reported, and appears in the Gazette, and although this information is most valuable, it gives the impression that disease is more prevalent than is really the case. We have no suggestions to offer, except that the local authorities should carry out the provisions of the Act with vigilance and promptitude, for, wherever this has been done, the result has been

  1937
  most encouraging. It is difficult to answer the Question of my hon. Friend, except at some length; but I will do so as briefly as possible. The condition of the country with regard to cattle disease is, on the whole, very satisfactory. During the past three years pleuropneumonia has steadily declined. There has been no outbreak of the more serious diseases of rinderpest or sheep-pox. During the last year swine fever has been prevalent in certain districts; and although the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease which commenced in October, 1880, continues to give some trouble, the regulations in force have checked it in a remarkable manner. In 1881, as compared with the last serious outbreak which took place in 1871—the last year for which we have any complete Returns previous to the passing of the Act of 1878—the outbreaks in 1871 were 52,164, and the number of animals attacked was 691,565. In 1881 the outbreaks were 4,833, and the number of animals attacked 183,046. The results, comparing the first three months of this year with last year, are still more satisfactory. The comparison between the Returns of the under mentioned diseases during the first 13 weeks of 1881 and those of 1882 is as follows:—Pleuro-pneumonia.—Outbreaks in 1881, 223; in 1882, 136. Animals attacked in 1881, 495; in 1882, 326. Foot-and-mouth disease.—Outbreaks in 1881, 1,812; in 1882, 339. Animals attacked in 1881, 105,389; in 1882, 8,136. Died in 1881, 1,781; in 1882, 91. The outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease in 1871 were 52,164; the animals attacked, 691,565. In 1881 the outbreaks were 4,833, and the animals attacked 183,046. As to pleuro-pneumonia, the outbreaks in 1877 were 2,007, and animals attacked 5,330; in 1878—outbreaks, 1,721; animals attacked, 4,593; in 1879—outbreaks, 1,549; animals attacked, 4,414; in 1880—outbreaks, 1,052; animals attacked, 2,765; in 1881—outbreaks, 729; animals attacked, 1,875. Pleuro-pneumonia has steadily declined since the passing of the Act. With respect to Ireland, the last outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease never reached that country. In Scotland only two outbreaks have taken place; and, owing to the vigorous way of dealing with them by the local authorities, in one case the animals being bought up and slaughtered, the disease has not spread.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—ARRESTS UNDER THE ACT.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he would inform the House how many persons were arrested since the 1st April last under "The Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, 1881," for intimidation and inciting others wrongfully and without legal authority to intimidate certain persons; how many persons previously arrested for the aforesaid offences had their cases reconsidered on the expiration of the statutory period of three months during the month of April last; and, in how many of such cases did the Government, as the result of such reconsideration, decide that the said persons should still be detained in custody?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that 17 persons had been arrested since the 1st April under the Protection of Person and Property Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman having asked him on private Notice to state how many were released each week since that time—for the week ending 10th April the number was 39; for the 17th April, 37; the 24th April, 23; and 30th April, 44. He could not answer the two latter paragraphs of the Question on the Paper.
  MR. GIBSON: Could the right hon. Gentleman give the approximate number?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I really could not give an answer to-day.
  MR. GIBSONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the following Report, in the "Saint James' Gazette" of May 1st:—
  "A riot occurred on Saturday, at Frankfort, King's County. A number of persons, who were reported to have paid their rents, were attacked and beaten in a fearful manner. The police succeeded in arresting thirty men. The public houses were closed by order of the resident magistrate, and the streets were cleared at the point of the bayonet;"
  whether the above occurrences took place; and, whether any of the persons reported to have been beaten were seriously injured?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I find there is no truth whatever in this report.
  LORD ARTHUR HILLasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant

  1939
  of Ireland, Whether any information has reached him to the effect that—
  "A large rick of hay, the property of a bailiff named Hayes, residing near Kilmorna, in the county of Limerick, has teen totally destroyed by fire;"
  and, whether any one has been made amenable for this outrage?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, that no information had been received at the Constabulary Office as to any persons being made amenable for this offence. He believed a rick of hay was burned.

  IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—ALLEGED NEGOTIATIONS.
  COLONEL WALRONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following paragraph, which appeared in the "Times" of May 1st:—
  "There is a growing opinion that a treaty of peace has been arrived at, and the fact that a gentleman was allowed the unusual privilege of paying two visits to Kilmainham yesterday has strengthened the belief that some diplomatic negotiations have been going on between the heads of the rival Governments, the one within and the other without the prison walls;"
  and, whether it is a fact that a gentleman was allowed such an exceptional privilege; and, if so, who was he?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, he was not aware that any gentleman was allowed to pay two visits; but it was true that a gentleman was allowed to pay a visit exceptionally a day or two ago. That Gentleman was the hon. Member for the county of Clare (Mr. O'Shea), and he had an opportunity of seeing Mr. Parnell.

  REVENUE AND EXPENDITURE—THE FINANCE ACCOUNTS.
  MR. W. J. CORBETasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, If he will this year cause the Finance Accounts to be laid before Parliament on or before the 30th June, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament, 17 and 18 Vic. c. 94?
  LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH: Sir, it has been found impracticable to complete the numerous accounts which make up the volume of the Finance Accounts by the 30th of June; and I can only undertake that they shall be presented as soon as we can complete them and satisfy ourselves that they are correctly rendered and accurately printed.

  CRIME (IRELAND)—ALLEGED OUTRAGES—COUNTY LIMERICK.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is correct, as stated in the "Times" of the 1st instant—
  "On Friday night the house of a bailiff named Thompson, living at Oula, county Limerick, was attacked by a party of men, who fired three shots, and posted threatening notices on the door;"
  and, if any one is in custody on suspicion of having committed the offence?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: Sir, I am informed by the Inspector General that no information has been received of this alleged outrage. I must again say that it would be very convenient if hon. Members would wait a day or two before they ask Questions about what appears in the newspapers.
  MR. TOTTENHAMasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the report which appeared in the Dublin Press of Saturday last is correct, to the effect that—
  "Late on Thursday night a party of men disguised visited the farmstead of Michael Harney, at Belnamullia, near Athlone, county Roscommon, and set fire to his house, the occupants at the time being in bed. Some passers by aroused the inmates, and, having procured help, succeeded in extinguishing the fire before any material injury was done. Harney had paid his rent;"
  and, whether the Government have reason to believe that the fact that Harney had paid his rent, as is stated in the report, was the cause of the outrage? Also, Whether it is true, as stated in the telegraphic news of the 1st instant, that another murder was perpetrated in the county of Cork, on the night of the 30th April, the victim being a man named John Keefe, and whether any arrests have been made in connection therewith; whether it is also true that the house of a farmer named Martin, near Limerick, was attacked on the same night by a party of Moonlighters, who were driven off by those in the house; whether any of the assailants were injured by the defenders; and, whether any arrests have been made?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER: I believe it is a fact that Michael Harney's house had been set on fire, but I am not yet in possession of the particulars. It is also a fact that a man named John Keefe has been murdered in County Cork. Two

  1941
  men have been arrested—his brother and nephew.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE SALVATION ARMY.
  MR. CAINEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he is aware that, on Sunday April 23rd, four members of the Salvation Army, men of admittedly good character, were sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour for an assault on the police, who attempted to prevent their forming a procession in the streets of Whitchurch; if he is aware that the chairman of the Petty Sessions, who passed this severe sentence, admitted in Court that there was no attempt on the part of the inspector bringing the prosecution, to say that "the assault or the attempted rescue were deliberately carried out," and that "the assault was only a technical one, sufficient for the police to proceed upon," and "that all the Court had to dispose of was simply a point of Law;" if he is aware that the Bench refused to state a case, telling the prisoners' counsel to proceed by the cumbrous and antiquated method of writ of habeas corpus; if he is aware that Lord Coleridge and Mr. Justice Grove, in the Court of Queen's Bench on Monday, granted a rule to compel the magistrates to show cause why they should not state a case for the opinion of this Court. Lord Coleridge stating, in giving his decision—
  "That hard labour was ignominious, that the defendants might be religious enthusiasts, but such sentences were not to be tolerated for one moment;"
  and, if, in view of so strong a condemnation of the sentence by a Superior Court, he will at once order the release of the prisoners on their own recognizances pending the settlement of the case by appeal?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he was happy to think that the sentence passed by the magistrates was now under review by the Lord Chief Justice. He agreed very much, if he might be allowed to say so, with both of the opinions expressed by the Lord Chief Justice—that, first of all, a person was not to be excused by religious enthusiasm for breaking the peace, and also that the sentence of imprisonment, with a month's hard labour, was singularly inappropriate for an offence of this description.
  1942
  His hon. Friend would see that the ease being now in possession of a Court of Law, it was not for him to inferfere in any way until the decision, which would be given on Friday, should be pronounced. Meanwhile, acting in accordance with the view of the Lord Chief Justice, he had given directions that, until the case was decided, the prisoners should be treated with the greatest possible leniency during their confinement.

  PRISONS (ENGLAND)—TOTHILL FIELDS PRISON.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to an article in the May number of the "Herald of Health," giving a description of the condition of prison life in the Tothill Fields Prison for women, in which very grave charges are made as to the insufficiency of clean linen, both in respect to wearing apparel and bedding, also the bad light and bad ventilation of the cells and to the want of more sanitary conveniences and to the occasional bad condition of those at present provided; and, whether he will cause inquiries to be made into the truth or otherwise of the charges in question; and, if they are found to be true, whether he will order the prison authorities to make better arrangements for the cleanliness of the inmates of that prison?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had caused inquiries to be made into the case, and the reports of the Medical Officer and the Lady Superintendent satisfied him that the charges were not well founded.

  SOUTH AFRICA—CETEWAYO, EX-KING OF ZULULAND—VISIT TO THIS COUNTRY.
  MR. ONSLOWasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he can now state to the House what is the object of, and what are the arrangements made for, the visit of Cetewayo to this Country; what is the estimated cost of the visit; whether any provision has been made for the accompaniment of his wives; and, if so, for how many; whether any opportunity will be given to the House for the discussion of the propriety of this visit, which is to be paid for by the taxpayers of this Country,

  1943
  before Cetewayo leaves the Cape; what is proposed to be done with him when he arrives in England; and, what his social position will be?
  MR. COURTNEYrose to answer the Question—
  MR. ONSLOW: I rise to a point of Order. I intentionally asked the Question of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as it involves a matter of finance.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, the Question involves a great amount of detail entirely connected with the Colonial Office, and though I am very both indeed to take objection to any Question being put to myself, yet at times the pressure of the Offices I hold makes it impossible for me to enter into these details in such a manner as to give full satisfaction. I must therefore ask my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies to reply.
  MR. COURTNEY,in reply, said, he thought the hon. Member would see that the financial part of the Question was a very small one. As to the object of Cetewayo's visit, the answer was that his health had been seriously undermined. [Laughter.] Hon. Members might laugh; but that was what they were informed by their responsible agents at the Cape—that his health had been seriously undermined by his detention; and it was thought reasonable to accede to his wish to visit this country—a wish that was recommended and endorsed by those who were responsible to the Government in the administration of the Cape. It was also believed that the visit would facilitate the solution of the question of Cetewayo's ultimate destination. As to the arrangements made, it was proposed that he should be accompanied by Mr. Shepstone and an interpreter. He also desired to bring with him three Zulu Chiefs and three attendants. The estimated cost of the visit was from£1,300 to£1,500. He did not desire to bring any wives with him. The hon. Gentleman was no doubt aware that the cost of the detention of Cetewayo at present fell upon this country, and therefore it was only a question of the difference of expense to be added; and that was not thought to be a matter of very great importance requiring a distinct discussion in that House. Then, as to what was to be done with him when he arrived in England, it was pro-
  1944
  posed to place him in quiet lodgings, probably with some gentleman acquainted with Zulu affairs; and great care would be taken to secure him from the intrusion of persons actuated by mere curiosity. He did not think it was necessary to answer the Question as to the social status of Cetewayo, which would not be affected.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND)—THE EARL OF KENMARE'S ESTATE.
  MR. SEXTONasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether it is the fact that the Earl of Kenmare, has caused to be served upon two of his tenants, Michael Leahy and William Herlihy, writs of summons from the Superior Courts in Dublin (involving heavy costs), in respect of a half-year's rent due in November 1881, and, according to custom, only payable last month; whether the tenants of Lord Kenmare, in the month of November last, served originating notices in the Land Court, and whether his Lordship, having retaliated in the course of the following week by serving writs upon a number of them, the two tenants above referred to, Michael Leahy and William Herlihy, in order to avoid costs, immediately went in and paid their half-year's rent, and whether a sum of£2 10s. was deducted from each of them for costs of writs which had never been served upon them, and this sum of£2 10 s. is now charged in each case as an arrear of rent in the writs served a few days since; whether it is the fact that although these two tenants, and many other tenants of Lord Kenmare served originating notices so long ago as November, and although the Sub-Commission for the district have held two sittings in Killarney, not one of the many cases on the Kenmare Es-state has been heard, or listed for hearing, and what is the explanation of this fact; and, whether he is prepared to say that he will take any steps to prevent poor tenants, unable to pay rents, from suffering the sale of their interest, and incur the loss of the rights conferred upon them by the Land Act before the Court can deal with their applications?
  MR. W. E. FORSTER,in reply, said, the only part of the Question with respect to which he had any right to obtain information was that relating to the proceedings of the Sub-Commission. Two tenants on Lord Kenmare's estate

  1945
  served originating notices on the 13th and 29th October respectively, and the cases were sent for hearing to the first sitting of the Sub-Commission in Killarney in December last. No other application was received from any of Lord Kenmare's tenants till the 11th November. In the meantime 940 applications were received from Kerry, and they, of course, took precedence of the case of Lord Kenmare's tenants. In regard of the two cases held in December, one was dismissed, and in the other the rent was upheld.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked what Business would be proceeded with on Thursday?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, they should proceed with the Procedure Resolutions on Thursday. The financial measure would not be taken.

  IRELAND—IRISH POLITICAL PRISONERS—SIR JOHN HAY'S MOTION.
  COLONEL NOLANwished to know whether the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir John Hay), which was to the following effect:—
  "That the detention of large numbers of Her Majesty's subjects in solitary confinement, without cause assigned, and without trial, is repugnant to the spirit of the Constitution, and that, to enable them to be brought to trial, jury trials should, for a limited time (in Ireland), and in regard to crimes of a well-defined character, be replaced by some form of trial less liable to abuse,"
  did not contain two distinct propositions; and, if so, whether they should not be put separately to the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: It appears to me that the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Baronet is consistent on the whole; and if he proposes that Resolution to the House, I shall think it my duty so to put it to the House.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. P. L. WHITE.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether, in consideration that Mr. P. L. White, now a suspect in Armagh Gaol, has ten of a family, his wife being an inmate of the County Infirmary of Mayo, he will grant his release?
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, this case had been recently considered, but it was decided that Mr. White could not be released.

  POST OFFICE—THE AMERICAN MAILS.
  MR. HEALYasked the Postmaster General, Whether arrangements can be made by which the American mails may be sent by the fastest steamers leaving Liverpool; and, whether it is the fact that the "Batavia," a Cunard steamer, which carried the mails from Liverpool, on a recent occasion, was distanced by three days by the "Alaska," of the Guion Line, which had no mails on board, but which left Liverpool on the same day as the "Batavia?"
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, presuming that the hon. Member refers to the voyage of the Cunard packet Batavia which left Liverpool on the 8th of April, and called at Queenstown on the following day for the mails, I find that she made a rather long voyage as compared with that of the Alaska. The Post Office has an agreement with the Cunard, In-man, and. White Star Companies to carry the mails to New York on regular days of the week, and on the whole the service is satisfactorily performed. The average voyages on two of these lines are superior to those of the Guion, and on the third are about equal. Independently of these mail packets, the public have the option of sending any letters they wish by the Guion or any other vessels; and, in point of fact, a ship letter mail was forwarded by the Alaska, containing letters specially addressed to be forwarded by that ship.

MOTION.
  PARLIAMENT—WIGAN NEW WRIT.

    RESOLUTION.
    MR. LEWIS,in rising to move—
    "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Wigan, in the room of Francis Sharp Powell, esquire, whose election has been declared to be void,"
    said, that, in the absence of any information from the Attorney General as to his being willing to assent to this Motion, he assumed that it would be opposed by the Government; and, there-

    1947
    fore, he should give as shortly as he could the reasons upon which he moved it. Before he did so it would be advisable for him to refer to an Amendment on the Paper by the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Baron De Ferrieres)—
    "That no Writ be issued to fill up any vacancy occasioned by corrupt practices until this House has disposed of the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill."
    He did not understand what connection there was between the Motion and the Amendment. If the hon. Member looked at the Disfranchisement Bill, he would find that it dealt with particular constituencies, of which Wigan was not one. There was no direct or collateral result of that Bill which could in any way affect Wigan, and, therefore, the Amendment was clearly beside the question. The Motion he presented to the House contained a question of Constitutional importance. What he suggested was founded upon precedent. It was considered a matter of great importance that no constituency entitled to return Members to that House should be prevented from exercising that Constitutional right except in due course of law. What was the case in reference to Wigan? A year ago, when the Election Petition was tried, it resulted in the Member being unseated, and the Judges reported that there was reason to believe that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. In the expiring days of last Session the Attorney General moved for the issue of a Commission to inquire into the corrupt practices at Wigan; but the House decided that the Commission should not issue. Nothing further was done until the present Session, and on being questioned on the subject the Attorney General intimated that the Government had no intention whatever to repeat the Motion to issue a Commission. He had no doubt a great many Members would agree that the Government exercised a wise discretion upon that subject. He had no intention to detain the House at any length with regard to the Report of the Election Judges; but he ventured to say that if anyone looked at the evidence they would see that very few pounds indeed were proved to have been corruptly spent. If they turned to the decision itself, they found that the decision had been made upon the payment of five sums of 10 s. each, under circumstances which made the sitting Member
    1948
    responsible for the acts of his agents. He admitted that there was some evidence given of considerable treating, which had an effect upon the minds of the Judges; but, as a matter of arithmetical calculation, it would be found that a very small sum indeed was involved in the alleged corrupt practices upon which the Judges proceeded. But had the House ever exercised indirectly that punishment for the iniquities of constituencies which it had the power to punish directly after a Report had been made by Election Judges? He had precedents which were of considerable value. In 1874 the then sitting Member for Wakefield was unseated, and there was a specific case of bribery reported against the constituency; but in consequence of there being no statement of general corrupt practices prevailing the House did not think fit to stop the issue of the Writ. In the Stroud Election case it was reported that corrupt practices extensively prevailed. In those circumstances, the Motion for a new Writ came before the House in the month of May. On that occasion he (Mr. Lewis) drew attention to the Report of the Judges, and it was then objected by the present Attorney General himself that, there being no opportunity of issuing a Commission and no occasion for issuing a Commission legally, there was no reason to retain the Writ, and the constituency had a right to have the Writ issued. The hon. and learned Attorney General, on that occasion, resisted the Motion that he (Mr. Lewis) made, and he did so on the ground that as no step was taken by the House for a Commission, it was improper and useless to suspend the Writ, and that the constituency had a right to it. Was not the present a much stronger case? The case they now had was this—that the House had deliberately decided that it would not issue a Commission, and following upon that the Government had decided they would not ask the House to re-consider the election. Then how did they stand? Why, in the words of the Attorney General in the Stroud case, it was not possible to take any further steps. What steps did the hon. and learned Attorney General mean to take? After all the action of the House and the action of the Government, an Address to the Crown could not now be moved. He did not understand such a step to be intended.

    1949
    The House remained face to face with this—it did not please Her Majesty's Government to issue a Writ. Why not? In the existing state of the House a matter of this kind was of no great importance; but they must consider the rights of the constituencies. There were great matters daily and almost hourly coming before the House, and the constituency of Wigan had as clear a right to representation, whether the Representative belonged to the majority or the minority, as any other constituency represented in the House. What would be the effect if this were to be carried on? It would be in the power of the Government to suspend the rights of many a constituency. Let them see how the matter stood. Last Session the subject came before the House, and the Resolution which was proposed by the Attorney General was rejected, not by a Party majority. He would read what was said by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross). That hon. Member said—
    "I must say that in the sense of Southern corruption, the borough of Wigan is perfectly pure. I live within seven miles of the place, and I know it perfectly well. The people are rough and ready, and a great many of them are colliers, who are certainly a dog-running, pigeon-flying, cock-fighting, Church-and-King lot, who always vote Tory."—[3 Hansard, cclxv. 508]
    Well, no doubt, in the mind of the hon. and learned Attorney General, that was the chief fault—that they were a dog-fighting, pigeon-flying, Church-and-King-loving lot. What he asked the House to consider was what grounds were presented for depriving the constituency of Wigan of the right to be represented by two Members in the House. He supposed they would draw from the Attorney General whether he had made up his mind on the subject of an Address to the Crown for a Commission. Most likely he had not changed his mind, and the House had not changed its mind. That being so, the House had no proper function to discharge in connection with the suspension of the Writ. He quite admitted that before the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, when it became competent to the Crown to issue a Commission, it was customary for the House to exercise a kind of peremptory action on the constituency by suspending the Writ; but he challenged the hon. and learned Attorney General to find a single case since the Corrupt Practices
    1950
    Act where a Commission was refused analogous to the case before the House. He would have to go back to a time before the Corrupt Practices Act, when there was no power to inquire into the condition or conduct of a constituency to find a case where the House had refused to issue a Writ. When the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, the right of a constituency was not placed at the caprice of a Party. It was taken out of the hands of the House, and remitted in the first instance to an authorized tribunal. He would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General where was his precedent since the Corrupt Practices Act was passed, after a Commission had been refused for a detention of a Writ for over 12 months, as in this case? He asked him, further, how was it possible for him to escape from the precedent he himself set in the Stroud case, where the House refused to suspend the Writ for three or four days even for the evidence to be placed on the Table? The Attorney General then said it was perfectly useless, and that no further step should be taken; and, therefore, they ought not to do any indirect injustice to the constituency, and he would be no party to it. The Attorney General by his own act, and the House by its own act, had renounced the intention of issuing a Commission, and they had now only the will of the Government and the will of the Attorney General, who thought, probably, that Wigan had not been punished enough. No doubt that was his opinion; probably many others might think it was so. This case was a miserable case. Learned Judges could make mistakes, and they did so in the case of Knaresborough. The Judges in that case made a grievous mistake, for there was not the smallest ground for the slur on the constituency contained in their Report; and, therefore, it was allowed to go scot-free. He would appeal to independent Members opposite, and ask them if they were going to vote against this Writ because it might produce an increase in the Party minority of one? He did not know how the result might be; but this he would say, that there existed the gravest reason why Members of the House should not vote in a Party sense in a matter like this. He thought Election Petitions were given up in order to extract altogether from the domain of

    1951
    opinion the action of the House in election matters; but now he supposed they were going to be appealed to by the Attorney General to punish this borough. If that was the appeal he made, that 12 months' privation was not sufficient, he (Mr. Lewis) would ask the House to consider what was the nature of the case provided. He challenged the Attorney General to show that there was anything more than a few pounds proved to have been received. When the House was asked to issue a Commission, there was a majority against it. If it was said that the House exceeded its right last year, he was unable to understand how it was the Act of Parliament did not call upon the Attorney General to do, as an Executive Officer, a particular thing outside the Office, but required that he should appeal to the deliberate action of the House as to whether it should or should not appoint a Commission. He contended that the action of the House was more Judicial than Ministerial. There must be something meant in the deliberate action of the House of Lords and House of Commons being called into operation under the Statute. If that was not so, the hon. and learned Attorney General was placed in this difficulty, that the House of Commons had refused to do that which by law it ought to have done. If that were so, surely the power of the Attorney General was sufficient to point out to the House what it should do now. Whatever the case might be in reference to that, the hon. and learned Attorney General was wholly unable to point out to the House any precedent or usage for refusing to issue a Writ for Wigan, and the House had no legitimate right whatever for interfering with the right of the constituency. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new Writ for the election of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Wigan, in the room of Francis Sharp Powell, esquire, whose election has been declared to be void."—(Mr. Lewis.)
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, he was sure the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) would not have taken up the time of the House as he had done for any
    1952
    Party reasons, and he regretted that he should have suggested that the Government were opposed to the issuing of the Writ because it might give one vote against them in the House. He would, however, suggest to the House this consideration—that he believed that the House made a mistake last Session in refusing a Commission; and all they could do now was to remedy as far as possible the mistake that had been made. The House would allow him to remind them of the position in which they stood. When the Act of 1868 gave power to the Judges to determine Election Petitions, it also gave them power to say whether corrupt practices extensively prevailed; and it would be at once seen by the House that it would be impossible for the House to go beyond the decision of the Judges, and inquire into the correctness of their decision. In the year 1869 it was suggested by Mr. Gathorne Hardy that it would be for the general good that where the decision of the Judges showed that corrupt practices extensively prevailed, a Commission should issue in consequence of that Report. That rule was accepted by both sides of the House, and it had been followed ever since; and it was never deviated from until the unfortunate vote of last Session. He must say he felt some little blame attached to him in the matter; and the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) pointed it out at the time. He did not go very fully into the facts of the case. He referred to the general rule; and he thought that wrong arguments, were brought to bear on the House, in order to set aside the rule which had been so long acted on. One was that of the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross), who argued that as the constituency was one of very peculiar habits it should be exempted from the ordinary practice. He presumed that the argument prevailed. At any rate, the House, by a narrow majority, refused the Motion for a Commission; and the question now was, what were they to do in consequence of that decision? The Report of the Judges was that corrupt practices extensively prevailed.
    MR. LEWISbegged the hon. and learned Gentleman's pardon; that was not the Report.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)said, that a Report that

    1953
    corrupt practices prevailed, or that the Judges had reason to believe that they prevailed, had exactly the same effect. There was no difference between. the two, except in the hon. Gentleman's view, in the spirit in which he was discussing the matter. The learned Judge gave his judgment, not, as had been said, that there was a small amount of treating, but that there was a deplorable condition of things in the borough of Wigan, one witness proving extensive bribery of 150 voters in one room alone in one public-house. Another witness spoke of 20 persons being bribed; and the result was that the learned Judge, at page 220 of the Report, proceeded to deal with this as one of the gravest cases of corruption, and thought it to be a rare thing if the electors did not receive money for their votes. The House had now to deal with such a Report in such a state of things. The House thought it wise in August last that there should not be a Commission. If they were now to grant a Writ they would be giving great encouragement to corruption. He confessed that it was an inconvenient position to be placed in, because he admitted that the consequence of the Report should have been the issuing of a Commission; but they had deviated from the rule laid down. Ought they to make two mistakes instead of one; or ought they rather to do the best they could in order to remedy the mistake already made? The hon. Member challenged him to give a precedent for the course he (the Attorney General) had taken in suspending the Writ. The hon. Member knew there was no precedent. And why? Because the House had never before arrived at such a vote as that of August last. It always issued a Commission till that time; and this was a case in which a Commission ought to have been issued. He submitted to the House that the House ought to exercise its judgment. He was sorry to see the House placed in this position; but, being placed in that position, it was the duty of the House to treat cases as they arose. It would have been far better to let the Judges' Report have its proper result. The House had sufficient before them on which to act. If there had been a Commission, they would have been able to treat all the constituencies alike. Although a Commission had not issued,
    1954
    the House knew this was a case of considerable gravity. He had not thought it right to include Wigan in the Disfranchisement Bill, as he considered that disfranchisement ought only to be proposed upon such certain information as could be supplied by a Commission. What course ought the House to take? The hon. Member for Londonderry professed to be very anxious on behalf of the electors of Wigan that a Writ should issue; but the electors themselves had made no such demand to the House. Wigan was represented by his hon. Friend the sitting Member for Wigan, and it had able Representatives in the Members for the county of Lancaster. These Members had made no such demand. He could not help feeling that, considering the Report of the learned Judge, the suspension of the Writ should continue for some time longer, for the purpose of showing that the House entirely disapproved of the electoral corruption of Wigan. For this there was a precedent in the case of Gloucester in 1859. At the election which took place there that year it was reported that corruption extensively prevailed; but no step was taken for the issue of a new Writ for Gloucester till 1862, when Mr. Disraeli pointed out that the time had come when the Writ should be no longer delayed. A Writ was then moved for. He was acting within that period now. With reference to the borough of Stroud, he certainly did say the Writ ought to go in that case, because there was no corrupt practice but treating suggested, and he felt there could be no disfranchisement for that offence alone. There was no evidence that there had been bribery in Stroud. In reference to Wigan, however, when the Disfranchisement Bill came on it would be open to any Member to move to insert Wigan in the Schedule. But he did not recommend that course. It was not for him to determine the matter; but he would suggest that the House should not pass over the matter lightly or hastily, and the House should show that it disapproved of what had taken place. He could not fix one time more than another when the House should express its views; but if the House asked him he should say that as in Gloucester the Writ was suspended for three years, in the case of Wigan it might be for two years, and at the end of the present Session a Motion

    1955
    might be made for a new Writ. By taking that course the House would show that they had done something to mark their disapproval of the conduct of the electors, without acting with severity towards the constituency.
    BARON DE FERRIERESsaid, he thought it was not only undesirable, but unfair, that any Member of the House should go on moving for new Writs for different boroughs in which he had no particular interest. He did not think that a place like Wigan could complain if its case were hung up till the whole question of corrupt boroughs had been considered by the House, though that Bill ought not to be delayed any longer than was necessary. He begged to move the Amendment of which he had given Notice.
    Amendment proposed,
    To leave out from the word "That," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "no Writ be issued to fill up any vacancy occasioned by corrupt practices until this House has disposed of the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill,"—(Baron de Ferrieres.)
    —instead thereof.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he was anxious to call the attention of the House to the singular position in which it would be placed if it adopted the unconstitutional and arbitrary course suggested by the Attorney General. The precedent which the Attorney General had given for the course he proposed was that of the City of Gloucester. It was true that that unhappy City was found out in 1859, and the Government repeatedly resisted any proposal for a Writ. In 1861 Sir George Grey stated that the Government had resolved to ask the House to withhold the issue of a Writ for the City; but in 1862 the Government changed its mind, and a Writ was issued. It was alleged by the Attorney General that in the debate on the Writ Mr. Disraeli alluded to the suspension of the Writ for three years as a sufficient punishment. That was not a correct statement of his views. He did not say that the three years which had elapsed might be taken as a sufficient punishment upon Gloucester. On the contrary, alluding to the suspension of the Writs for Wakefield and Gloucester,
    1956
    Mr. Disraeli said, "that the suspension of those two Writs had been continuously arbitrary and unconstitutional." He further observed—"In 1861 the Government refused to introduce a Bill for the suspension of the Writ for three years, and that, neither the Government nor any Member making such a proposition, another year had passed, the arbitrary and unconstitutional suspension still remained." No language could more clearly show that it was not accurate to represent Mr. Disraeli as saying that, three years having elapsed, sufficient punishment had been inflicted, but that, on the contrary, from beginning to end, he spoke of the suspension of the Writ, unless it was with the intention of bringing in any measure for disfranchisement, as arbitrary and unconstitutional. There was also the authority of Sir George Grey, who, in the same debate, in consenting to the issue of the Writ, never said that Gloucester had been sufficiently punished, but put it upon Constitutional grounds. He stated that, while adhering to the opinion he had previously expressed, there were serious objections to the suspension of a Writ for a protracted period, without reference to any proceedings or any impending measure. He (Mr. E. Clarke) would ask the Government to act, not upon the suggestion of the Attorney General, but upon the principle laid down by Sir George Grey, that the suspension of a Writ was only to be justified when the Government was prepared to introduce, or the House was considering a Bill to disfranchise the borough. It would be a most serious innovation upon the Constitutional rights of constituencies, which had recently been so loudly and rightly proclaimed, that the majority for the movement should ask the House not to re-try a case, but to deprive constituencies of their representation, even when the Government was not prepared to legislate. Then, the Attorney General based his suggestion upon the fact that the House had refused to issue a Royal Commission. Through that refusal, he said, the matter was in the same form as it would have been before the Corrupt Practices Act had passed. That he entirely challenged. It was clear that upon receiving the Report of an Election Judge the House, if it chose, could vote for the issue of a Royal Commission, and, if that Commission reported

    1957
    against the borough, could proceed to deal with the subject by legislation. But if the House did not think sufficient ground had been shown for the issue of a Royal Commission, how could it be contended that its refusal to impose that penalty upon the borough enabled the majority of the House to inflict punishment as if that inquiry had taken place? Although the House had refused to try the people, it was contended that the House was entitled to punish them. Anything more monstrous could not be conceived. The Attorney General not only asked the House to punish where it had refused to try, but he asked it to form an opinion upon materials which he did not take the trouble to lay before it, and which he did not indicate in his speech. It was quite as arbitrary and unconstitutional to ask for the suspension of the Writ, under the circumstances, for the Session as for any length of time. Immense mischief would be inflicted upon the unhappy borough of Wigan by the course proposed. Till the month of August Wigan would be in the middle of a contested election, which would probably delight those who wished to see that borough disfranchised, as it would then have plenty of time in which to gratify any propensity for corruption it happened to possess, and so to render itself disqualified for the franchise. There was no proposal, either from the Government or from a private Member, for dealing with the matter in a Constitutional way; and the refusal of the Writ had become a matter to be dealt with simply by the arbitrary majority for the moment.
    MR. THOMAS COLLINSsaid, he very much regretted the course the House took last Session on this matter. The position seemed to be that every borough must wait, if it had been guilty of any isolated act of corruption, till the Attorney General's Corrupt Practices Bill passed. He did not think that that was a fair thing to do, especially as many of the charges made were based upon the ipse dixit of one or two individuals. As a Representative of a borough, he recently had to pay a rate of 5s. in the pound, owing to the erroneous finding of the Judges, because they had no witness of truth. In 1859 there were no Royal Commissions issued for Wakefield and Stroud, and they were worse cases of corruption than some of those which had
    1958
    recently deprived boroughs of their re-presentation. The question the House had to deal with was whether the Writ for Wigan should issue now, or at some future period. He thought the House came to an unfortunate decision last year, for the object of legislation of late years had been to remove these questions out of the hands of the House and treat them in a quasi-judicial manner. If, in these cases, the House were to pass over the Report of the Judges, it would revert to the vices of the old system, and the question would lapse into a contest between those Members of the House who wished a new Writ to issue, and to negative the decision of the Judges, and those who wished to support the decision. With regard to a Royal Commission, that could not be issued unless the statutory enactments were complied with; otherwise, it would be an illegal trial from beginning to end. The decision of last year was arrived at at the fag-end of the Session, and in a very thin House; and it was the duty of the Government to have afforded an opportunity of raising the discussion again. The main object of a Parliamentary Commission was not to punish individuals, but to eradicate corruption from boroughs. The House having committed one blunder last year, should be careful not to make another this year. Upon the whole, he thought the House was bound to issue the Writ; and he should, therefore, vote for its being issued.
    MR. KNOWLESsaid, he wished to refer to one or two points raised in the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke). One was that very few Members of the House had read the Judge's Report. He was quite sure that the Attorney General had read it carefully and thoroughly, as he had acted wisely in not pressing for a Commission. It would have been found a very weak case indeed. Wigan had undoubtedly erred; but it was not so bad as Gloucester, Chester, and other places. No doubt, as the sitting Member was unseated, the constituency was to some extent guilty; but the Judges exonerated him from blame, and said he did all he could to avoid corruption. With reference to the second point, as to the issuing of a new Writ, he trusted that the Attorney General would reconsider his decision,

    1959
    which would be likely to plunge Wigan into a state of turmoil until the end of the Session. The House had not thought it necessary to act on the recommendation of the Election Judges to issue a Commission, and, in doing so, had acted wisely. He himself knew something of Wigan people, and he knew that a Commission would have been unnecessary, expensive, and not worth the trouble. And who were the people said to be guilty of corrupt action? Generally they were enthusiastic and indiscreet shopkeepers, who were giving free breakfasts right and left to everybody, both electors and non-electors, and, to some extent also, because they had an idea that it would afterwards assist their business. There had been a strike amongst the colliers for a long time, and they were then in the middle of it. There was great distress. The weather was very inclement and severe—the worst they had had, perhaps, for 50 years; and nearly all the railways in the Kingdom were snowed up, and what was done was more as an act of kindness than with intent to bribe. With reference to the observations which had been made last Session by the hon. Member for Bolton (Mr. J. K. Cross) as to the habits of the people of Wigan, and that they were a "Church and King loving" people, that was quite true. He (Mr. Knowles) was glad to say that they were. As to his description of their being a cock-fighting people, that was a mistake; and he (Mr. Knowles) did not believe there was any truth in the statement. He had been at some trouble to make inquiries as to this matter, and found it was not so. He had been brought up amongst the people and knew them well; and he thought they would compare favourably with the inhabitants of any similar manufacturing and mining district. The borough, however, was, to some extent, under a cloud; and, under the circumstances, he did not blame the Attorney General for objecting to grant the Writ at the present time. He hoped that the Motion would be withdrawn. He himself had not moved for the issue of a Writ, and would not have thought of doing so until nearer the end of the Session, because he considered that the borough deserved some punishment. He would be very glad, however, if the Attorney General would, without any long inter-
    1960
    val of time, again agree to issue the Writ, and so put the borough out of suspense, and prevent the turmoil and agitation of an impending election being spread over a long period.
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, they found themselves in an unfortunate position. The Judges found there was bribery and treating: but the House refused to issue a Commission, and then arose the question, what was the Government to do? They, no doubt, acted wisely in not renewing the Motion for a Commission, and they were equally well-advised in not including Wigan in their Bill as a place to be punished by disfranchisement. The Attorney General, he thought, had acted very fairly. The question was—What was to be done in the present circumstances? Personally, he would not have moved in the matter at present, and he was very sorry the Writ had been moved for. He should have been content if the Writ had been moved for in the course of the present Session; but they were placed in a different position now that the Constitutional question had been raised and argued. It was a great stretch of power in the House to say, without the consent of the other House in an Act of Parliament, that they would punish a constituency by depriving it of representation. He was sorry the question was raised. He would not have raised it; but as it was raised, unless it was answered by the Government in some form, they would be entering upon a dangerous precedent; for the House would appear to be assuming, of its own authority and without a Bill, to deprive a constituency of a Member. It would have been better that the Constitutional question should have been avoided by acquiescence in the issue of the Writ in two or three months' time. But, the question having been raised, he could have no doubt as to the course that he ought to take.
    MR. MAC IVERsaid, he charged the Government with doing that in a political capacity which they would have been ashamed to do as private Members. The Government were not in earnest last year in moving for the issue of a Commission. If they had been in earnest they would easily have obtained the inquiry. He happened to know something about the borough of Wigan; and the sole reason why the Government refused to issue a Writ at the present mo-

    1961
    ment was because the Conservatives had prematurely announced the name of the candidate they intended to run at the next election. The object of postponing the issue of a Writ until the end of the Session was obvious. They were prolonging the period over which the election agitation extended, in order that some injudicious agent might do something sufficiently technically illegal as to unseat the newly-elected Member. They knew, too, that if the election were to take place now they would lose the seat; and, like Mr. Micawber, they were waiting for something to turn up. The reasons given by the Attorney General for the postponement of the issue of the Writ were not the real reasons; and they were those which he (Mr. Mac Iver) had described to the House.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the debate ought to be allowed to close without a further statement of the views and intentions of the Government. Last year the Government made a specific proposal to the House. The House, in its wisdom or its folly—he did not say which—declined to accede to the proposals. The speech of the Attorney General consisted mainly of the allegation that the House of Commons had last year made a mistake; and, no doubt, the House had made many mistakes; but if it had made one, that would be no reason why it should continue to make another. The hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) had pointed out that there was an essential difference between the case of Gloucester and the proposal now made by the Attorney General. The contention of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite apparently was that the penalty of temporary disfranchisement might be imposed by its own fiat, instead of by Statute. He proposed the disfranchisement of Wigan for a certain definite number of weeks; but what distinction was there in theory between the suspension of a Writ for a few weeks and for a few years? The hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the Writ in question should issue at the end of the present Session; but could he guarantee that his Colleagues would be in favour of the proposal when the time came? The House ought seriously to consider the position in which it was placed. Two courses were open to the Government in
    1962
    dealing with this question; but they had adopted neither of them. They might have asked the House to rescind the Resolution to which it came last year, but they did nothing of the sort; they might have scheduled Wigan with the other boroughs in the Corrupt Practices Bill; but they preferred to leave it to be dealt with separately. The result, therefore, was the proposal of the Attorney General that the borough should be punished on its own ipse dixit. With respect to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Baron De Ferrieres), he confessed that he could not understand it. The hon. Member asked the House not to issue the Writ for Wigan until the Corrupt Practices Bill had been disposed of. It seemed to him, as the Corrupt Practices Bill in no way affected Wigan, that the hon. Member might with equal relevancy have referred to the Boiler Explosions Bill, or the Churchwardens' Admission Bill. But the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had said that the borough might, perhaps, be included in the Schedule of the Corrupt Practices Bill. Ho had heard of Governments fishing for a policy; but for the Government to invite other Members to insert Wigan in the Bill when they themselves had not the courage to include it was without parallel in the history of Parliament. The Bill had more relation to the larger Corrupt Practices Bill, which had been called a Bill for the prevention of Ministerial defeats at bye-elections. The course followed seemed to be adopted for the purpose of preventing constituencies from expressing their opinion of the Government of the day. He was convinced it was not guided by the calm and judicial mind of the Attorney General, but would more appropriately have emanated from the guiding spirit of the Caucuses. He trusted that before the debate closed some responsible Minister of the Crown would announce some definite course which the Government were prepared to submit to Parliament.
    MR. WARTONsaid, that the right tone had been given to the discussion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross), who would not have brought forward the matter, but held that it had now become a grave Constitutional question. After what the Attorney Gene-

    1963
    ral had said, it would be well, perhaps, if on another occasion the hon. and learned Gentleman simply announced, without giving reasons, the decision to which the despotic Government had come. The hon. and learned Gentleman had mentioned the case of Gloucester as a precedent; but he held that if Wigan was to be punished at all, it could not possibly be punished in a more undesirable manner. It was not necessary to punish Wigan, because they had no power to punish Wigan. They were living now in times when they had a despotic Prime Minister and a despotic Attorney General; and he would ask the latter hon. and learned Gentleman, in view of the small allowance for election expenses provided in his Bill, whether it would Be wrong for the popular candidate at Wigan to hire a single committee-room, or appoint a single agent, or to issue a statement to the effect that he intended to come forward?
    SIR EARDLEY WILMOTcordially supported the Motion, observing that the Motion for issuing a Royal Commission had been defeated last year, almost at the close of the Session, on a Saturday afternoon, by a majority of only 6, in a House of no more than 80 Members; and its decision on that occasion, therefore, did not carry with it very great weight. Since then nothing had been done by the Government, although eight months had elapsed since the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) had moved to issue the Writ last August. The constituency of Wigan had, consequently, had no opportunity of defending itself against the charges of corruption made against it; and he (Sir Eardley Wilmot) considered it unjust, under these circumstances, to deprive it of the privilege of returning a Member. It looked as if the Government were applying a Coercion Act to Wigan; and he, therefore, while he considered that a Royal Commission ought to have been again moved for at the beginning of the present Session, should cordially support the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry.
    MR. LEWIS,in reply, observed, that surprise had been expressed that he should have moved the issue of this Writ. The despotism of the Liberal Party, which had been displayed on so many occasions, now came to this—that
    1964
    a Member of that House was to be told by Members on the other side in bringing forward a grave Constitutional question—"Oh, you are only Member for so-and-so." He was aware that certain Members of the House usually moved the issue of new Writs; but there never was a Rule which prevented any Member of that House, if he thought a particular constituency was being ill-treated by the manner in which its rights were being disregarded by the House, or any Member of the House, from presenting himself as a supporter and upholder, not of a constituency, but of Constitutional Law. The hon. Member for Cheltenham thought it quite right that Cheltenham should interfere, but not Londonderry, though Wigan was on the way to Londonderry. The hon. Gentleman interfered, it would seem, because he (Mr. Lewis) had postponed his Motion from Monday week; but he did that because he did not want to stand in the way of the Budget; and yet the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, in his opening statement, while making pointed reference to the courtesy of another, took no notice of what he had done. He would tell the House very frankly why he had taken up these election cases; and he should take them up until he drove the Government to bring forward the Corrupt Practices (Disfranchisement) Bill. It was this, and he would say it in the face of the House. The Attorney General had deliberately kept that Bill back. Instead of producing that Bill, he had brought forward a general one relating to the future. The truth was, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not like to produce the Bill; but, until the Government did so, he should avail himself of every possible opportunity of challenging their conduct. The whole subject-matter of the Attorney General's speech amounted to this—that he quoted one precedent, a precedent which was totally inapplicable to the circumstances of the case, for which he was obliged to go to a time anterior to the period when Commissions proved to be no precedent at all. It seemed to him that what they had to consider on the present occasion were the rights of the Wigan constituency and the question of Constitutional representation; and consequently, under the circumstances, he should consider it his duty to go to a division.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—
    The Tellers being come to the Table, Lord Kensington, one of the Tellers for the Noes, informed Mr. Speaker that an honourable Member had remained in the Eight Lobby without voting.
    Mr. Arthur Vivian thereupon came to the Table, and said that not having heard the Question put, he had not voted.
    Whereupon Mr. Speaker stated to him the Question, and he declared that he voted with the Noes.
    The Tellers accordingly declared the numbers Ayes 142; Noes 220: Majority 78.—(Div. List, No. 75.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there added."
    SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, he hoped, now that the views of the Attorney General had been made known, the Amendment would be withdrawn.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)joined in this appeal. The moment was inopportune for pressing the subject.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, that, by leave of the House, the Amendment might be withdrawn.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.—MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention, on the Motion of the right hon. and gallant Member opposite (Sir John Hay), and as most conformable to the liberty and practice of the House, to advert, during the debate which I believe to be impending, to several matters of importance connected with the condition of Ireland, rather than to touch them in answer to a Question, or still less to seek an opportunity of making a short explanation. In consequence, however, of the difference of the Rules in "another place," and of proceedings which I understand are likely to take place there, it has appeared to me it would be most for the convenience of the House, especially in view of the Notice standing in the name of the right hon. and gallant Baronet, that I should ask permission of the House to
    1966
    make a very short statement, for the purpose of giving to it, I think, in brief compass, all the information which is in my power. Sir, I do not, I may say, on this occasion intend to make any reference to changes in the Land Act, because I have already partially and generally opened the views of the Government on one of the most important points which we think it our duty to open—namely, the question of arrears, a point, I may say, of the most pressing and immediate importance; and I also stated that an early opportunity would arise for touching on another point of great importance and interest—the question of the Purchase Clauses. With regard to other matters, although they are important also, I need not say anything of them. Other opportunities will offer for dealing with them more properly. But the three questions upon which I wish to give some information to the House are, the resignation of the Viceroy, the course which the Government have taken with respect to certain persons imprisoned in Ireland—particularly and primarily the three Members of this House—and the consequence it has entailed upon us (the Government); and, lastly, the intentions we entertain, so far as time permits us at present, to declare and exhibit those intentions in respect to legislation in Ireland. The House already is aware that my noble Friend (Earl Cowper), the loss of whose services we greatly regret, has resigned the Office of Viceroy of Ireland. I was asked yesterday whether he had resigned on political or on personal grounds; and I could not adopt with accuracy, or at least without fear of misapprehension, either of those grounds, for if I had said that my noble Friend had resigned on political grounds, I should have been understood to imply that he had resigned on the ground of policy, and because he differed in view from the Government and his Colleagues on public questions. That is not so, and neither has he resigned, I may say, upon personal grounds. It was his desire to give up his Office; but that desire did not take effect without reference to other considerations, and the consideration which induced the Government to recommend to Her Majesty that my noble Friend's resignation should be accepted was the desire they felt to have the advantage of carrying on the operations of the Executive

    1967
    Government in Ireland, in the present critical circumstances of the country, with the highest degree of authority that could possibly be made to attach to them—namely, under the direct action and the full responsibility of a Member of Her Majesty's Government. That, I think, is all that I need say on the subject of the resignation of my noble Friend. I proceed to another subject—indeed, to two subjects, both of which are embraced by the Notice which stands on the Paper for to-night. I have to state that directions have been sent to Ireland for the release forthwith of the three Members of this House who have been imprisoned since October last, under the powers given by the Protection of Person and Property Act. The list of persons similarly imprisoned will be carefully examined further, with a view to the release, in accordance with like principles and considerations, of all persons who are not believed to be associated with the commission of crime. This measure has been taken by the Government on its own responsibility—[Laughter from the Opposition Benches]—after gathering all the information which it was in their power to extract, either through the medium of debate in this House, or by availing themselves of such communications as were tendered to them by Irish Representatives, and this without the slightest reference to their previous relations to those Irish Representatives, but simply with relation to what they believed to be the public interest. But they deemed it to be a part of their duty to ascertain, so far as might be in their power, the views and intentions of those hon. Gentlemen who are chosen to represent Ireland in this House with reference to the present position of public affairs in that country. I observed that when I said that this action was taken upon the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government, there appeared to be Gentlemen in this House who thought that to be an announcement of very trivial importance. In my view, it is far otherwise. The responsibility is serious, and the responsibility is undivided. Were that release a release determined upon in concert with, or in negotiation with, others, I should not have been able to use, in the full and plenary sense of the view which I have used, the phrase that I have employed and employ again, when I say, Sir, that
    1968
    this is an act taken on our own responsibility alone, and done in the strict pursuance of the principles on which our policy has been founded all along—[Renewed laughter]—with reference, and with paramount reference, to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, which we believe it will promote—a belief in which I can assure hon. Gentlemen we are not likely to be shaken. And, finally, it is, as I have already said, an act done without any negotiation, promise, or engagement whatsoever. This act, Sir, has entailed upon us a lamentable consequence—namely, the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant (Mr. W. E. Forster),who declines to share our responsibility in this matter, and who, in consequence, has tendered his resignation of the high Office which he has held and discharged with such unwearied diligence, and marked ability, and such unfailing patriotism. It is not for me to explain, before my right hon. Friend does so himself, the view by which he has been actuated; and he will not be in a position to explain that view until he obtains the sanction of Her Majesty to his resignation; but he hopes to be able to offer his personal explanation not later than upon Thursday next. Sir, in conjunction with this subject, I think it is right that I should advert to the legislative intentions which Her Majesty's Government entertain—in few words, but, I hope, in words which will not be found, deficient in clearness, having regard to the time at which, and the circumstances under which, they are spoken. In the first place, we do not at present contemplate asking Parliament to renew the Protection of Person and Property Act; but it is my duty to point out that no final judgment can be formed at the present date upon a question of this paramount character, with regard to which the contingency immediately embraced in it is still placed at a considerable distance. The second statement I have to make is that, so soon as the necessary Business of the House of Commons will permit, we shall ask leave to introduce a Bill to strengthen the ordinary law, and to meet difficulties such as have been experienced in the administration of justice, and in defending and securing private rights in Ireland. By the necessary Business of the House of Commons, perhaps I ought to say that I mean the

    1969
    Resolutions upon Procedure, which, in our view, lie at the very root and threshold of the whole performance by the House of Commons of its duty, and the transaction of Business in relation to money, with regard to which, as the House well knows, legal necessities are laid upon us. Anything, in fact, which could not fairly be called, of that exceptional character, I do not include in necessary Business. But what I meant to convey to the House is this—that of all the legislation which we have hoped and desired to undertake, and which we have engaged, as far as it is in our power, to undertake, by the Speech delivered from the Throne at the commencement of the Session, no part will be allowed to interfere with the prosecution of the purpose which I have just described—namely, to satisfy what we conceive to be the demands of the necessity with regard to future legal provision for peace and tranquillity, and the enforcement of law in Ireland. I may add that we are now engaged in considering the details of the measure; and it should be clearly understood, after what I have said, that the Business of optional legislation will not be allowed to interfere with our proceedings in this respect. I ought, perhaps, to say, after the expectation that I have expressed—the sanguine expectation, or, at any rate, the very anxious expectation, with regard to the Protection of Person and Property Act—I ought, perhaps, to make one special reservation, not in contradiction, nor even, perhaps, in limitation of what I have said. It has relation to secret societies; and should it unhappily appear to us that the peace and security of Ireland are put in jeopardy by the members of secret societies, in that case, whatever might be our view as to the Protection of Person and Property Act in general, we should think it our duty to propose, as against their members, either a continuance of the present powers, or the enactment of any other powers which we might believe to be more effectual for the securing of life and property. I have only, I think, one word more to say. In expressing the hope and expectation that we may not be called upon to ask the House to reenact the Protection of Person and Property Act, I do not intend to suggest, on the part of the Government retrospectively, any change in their view. We have no authority,
    1970
    more than others, to speak upon this subject, and many hon. Members in that quarter of the House (the Home Rule Benches)—perhaps some on this side of the House—may differ from us in the opinion we entertain; but we do not agree with those who hold that the Act has failed, for we think that it has served a most important purpose, in enabling us to confront a great crisis, which, without that Act, we do not see in what way we could have had adequate opportunities of meeting. That, I think, is all it is my purpose at present to say, and I hope I have clearly conveyed to the House the intentions we entertain, and I thank the House for the great and kind attention which I have received during this statement from the great body of the House.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that it is most irregular to address any observations to the House upon the statement we have just heard, yet I think the House will, under the circumstances, extend its indulgence to me for a very short time. The Prime Minister has, in the closing words of his very important statement, expressed his acknowledgment to the House for the patience and the manner with which it has listened to him, and I can hardly imagine that any statement could have been possibly made that would have more thoroughly have arrested the attention, the breathless attention, of hon. Members on both sides of the House. From word to word, and from passage to passage of the Prime Minister's speech we necessarily hung upon his words, absolutely ignorant of what might be coming next, and feeling that his communication had reference to one of the most important subjects that could possibly be brought before us. I must frankly say that, having listened to the statement that has just been made, I am still more surprised than I was before that that statement was not previously made, and made in a manner independently of the Motion of which Notice has been given. Surely the reasons which have led to that statement being made to-night might have been foreseen, and might have led the Government to take this into its consideration in a more direct manner than they proposed to do, but not, I admit, more frankly than they have now done. There are several parts of that statement on

    1971
    which it would be premature at present for anyone to offer an opinion. We require more information. We require to know the reasons upon which the Government have proceeded in some of the very important steps upon which they have decided, as they tell us, on their own responsibility. The Prime Minister seemed to wonder that there should have been any sensation in the House on his making use of the expression that the Government had taken upon themselves to release, certain hon. Members of this House, and to consider the case of certain other persons who are at present imprisoned under the Protection of Person and Property (Ireland) Act, and that they had made that decision on their own responsibility. The House, I think, would have been puzzled to know upon what other shoulders to lay the responsibility. However that may be, the feeling of the House now, I think, is that we should know the grounds on which the decision was arrived at. But there was a very strange light, or rather a very important light, thrown upon the expression used by the Prime Minister by almost the next following words of the right hon. Gentleman, which were to the effect that the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, as I am sorry to say we must now call him, had refused to share that responsibility; and that circumstance, I need not say, intensifies in the most remarkable manner the importance of the step on which the Government have decided. Under any circumstances, to be told, and told without reasons given for the decision, that the Government have decided to make so vital a change, so important a change, in the policy which they have been pursuing for a considerable time, and upon which they have from time to time appealed for the support of the House, would have been startling, and would have required consideration; but when they tell us that a Minister—not only one of their Colleagues, but the special Colleague who has been responsible for the administration of the Act in Ireland, who has had the most intimate knowledge of the state of the country, and who knows not only what the state of the country has been hitherto, but what it is at the present moment—when they tell us that he declines to share that responsibility, they really present to us a condition of affairs so grave that it is
    1972
    quite impossible to exaggerate it. The right hon. Gentleman has said, with perfect truth, that it would but be in accordance with the usual Parliamentary practice and the proper courtesies of official life to give the right hon. Gentleman who has now resigned his Office an opportunity of stating to the House the reasons which have led him to separate himself from his Colleagues; and he has also mentioned, what is perfectly well known to all, that the right hon. Gentleman cannot make such a statement until he has obtained Her Majesty's permission, and we are promised that such statement shall be made on Thursday. At present, therefore, it would be clearly premature for us to come to any final decision or opinion with regard to the conduct of Her Majesty's Government in this matter until we have heard the promised statement on Thursday, that will then be made, and which we shall await with the greatest interest and anxiety; but even now there are one or two points upon which, in the absence of that statement, I think, perhaps, I may be allowed to make one or two remarks. The right hon. Gentleman has told us that it is intended not only to release the three imprisoned Members of this House, but to consider the other cases of persons who are imprisoned under the Act, and who are not associated in the commission of crime. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Not believed to be.] Well, not believed to be. I suppose that is intended to point to the distinction that is to be drawn between a number of persons who are imprisoned on charges of being reasonably suspected of murder, or inciting to murder, or other outrages, and those who are guilty of intimidation or inciting others to desist from the payment of rent. But I should like to know another point with regard to that. There are certain persons in prison on a charge of being suspected of treasonable practices, and I should like to know what category they come under? I should like to know whether that is a charge that is to be treated lightly, or is to be treated seriously? Is it to be treated like a charge of using violent language, or is it to be treated as one of a very serious character? I cannot help observing that that charge is made against two of the Members of this House who are to be liberated; and, therefore, I presume that the mere fact of being

    1973
    reasonably suspected of treasonable practices is not to be held as a ground for retaining those persons in prison; but I shall be glad to know whether the serious charge is to be passed over, or whether any especial notice is to be taken of persons who are so charged; because, when considering the question of law and order, we should know whether that is to be regarded as a serious charge. It is all very well for the Prime Minister to say that the Government are proceeding on the principles which they have always proceeded. In respect to a great many matters, I have no doubt but it will strike many persons as most probable that the Government are making a very serious and extraordinary change—they are, to use an expression that has become familiar to us, swapping horses while crossing the stream in a very strange and inconvenient manner; still, I am bound to say that, to a certain extent, I do admit they are proceeding on the principles on which it seems to me they have all along proceeded. Those principles are somewhat those of a pendulum which swings sometimes to the one side and sometimes to the other. I can conceive nothing more likely to weaken the authority of the Government, in the very difficult and important task on which they have entered in dealing with the state of things in Ireland, than the impression which is likely to be conveyed that they are hesitating and uncertain in their policy—that they are pursuing a policy which, they have not themselves thought out to its ultimate issues. Even the manner in which the announcement is made to-day all tends in the same direction. They would not announce it until they had an opportunity—until some independent Member of the Opposition brings forward a proposal to serve as a convenient peg on which they might make their statement. They would not state all their proposals on the Land Act until they had an opportunity of which they could take advantage, and so forth. They are, apparently, without a policy which they have themselves sought and decided on, and which they are prepared to recommend on their own responsibility to the House. They are casting about for opportunities which are offered to them from one quarter and another. I am sorry that is the line they take, for I do not think it
    1974
    is to the advantage of the country. I think we ought to have some further information from the Government. I should like to impress upon the Government, and I think we ought all to press upon them, that they should lose no time in this matter, and that they should take up a decided attitude, and not allow the grass to grow under their feet. The Government, I believe, have been weakened, as I believe we have weakened ourselves, by making demonstrations, and by holding out expectations, and even using threats, and then hanging the matter up for a considerable time until the force of the thing had worn itself out. If the policy is to release not only the large number of persons who are imprisoned under the Coercion Act without any statement to justify it, but with such authority against it as their own Chief Secretary, I say they ought to come forward and make their statement as a whole, and not in piecemeal fashion, pressing it forward in the most vigorous and rapid manner, and in a manner which would give the House an opportunity of considering it fully while they have time and opportunity. Undoubtedly I make that observation with reference to the extraordinary statement of the right hon. Gentleman, when, after he told us he would take the measure to which he refers as the very first measure after those which were of a necessary character, he tells us that among these necessary measures he includes the Resolutions for altering the Procedure of the House. Of course, if that is intended to be a mode of putting pressure upon the House with regard to forcing through the Rules on Procedure, it is very clever. If it is the idea of the right hon. Gentleman that that is a Business which it is necessary to proceed with and to get through with before he can make this statement of the full intentions of the Government, I think the prospect before us is of a very unsatisfactory kind. I apologize to the House for speaking at all. I am sorry to trespass on its time; but I do feel that we require further information on this subject, and I hope that on Thursday an opportunity will be given us of very fully considering the statements which have been made. There is one question which I do not know if I have the right to ask; but which, if I am not wrong in asking it, I should be glad to

    1975
    be informed upon. I was struck with the statement which was made by the right hon. Gentleman with reference to Lord Cowper. Lord Cowper is a Nobleman for whom everyone has the highest respect, and of whom, as a man who is patriotic and thoroughly conscientious, we should all speak with respect and admiration. But the right hon. Gentleman told us that Lord Cowper had resigned the high Office of Lord Lieutenant upon this ground—that he wished that operations in Ireland should be carried on under—
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Because he wished that the Government should have the opportunity of making—
    MR. GLADSTONE: No, no.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Well, I have no right to ask on what grounds Lord Cowper gives up his Office, unless the right hon. Gentleman volunteers some statement on the subject. I am not questioning Lord Cowper's conduct; but the point to which I am coming is this—that either Lord Cowper desired, or the Government accepted, his resignation of Office, on the ground that it was desirable they should carry on their operations in Ireland with the highest degree of authority that could be attached to them, by having them under the direct control of the Members of the Cabinet. Well, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had some share in the deliberations of the Cabinet. The point I wished to remark upon was this—Was Lord Cowper's resignation sent in, or accepted, before or after the resignation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland? As long as the Chief Secretary for Ireland held Office he was a man in the highest authority, holding a Cabinet Office in connection with the discharge of his duties. Are we to understand that the object of Lord Cowper's resignation was to supply the way for a Cabinet Minister, consequent upon the loss of one by the intended resignation of the Chief Secretary? [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] I should think not. Then, is it thought desirable—really I do not like to ask many questions about it; but we really ought to know whether it is thought necessary that there should be two Members of the Cabinet—is it thought necessary, for the future administration of
    1976
    Ireland, there should be both the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Lord Lieutenant in the Cabinet? I need not say that it is a very novel arrangement; but it is so important that we ought to have some explanation on the subject, and I should really be glad to know whether it is intended that the right hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Forster's) place should be filled by the appointment of some other Cabinet Minister, or whether it is intended to dispense with the Chief Secretary in the Cabinet, or dispense with the Chief Secretary altogether? These are matters that I ask about, and I should think they are matters that the House, interested as it is in the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, ought to be informed upon.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he was well aware that the Forms of the House did not permit them to discuss the important statement made by the Prime Minister; but even if those Forms had allowed discussion now, it did not appear to him that there was anything in that statement calling for immediate debate—at least, so far as the Irish Members were concerned. It appeared to him that the right hon. Baronet the Member for North Devon (Sir Stafford Northcote) had gone either a little too far, or not quite far enough, in the discussion. It seemed to him quite plain that if a full and satisfactory debate on the statement of the Prime Minister could not be entered upon now, it would be better to leave the question undebated altogether for the present. They had had from the Prime Minister what were merely suggestions of legislation—they had no material upon which to form any opinion. The right hon. Gentleman told them he intended to deal with the question of the arrears, and with the Purchase Clauses of the Land Act; but, as a matter of course, until they knew what his propositions were, it would be idle to anticipate and discuss them. Then, as regarded his dealings with Coercion, they only knew that, under certain conditions, he would propose certain measures. They did not know whether these measures were to be more sharp or less sharp than those now in existence. Under such circumstances, it would be vain to discuss the subject. But he would take the liberty of asking the right hon. Gentleman three questions. One was in re-

    1977
    ference to the resignation of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. He might say for himself and for those around him that they were not disposed to indulge in any unseemly exultation over the fall of the right hon. Gentleman; but he would like to ask the Prime Minister whether a successor had yet been nominated? He would like to ask, also, as the second question, whether the Government intended to attempt the complete re-organization of what he might call the mechanism of administration in Ireland, beginning with Dublin Castle, and going down through all the hierarchy of the magistracy and police? In the third place, he should like to ask, in reference to the announcement which had just been made of that act of mere justice, propriety, and prudence—namely, the release of the State prisoners—he should like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government would not extend the same release to Michael Davitt?
    Earl PERCYrose to address the House, when—
    MR. SPEAKER,interposing, said, the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had made a Ministerial Statement; but, there being no Motion before the House, a debate upon that statement could hardly be allowed.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I beg to notice very briefly the questions that have been put to me by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side. I think it is part of my duty to answer the questions which have been put on behalf of a Party or section of this House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir Stafford Northcote) asks me whether the date of Lord Cowper's resignation was anterior or posterior to the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). It was anterior to that resignation, and the two resignations are totally disconnected the one from the other. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, also asked whether we had any reasons to give for the release of the "suspects." Defined as it was defined in my statement, we have given the reason which, we think, is the only and the sufficient reason—namely, that, in our belief, it is conducive to the interests of law, order, and security in Ireland. When that proposition is challenged, I shall be prepared to defend it. With respect to the questions of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin
    1978
    M'Carthy), I may state that no Chief Secretary has yet been named as successor to my right hon. Friend. With respect to the release of Michael Davitt, that is a question totally distinct from the release of the "suspects;" and it is one which it may be right for Her Majesty's Government to consider; but it is one which they have not taken into consideration as a portion of the same subject. In respect to the total and complete re-organization of the Government of Ireland, beginning with Dublin Castle and going down to the magistrates and police, I must confess that when I heard that question put by the hon. Member I blessed the simplicity of mind which could suppose, as I have no doubt he did, in perfect good faith, that the total reorganization of the Government in Ireland is a thing that can be dealt with by the stroke of a pen, or by a particular Resolution. In my opinion, and I think I may say in the opinion of my Colleagues, there is a great deal to be done in regard to the re-organization of the Government of Ireland; and I feel that, without working in that direction and in that sense, we shall not permanently attain the object we have in view; but I cannot state the degree and the time any operation can be made in a matter so difficult and multiform, and I am sure the hon. Member will not press me upon it.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to remind the right hon. Gentleman of the Question which I put to him, as to whether there was to be a Chief Secretary in the Cabinet?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I will make the announcement about the Chief Secretary as soon as possible. I have made the announcement of the resignation of my right hon. Friend; but that is a very recent and extraordinary event indeed. The directions that went to Ireland on this subject only went to-day; and, of course, all I can say is, that it will be our duty, in the present situation of Irish affairs, if on no other account, to proceed with all expedition that the state of Business will allow, and to make what may be deemed to be, on the whole, the best arrangements.
    MR. CHAPLINbegged leave to move the adjournment of the House, in order that he might put a few questions to the Prime Minister. Substantially, the announcement of policy just made was to a certain effect, and he could well fancy

    1979
    how that new hope would be raised in Ireland, and the people would most appropriately sing—
    "Sound the loud timbrel o'er Ireland's blue sea:
    The Land League has triumphed, the 'suspects' are free."
    Such information would be astounding if it came from any Government except the present Government of never-ending vacillation. The question he wished to ask was, if the "suspects" were to be released now, why were they imprisoned at all? He thought he could throw some light upon the question by referring to the authority of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime Minister, speaking at the Guildhall on October 14, 1881, said, in reference to the arrest of Mr. Parnell—
    "Within these few moments I have been informed that towards the vindication of law, of order, of the rights of property, of the freedom of the land, of the first elements of political life and civilization, the first step has been taken in the arrest of the man who has made himself beyond all others prominent in the attempt to destroy the authority of the law, and to substitute what would and in being nothing more nor less than anarchical oppression exercised upon the people of Ireland."
    He asked the right hon. Gentleman to consider this question. Had law and order, had the rights of property, was the freedom of the land, had the first elements of political life and civilization been vindicated, or had they not? Had the purpose of that arrest been fulfilled or not? Was the state of things in Ireland better or worse than when that arrest received the commendation of the right hon. Gentleman? If not, then, why were the "suspects" to be released? He did not wish to enter upon a debate now; but he pressed the Government—and after the right hon. Gentleman's assertion that there was other necessary Business standing in the way he had a right to press the Government—for an explicit and early reply to those questions. That answer could not be, and must not be, long delayed, because the Government must remember that, as must be apparent to every section of the House, their policy of to-day was an absolute condemnation of their policy in October, and their policy in October was no less an absolute condemnation of their policy of to-day. He trusted, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider his decision. And, really, when the right hon, Gentleman
    1980
    talked of other necessary Business, he (Mr. Chaplin) asked what Business could be more necessary than the preservation of life in Ireland? To talk of proceeding with those Procedure Resolutions of the Government, when such issues of life and death were at stake in Ireland, was like Nero fiddling when Rome was burning. He hoped that the right hon. Gentleman, before they separated that evening, would give them a distinct assurance that, on the earliest possible opportunity, that complete and absolute reversal of the whole Irish policy of the Government would be submitted, as submitted it ought to be and must be, to the judgment of the House of Commons.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr.chaplin.)
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he wished to ask the right hon. and gallant Member for the Wigton Burghs(Sir John Hay) whether, after the statement which had been made to the House by the Prime Minister that afternoon, he intended to proceed with the Motion which stood on the Paper in his name with regard to the administration of Ireland?
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, that, so far as he was at present advised, his intention was to proceed with the Motion at 9 o'clock, if he found a House there at the Evening Sitting willing to listen to him.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, he could not share in any attempt which might be made to draw from the Government, at the present moment, a more explicit explanation than the Premier had made. The Government had had, in a very difficult crisis, to consider a subject embracing many branches, and one of extreme delicacy and importance; and he could not help declaring his personal conviction that the First Minister of the Crown, in his statement made that day, had been as explicit as could fairly be expected, considering all the circumstances of the case. It might be true, as had been said, that the present policy of the Government was one which was in condemnation of that which they pursued in October last. He was not concerned to drive the comparison home. It was enough for him if the policy which they now foreshadowed was a better policy for his country than that which they had adopted before, and he most certainly believed it was so; and, while following

    1981
    the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Stafford Northcote), he left in reserve and undiscussed the various branches of the Irish Question that would presently come up for discussion and settlement, he said with all the emphasis in his power that he believed that the one act which had been specifically announced—the release of the three Members of that House who had been kept for six months in gaol—was an act well calculated, in the language of the right hon. Gentleman, to advance the interests of law and order in Ireland. The statement of the right hon. Gentleman on that subject had been received with marked demonstrations of approval in that part of the House; but it had been received with demonstrations of another kind by those whose policy in regard to Ireland was coercion alone. But the right hon. Gentleman, in his long life, and in the many and varied scenes and achievements in which he had taken part, had never spoken truer words than when he said that the release of those three hon. Gentlemen would tend to the advancement of law and order in Ireland. He (Mr. Sexton) invited the right hon. Gentleman to look forward with confidence to the future consequences of that act; he invited him to consider what would be its effect on the minds of the Irish people. He invited him to consider that every day that they detained those hon. Gentlemen in prison was a day added to the inflamed passions and deepening hatred towards the British Government which existed in the breasts of the Irish people; and he asked any man, with the mind of a statesman, what would be the effect of keeping in force such an influence? Unquestionably, the effect of that announcement—though it was a limited and partial one—which had been made that afternoon would, he believed, be immediate and salutary. And he would further say that, for his part, he believed, if the Government only courageously continued in the path in which they had taken the first step that day—if, instead of relying upon repressive laws, opposed to the sympathies of the people, they followed up the axiom long since delivered by the right hon. Gentleman, that this was an Empire which did not rest on repression, but on free opinion; if they applied that axiom to Ireland, if they advanced boldly in re-
    1982
    gard to the matter of arrears, in regard to the Land Question, and also in the recognition of the national claims of the Irish people, the Government would find that they had taken the first step in a policy that would crown the Ministry which had begun in disgrace with glory, and that would create ties of affection and mutual interest between nations which had been long separated in feeling.
    EARL PERCYsaid, he wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the Business referred to in his statement included the whole of the Resolutions, or only the 1st Resolution; and whether the Corrupt Practices Bill was one of the measures?
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFalso wished to ask the Prime Minister whether the release of the three Members of the House who had been confined as "suspects" was entirely unconditional, or whether any condition had been made for the withdrawal of the "no rent circular?"
    MR. NEWDEGATEwished to warn the House of the possibility of the released Irish Members renewing their system of Obstruction to the Resolutions as to Procedure now under the consideration of the House.
    MR. SPEAKER: I am bound to call the attention of the hon. Gentleman to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's Resolutions in regard to Procedure are not now under consideration. They are appointed for consideration by-and-bye; but they are not now under consideration.
    MR. NEWDEGATEproceeding, said, he hoped hon. Members on that side of the House would take care that they were not involved in the penal consequences of Obstruction, in which two of the hon. Members, who were to be released, rendered themselves particularly conspicuous. He trusted that they would see such a change in the manipulation of the Rules for insuring Order as would secure the House from the annoyance which compelled it to appoint the Committee of 1878. While guarding against the perpetual Obstruction of a small minority, they ought to be careful that they did not involve in the penal consequences of that Obstruction Members who had no responsibility for it.
    SIR JOHN HAYsaid, the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey

    1983
    Vivian) had, a short time before, put a question to him (Sir John Hay) which he was unable to answer fully at the time. After consideration, however, and looking to the fact of the resignation of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, he believed it would not be occupying usefully the time of the House were he to proceed with the Motion of which he had given Notice. He thought it would be more convenient for the House to wait until the late Chief Secretary could make his statement on Thursday; and, recognizing, as he did, the integrity and honour of that right hon. Gentleman, he thought it fair to allow him to make that statement to the House, and not call attention to facts which it would be his duty otherwise to have replied to. Under these circumstances, he thought it would be convenient to the House that he did not proceed at 9 o'clock to the Notice of Motion on the Paper.
    MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister would state in what form this question would come up for consideration on Thursday? Of course, he quite agreed it would be undesirable that any debate should occur at the present time. On the announcement that the right hon. Gentleman had made, he (Mr. J. Lowther) did not care to say anything, for he had thought that was not the opportunity on which it could be done. He would only say that, altogether apart from the substance of his announcement with regard to the release of certain persons now in custody, he thought the conditions under which that release had taken place must be viewed apart from the release. He believed the general impression that would be produced throughout the country, when the two simultaneous announcements of the throwing overboard by Her Majesty's Government of one of their Colleagues, the release of these men, and of those other acts to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred were put together, would be that there had been an abdication of the Government de jure in favour of the Government de facto in Ireland. The matter would be regarded as nothing less than an ignominious surrender to the forces of disorder and crime.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, certain questions have been put to me, and I think it due to these hon. Gentlemen to
    1984
    make an answer to them. The noble Earl the Member for North Northumberland (Earl Percy) asks whether, when I spoke of Procedure, I spoke of one Resolution only? I spoke of a series of Resolutions. He also asked, whether the Corrupt Practices Bill is, in my view, included in the necessary legislation? I think I have already fully answered that question by saying that none of the measures to which I had referred at the commencement of the Session, and which belong to the category of optional legislation in a certain sense, however important and urgent they may be, would be allowed to interfere with the consideration of the measures of urgency relating to Ireland. I have only to confirm that answer. The hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) asks, whether the action of the Government upon Procedure will be more immediate in consequence of this announcement? Our action was as immediate as we could make it before this announcement, and so it will continue. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) asks me, whether this release which has been directed is an unconditional release; and I thought, Sir, I had already answered that and made it clear, when I stated that it was without any negotiation, promise, or engagement whatever. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), and the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. J. Lowther), have approached the question in a different manner, and under the name of questions they have put to me inquiries as to what and when the Government proposed to take a debate on the subject. We have stated the issue which we place before the House. We have directed this release upon our responsibility, claiming the support of no one, and the promise of no one, in regard to it. Having done that, we say that we have done it for the public interest, and especially for the interest of peace, order, and security in Ireland. I think that that is a fair challenge; and if the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite choose to take up the glove, if they choose to declare that that proceeding is an ignominious surrender, we will defend the position we have taken up. With regard to the remarks of the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr.

    1985
    Sexton), we shall certainly contend that this is no new departure on our part; but that is a question infinitely unimportant, and we shall contend that instead of being an ignominious surrender of the authority of the law, it is the true, wise, and effectual way for its vindication. If the House of Commons does not think so, let it pronounce upon us the condemnation which, in its judgment, it has a perfect right to do.
    MR. PLUNKET: Sir, I should not have troubled the House at the present time, if it were only that the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government has thrown down to us this challenge. The right hon. Gentleman thinks he can safely indulge in such gallant and valorous words with his great majority at his back, swelled, as it will be, for the moment, by an accession of Irish Members from below the Gangway. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department loudly cheers that observation—he who, amongst others around him, has spent so many moments and hours in this House, during the present Session and the last, in denouncing those very men whom they now propose to conciliate and to release from prison; but I think the Prime Minister will find by-and-bye some difficulty—not, perhaps, in bringing forward a majority to support what he has challenged us to make a question in this House, but in explaining to the country the consistency of the conduct of the Government. But I desire to ask one question of the Government—a very serious one for one who is a Representative in this House of those loyal men in Ireland whose lives and property have been so long endangered. It is a question which will not bear delay. It is not a question with regard to the "suspects" who are now to be released. They were imprisoned on very solemn grounds, that were stated to this House and the country. They were kept in prison in spite of very solemn appeals that were made to the Government by those Members who call themselves the Irish Party in the House, whose advice was not then taken; but whose advice, apparently, is now alone to be considered. And why are the "suspects" to be released now? No explanation is given. The Prime
    1986
    Minister is asked—"What about the charge of treason?" And no answer is given. There is one answer that might be given in the words of an old and well-known couplet—
    "Treason ne'er prospers: what's the reason? That when it prospers, none dare call it treason."
    I shall say but one word upon any other topic. As regards the resignation of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the hon. Member who spoke on behalf of his Irish Colleagues (Mr. Sexton)—on behalf of those who are called the Irish Party—showed, I must say, the generosity to abstain from glorying in the triumph they have succeeded in achieving by the sacrifice of the Minister who has borne the brunt of the day in administering the Act and the policy by which the Prime Minister has admitted that he was alone able to confront—and to what extent he has confronted it we know—the tremendous crisis of affairs with which he had to deal in Ireland. But there was one admission made by the Prime Minister, in reply to the hon. Member for Sligo, which sank into my heart with feelings of the gravest alarm. He has made many sudden and wonderful statements to-day; great surprises have been urged upon us, one after another, until we can hardly say in what position we now really stand as regards those great questions; but on one subject he did exhibit, to an extreme degree, that characteristic of his speeches we have so often before seen proving dangerous to the best interests of the country, in being at once encouraging and indistinct. A question was put to him by the hon. Member who spoke for those who are now to be the main advisers of the Ministry with regard to Ireland—namely—"What are you prepared to do with regard to the re-organization of Irish Administration, beginning with Dublin Castle, and going down through the whole hierarchy of magistrates and Constabulary and other authorities in Ireland?" And what was the answer of the Prime Minister? One would have thought, knowing the dangers to life and all that is dear to the dignity of Government and the well-being of the country which had so long existed in Ireland, that on that subject, at least, there would have been no paltering and no hopes held out. For what is it that maintains law and order at this

    1987
    moment in Ireland? Is it not that very "hierarchy of magistrates and Constabulary" to which the hon. Member referred? I say that those magistrates and Constabulary are entitled to the strongest support of the Government in the position that they are placed. But the Prime Minister passed it off as a joke, saying, in effect—"He wondered at the simplicity of mind that could imagine that all this could be done by a stroke of the Resolution," and holding out the hope that the time would come when it would be necessary to deal with this question. But I want to know what is the present opinion of the Prime Minister, whatever may be his ultimate intentions, with regard to the so-called "Irish Administration, beginning with Dublin Castle, and going down through the whole hierarchy of magistrates and Constabulary."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have heard no such words, and I do not believe they were spoken.
    MR. PLUNKET: My recollection is different. I distinctly heard them. The meaning of those words, "hierarchy of magistrates and police," is well known. What I want to ask now is not as to the particular manner in which the Prime Minister may by-and-bye propose to deal with the question, but in the interest of those whom I represent—my constituents—I have a right to put it to the right hon. Gentleman, that in the meantime this hierarchy—call it what you please—those who represent the powers of the Government shall remain until you have invented something that you can substitute in their place, and shall be maintained, vindicated, and justified in their efforts to maintain law and order in Ireland.
    MR. MACARTNEYsaid, he rose for the purpose of asserting that the proposals of the Government would not satisfy the people of Ireland. Every movement made by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland in the administration of Irish affairs was supported by the other Members of the Cabinet, and now he was allowed to retire because his policy was disapproved. He (Mr. Macartney) had been a long time a Member of the House; and he must say he never heard an announcement that made him tremble more for his country than the announcement of the agreement into which the Prime Minister had entered with the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) as
    1988
    to the principle upon which Ireland was to be governed. If that was to be the principle upon which Ireland was to be governed, the sooner the Government made up their minds to provide for the departure of the loyal inhabitants of Ireland to some other portion of Her Majesty's Dominions the better. He believed that the late Chief Secretary ever acted with the best and most honest intentions; and he was sorry to see hon. Gentlemen sitting behind him join in the hue and cry against the right hon. Gentleman. The right hon. Gentleman had been "baited "—most unmercifully he had been "baited "—a short time ago, and not one single Member on the Treasury Bench stood up and said a word in his favour. He (Mr. Macartney) had heard men in that House use words which he would not repeat. He did not wish to use an un-Parliamentary expression; but he could not help saying that it was not courageous, and that it was an un-English proceeding for a Government to allow their Colleague to be treated as the late Chief Secretary had been. The right hon. Gentleman, he believed, would carry into his retirement the respect of every right-minded man in Ireland. He meant of every right-minded man who feared God, who respected the law, who honoured the King, and who supported the Constitution. The right hon. Gentleman would carry into his retirement the respect of every right-minded man, although they did not agree with the policy of the Government which he carried out. During the time the right hon. Gentleman was in Office he (Mr. Macartney) believed he had two foes to fight, one in front and the other behind—one the rebellious people of Ireland, and the other his Radical Colleagues in the Government.
    MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, he had listened to no statement in the House of Commons for many years which had given him so much pleasure as that made by Her Majesty's Government; and he had no hesitation in saying that that announcement would do more to restore order in Ireland than a dozen Coercion Acts. He had often said that coercion might repress crime in a temporary manner; but he thought, on the other hand, it was a power that begot crime. He represented as many loyal men in Ulster as the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. Macartney);and he would

    1989
    say that the men of Tyrone and Ulster would receive the news with the utmost satisfaction. In September last, in conjunction with the hon. Member for Monaghan (Mr. Givan), he waited on the Chief Secretary for Ireland, representing the loyal farmers of Ulster, to urge the release of the "suspects;" and he thought it would have been better if that advice had then been taken. If that advice had been taken, he believed the best results would have followed. He rejoiced that at last the Government were "clothed and in their right mind;" and he could say that he hoped it was the last time that ever a Liberal Government would be identified with a coercion policy in Ireland. He believed they had burnt their fingers with it that time; and he would ten times rather see the Liberals go to the other side of the House and sit in Opposition, than see them again identify themselves with coercion in Ireland. He had no fear of challenging the loyal men of Ulster, and he could only say that he could await with confidence their verdict upon the policy which Her Majesty's Government had just announced.
    MR. GOSCHEN: Sir, I think the House is drifting into a most unsatisfactory position, seeing that we are now having a debate which is no debate. We have not sufficient information before us to pronounce any opinion, and yet some hon. Members have risen and expressed their satisfaction at the announcement; while others have pronounced their disapprobation at the course which the Government proposed to pursue. But what will be the effect of the silence of those who think, like myself, that without sufficient information it is impossible that we can judge of the scheme of the Government? We have much to think over. Till yesterday it was our duty, as it was our pleasure, to deal with the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, who represented, not his own policy, but the policy of the Government. Time after time it was our duty to maintain the policy pursued by the right hon. Gentleman—a policy which, so far as we are aware, may be the policy of the right hon. Gentleman at the present moment. He was in communication with the police all over Ireland, and he was in communication with the magistrates of Ireland; and the right hon. Gen-
    1990
    tleman has not yet had any opportunity of stating in the House the grounds upon which he thinks the release of the "suspects" is impolitic. I think, in justice to the right hon. Gentleman, we ought to restrain the expression of our opinion on the course Her Majesty's Government have thought fit to pursue. My right hon. Friend at the head of the Government has stated his reason for the adoption of that course—namely, that he believes it to be for the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, a reason which will be established in debate. [Mr. GLADSTONE: When challenged.] I do not know whether my right hon. Friend will think he is challenged by the statements which will be made by his late Colleague. I do not know whether Her Majesty's Government intend the Gentleman who has been charged with the administration of Ireland in concert with his Colleagues to state his reasons against the course, and to accept them as a challenge, or to let those reasons pass in silence. For myself, I may say this—that, to my mind, the effect of the release of the "suspects" will depend, in a great measure, upon the fuller arguments which the Government may advance or sustain in defence of that course. ["No, no!"] I do not know whether hon. Members who say "No, no!" are prepared to think that, under all circumstances, and whatever explanations are given, the release of the "suspects" has been desirable. I do not think that there are many on this side of the House who would agree that the release of the "suspects" would be advantageous and expedient, if it had been a surrender prompted by the fear of the Party in Ireland to whom the "suspects" belong. I think a release upon such grounds would clearly be unsatisfactory to those who sit on this side of the House; and, to my mind, it is clear that the language that may be held with regard to the reasons for the release of the "suspects" is an element in the case which we are bound to consider and cannot overlook. We shall hope, in any case, that the anticipations of the Government may be realized, and that the course taken will, as the right hon. Gentleman hopes, tend to increase the prospects of law and order in Ireland. We know that he believes that a social revolution exists in Ireland; and it will have to be proved

    1991
    to us how the release of social revolutionists will increase the prospects of successful resistance to social revolution. It may be so; hut that must depend, in a great part, upon the legislation by which the release of the "suspects" is to be accompanied. Will it be thought in Ireland that this is a new departure, in the sense that there will be less security—legal security—taken for the maintenance of law and order and the protection of life and property? It will, I say, depend upon those measures what will be the effect of the release of the "suspects" I am speaking hypothetically when I say that it is possible that the release of the "suspects" will have a beneficial effect in Ireland; but it cannot have a beneficial effect on the fortunes of the Empire, unless all parts of the Empire are convinced that the Executive is strong enough to be able to govern Ireland notwithstanding such concessions. My hon. Friend below me (Mr. T. A. Dickson) has said that he hoped the Liberal Party would never again burn its fingers with a policy of coercion. But if there be in Ireland revolution, agitation, and disorder, it would be the duty of any Party, Liberal or Conservative, again to introduce a policy of coercion. The Liberal Party cannot exist if the idea is to be fostered that we are not powerful enough and not strong enough for the suppression of disorder, and for grappling with these disturbances, and that it is only by retreating, and by concession after concession, that we can govern. Sir, I have occupied the House too long, after what I have stated—that we have not the whole facts before us, and I may have been too warm; but as my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government spoke in warm language when he felt that a challenge had been thrown out to him by the other side, so I may be pardoned if in the face of events as stirring as any that for many days have happened—if in view of the fact that in the midst of the troubles in Ireland, the resignation of the right hon. Gentleman who has been charged with the maintenance of law and order in Ireland should take place, and the release of the "suspects" be announced—I may be pardoned, I hope, if I also speak with some warmth. I need not assure the House that in what I have said I am not animated by the slightest disregard for
    1992
    Her Majesty's Government. I think they will do me the credit of believing that it is not my motive to attack them, and that if I have spoken with feeling, it is because we are in the middle of an important crisis, when we must not mince our words. My hon. Friends around me will not, I am sure, mince theirs, when we all shall be afforded an opportunity of stating, at the proper time, our opinions upon events which must have most grave and important consequences to the country at large.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, it might be quite right of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), who had been a consistent supporter of what he would call the coercive policy of the Government, to assume a judicial frame of mind, and say he would prefer to postpone uttering a final expression of opinion upon the announcement made by the Prime Minister until further information was before the House; but, for his (Mr. Charles Russell's) own part, believing, as he and those who acted with him did, that the policy of coercion in Ireland was not an aid to law and order—was not in reality suppressive of crime, but really provocative of crime—be did not require to wait, and would not hesitate at once to express his satisfaction at the announcement that the Government did not intend to continue that policy of coercion. He agreed with the hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. T. A. Dickson) that the Prime Minister's statement would be hailed with satisfaction in Ireland; and he believed it would do more to render the task of governing Ireland easy to the Executive than whole regiments of soldiers and troops of Constabulary. He also cordially agreed with the senior hon. Member for Tyrone (Mr. Macartney) in what he had said with reference to the late Chief Secretary for Ireland. He fully believed that the right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland with the best intentions, and that he spared no effort to discharge his duty according to his sense of what that duty was; but he felt bound emphatically to say that in a material part of his policy the right hon. Gentleman was acting on a mistaken view, though he was also bound to say that his policy was the policy of the Government, who had made no attempt to shelve it upon the right hon. Gentleman. He was utterly at a loss to

    1993
    understand what was the cause of the exceeding vehemence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Plunket). The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M 'Carthy) asked a question of importance, he (Mr. Russell) admitted, and of significance; but what was it? It was—whether there was to be a change in what the hon. Member called the mechanism of the government of Ireland? Did the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin desire to say that the existing form of government in Ireland in its administration was satisfactory? Did the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that if he was in Office he would not admit that there were grave and serious questions as to the Executive Government in Ireland? Was it not a confessed fact that there was not on the face of the world such a centralized and bureaucratic form of Government as that which existed in Ireland, and that there was no country where things were so ordered as to cast so little responsibility on the people? He (Mr. Russell) recognized as an important and necessary principle that the government of Ireland must rest mainly with the Irish people, and that before the Irish people could be expected in their utterances or their public acts to show a due sense of responsibility, they must have the power which brought with it a sense of responsibility. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made another complaint—forsooth, that the Irish Representatives had been consulted in this matter. Who were to be listened to, he (Mr. Charles Russell) would like to know, unless the Representatives of the people? Irish Members below the Gangway might not represent the opinions of his right hon. and. learned Friend (Mr. Plunket),or, indeed, what he (Mr. Charles Russell) himself in all respects wished; but those Gentlemen were, de facto, the Representatives of the great bulk of the people of Ireland. Was the government of Ireland to be carried on by the shutting of eyes and ears to facts, and to the opinions, statements, and information of the Representatives of the people? That did not seem to him to be statesmanship. There were other Irish Members besides those opposite; and he (Mr. Charles Russell) would say it was a happy augury if it was the fact that they were consulted—which he did not know. It was a happy augury if the
    1994
    Government were to take into consultation the Members sitting upon all sides of the House, representing all shades of opinion in Ireland—not, indeed, necessarily for the purpose of acting on the opinions of particular Members, but of gathering the sense of those who occupied the responsible position of the Representatives of the people. He believed that it would be found that the announcement of the Prime Minister, if carried out in its spirit, and in the meaning which the House had attributed to it, would work truly for the pacification of Ireland.
    MR. GIBSON: Sir, it is not my intention at all to criticize the remarkable statement which has been made to the House this afternoon by the Prime Minister at any great length. The proper time for doing that will be when we shall have an opportunity of considering the reasons which have induced the grave announcement that has been made—that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland would no longer be answerable for the peace and government of Ireland under the altered condition of affairs. The hon. and learned Member for Dundalk (Mr. Charles Russell) has introduced an element which will be jealously scanned—namely, how far and what Irish Members were consulted so as to arrive at an understanding upon this matter. My object in rising now is to elicit a few words from the Government which will enable loyal people in Ireland to feel some sentiment of safety. In the remarkable utterances of the Prime Minister, to which I have listened with a painful interest and close anxiety, I failed to hear one solitary word which would indicate that the Government, although they were about to make a remarkable change in their procedure, would steadily, firmly, and courageously protect the magistrates of Ireland in the discharge of their duties. I failed to hear anything in that direction even, when my right hon. and learned Colleague (Mr. Plunket), in warm and generous words, drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the matter, and asked that he would support the Irish Constabulary in the discharge of their difficult duties, rendered all the more difficult in consequence of the action of the Government. I am entitled to demand from the Prime Minister, before this Sitting closes, that he will, in a few

    1995
    strong, plain words, indicate to the loyal classes in Ireland that they will still be supported by the efforts of the Government, that law will be preserved, that terrorism will be struggled with, and that by what has been announced to-day it is not meant that the efforts of the Government to secure the first ends of government will be weakened or abandoned.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, I absolutely deny that there is any occasion for the assurance which has just been demanded from my right hon. Friend; but I rise for the purpose of saying two or three words in reply to the challenge which has been thrown out by the two right hon. and learned Gentlemen who represent the University of Dublin. The right hon. and learned Gentlemen complained that the Prime Minister, in the important statement which he has made, said nothing about the intention of the Government to support the magistrates and Constabulary in the discharge of the arduous duties which fell to their lot. Sir, why was it necessary that my right hon. Friend should make any statement upon a subject which is absolutely obvious? Who denies—who has ever doubted—that the support of the magistracy and Constabulary in the discharge of their duties is the first duty of the Government? And what is there in what fell from my right hon. Friend to-night which can make any Member of this House doubt for one moment that the Government are alive to the duty, and intend to perform it? On the contrary, my right hon. Friend has done more—he has admitted that the existing powers of the law are not, as they stand, sufficient to give to the magistrates, the Constabulary, and the authorities engaged in the preservation of peace all the power they ought to have in dealing with the question of the suppression of crime. He has announced the intention of the Government to appeal, at the very earliest opportunity, to this House to strengthen the law in these respects. Sir, can it be supposed by anyone who is not animated—I do not want to use strong language—but who is not animated by a strong Party feeling, that the Government, in coming forward and announcing their intention to strengthen the hands of the Constabulary and the magistrates in the discharge of their duty, are,
    1996
    in the meanwhile, going to omit the primary and Constitutional duty of giving them every support which the existing powers of the law will enable them to do? I am not going to enter into any discussion as to the policy which has been announced to the House tonight. Some hon. Gentlemen who have spoken, including, I think, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), seem to consider that a duty fell upon the Government not only to make a statement of their policy, but also to defend it. I venture to think it is not the duty of the Government to defend its policy until it is attacked. ["Oh, oh!"] I may hold an erroneous opinion in that respect, but that is the opinion I hold. Some hon. Members seem to think it is the duty of the Government first to formulate an attack upon themselves, and then to state the reasons which may be urged against their defence. I can hardly doubt that, after the gallant words which we have heard from hon. Members on the Opposition Benches this afternoon, we shall have that opportunity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) seemed to make it a matter of some complaint that we challenged him and his Party to attack and impeach our policy if they thought it worth impeachment. I cannot imagine that such an attack will be presented on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because the circumstances are such that he is no longer to be supported by hon. Members below the Gangway, who have, on previous occasions, connected themselves with the Party opposite so constantly. I do not suppose that it is only an occasion when a majority is expected, or, at all events, a large minority, that the conduct of the Government may be impeached by the Opposition. I conceive that the decision of whether a Motion of Censure is to be brought forward or not would not depend on the number of Members by which such a Motion would be supported, so much as by the justice of the cause. Therefore, I conceive that if the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues think what we have announced to-night worthy of the censure of the House and the country, they will not shrink from the obvious duty of an Opposition, and challenge our policy. I

    1997
    will only say further that I venture to think it is not the duty of the Government to formulate excuses which would throw any doubt on the wisdom of the course they have adopted.
    MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDsaid, that he should be sorry if the tepid speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen) should go forth as representing in any manner the general feeling of Members on the Liberal side of the House. The Prime Minister had said that the course they had taken would promote law and order. He (Mr. Arnold) felt that the Prime Minister had established a new claim to their confidence by the policy he had now announced.
    MR. SPEAKERannounced that, according to the Rules of the House, only one minute remained in which to dispose of the Question before the Chair. If it were not withdrawn a difficulty would arise.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
    The House suspended its Sitting at Seven of the clock.
    The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

MOTION.
  OXFORD UNIVERSITY (JESUS COLLEGE STATUTES).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIAN,in rising to move—
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will be graciously pleased to withhold her consent from the Statutes proposed by the University of Oxford Commissioners for Jesus College, which Statutes were laid upon the Table of this House on the 7th of February last,"
    said, that Jesus College had always been an essentially Welsh College; and the Government, in the Speech from the Throne, had announced their intention of dealing with the question of Intermediate and Higher Education in Wales. He thought, therefore, that that was an inopportune moment for disposing of the revenues of that College, because they ought to be dealt with as a portion of the scheme which the Government was going to bring forward. The large endowment of the College would form an important element in the question of
    1998
    Higher Education in Wales. It was not easy to state what the income of the College was. But from the Report of 1873 it would appear to fall little short of £15,000. The Statute as it now stood proposed that some of the Fellowships should be exclusively Welsh; but with the Scholarships it was different. Formerly there were 20 Welsh and 2 open Scholarships. The Statute proposed that there should be only 12 Welsh Scholarships and 8 open Scholarships, thus 40 per cent were to be open, and no longer Welsh. But there was a provision that, when the funds would admit of it, there should be 24 Scholarships, so that Wales would then only have half the Scholarships. Then there were 30 Exhibitions, which were formerly confined to Wales. Those Exhibitions were now to be in the discretion of the Principal and Fellows, and were in no way confined to Wales. No doubt, it would be said that most of the Colleges in Oxford and Cambridge were originally confined to particular counties, and that it had been found beneficial to throw them open. But the case was not parallel; for the same language was spoken in all the counties of England, whereas in Wales a language prevailed more different from English than any European language, except, perhaps, Sclavonian. It was, therefore, unjust to deprive young Welshmen of the advantage of competing only among themselves for prizes, founded exclusively for their benefit. Jesus College was founded in Queen Elizabeth's Reign on the petition of Dr. Hugh at Rhys, for the benefit of Wales. It was largely endowed by Sir Leoline Jenkins, a great lawyer and a Welshman, born near Cowbridge, in the county of Glamorgan. Sir Leoline Jenkins, who at one time was Principal of Jesus College, endowed Cowbridge School, where he had been educated, and at his death, in 1685, left his property to Jesus College, subject to a large provision for Cowbridge School. By his will Sir Leoline Jenkins had given priority among his bequests to those which referred exclusively to Cowbridge School. Although, in consequence of a decree of the Court of Chancery, Jesus College had legally taken the whole of the surplus money bequeathed under that will, there could be no doubt that morally Cowbridge School was entitled to its fair share; the College had no moral

    1999
    right to deprive the School of its fair proportion of the bequests. The income of the estate of Sir Leoline Jenkins was at the time of his death £407, and of that amount the School was entitled to 21 per cent. The income was now, however, £6,600 a-year, and the estate itself was a largely increasing one. There were minerals under the land of considerable value, and there was also land in London increasing in value. After paying the charges created by the testator, the School ought to receive £1,260 a-year; but it was at present only receiving £100 a-year. It was proposed by the Statutes to empower the Principal and Fellows of Jesus College to give £200 a-year more to Cowbridge School—£100 to the Master, and £100 to deserving boys. This was only a permissive power. The Statutes inflicted a great hardship on the School, for they proposed to perpetuate the injustice of the last 200 years. The Home Secretary would, no doubt, say the School was only entitled to the sum originally left to it. That might be law, but it was not justice; and it was not the testator's intention. He appealed to the House of Commons as a Court of Justice, and not of law. It was from that House alone that redress could be sought. It was as great a case of hardship as had ever come before the House, and if the Statutes were allowed to pass they would be continuing a great injustice. Nothing would benefit Wales, and especially South Wales, more than the erection of this School into a first-class Grammar School in the county which he had the honour to represent. The Welsh desired not to confine their education to technical subjects, but to have the benefit of a sound classical education, which was a matter the Government would have to deal with before long, and it would be advisable to weld this Institution into any measure they proposed. The hon. Gentleman concluded y moving the Resolution of which he had given Notice.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that She will he graciously pleased to withhold her consent from the Statutes proposed by the University of Oxford Commissioners for Jesus College, which Statutes were laid upon the Table of this House on the 7th of February last."—(Mr Hussey Vivian.)
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTwas understood to say that upon the general question of Welsh Education he agreed with his hon. Friend behind him, though upon the question before the House he had expressed opinions at which, if they had proceeded from the Benches opposite, now rather empty, he should have felt no surprise. In these cases a good deal was often said about the intentions of the pious Founder; and no doubt Sir Leoline Jenkins, the Founder of this School, was a man of note, for he was the greatest international lawyer of his day. He thought, however, his hon. Friend had given undue development to the wishes of the pious Founder. The Liberal Party had proceeded on the principle of abolishing close Colleges and close Fellowships; but they were now asked, practically, to adopt an opposite course. He asked on what ground they could keep the Fellowships of this College for a particular part of the country? He was not a particular admirer of the work of the Commission; but it was not possible to review it without destroying it altogether. It was to be deplored that such was the case. He was bound to say that in this matter he did not think the Commissioners were to be blamed. Jesus College was only a constituent part of the Colleges of Oxford; and if one College was thrown out of the whole contributory machine, it would be exempt from any scheme of University reform, and that was not a reasonable proposition. He hoped the House, therefore, would reject the proposal of the hon. Member.
    MR. THOROLD ROGERSsaid, that something, after all, was to be said for local Scholarships, &c., in connection with the Universities. The system ought to be judged by its results; and he did not hesitate to say that the Welsh endowments in Jesus College had been of considerable advantage both to the College and the University. It not unfrequently happened that persons of humble origin, who would otherwise have been unable to obtain an academical education, were enabled, by means of those endowments, to achieve a distinguished University career; and at present there were two striking instances of the service which the endowments of Jusus College had done. Of course, the present question was only the prelude to a more important one. As a matter of

    2001
    fact, Parliament passed an excellent Bill in 1877, by which at least £250,000 a-year was placed at the disposal of the Commissioners. How the Commissioners discharged their office would not then be proper to mention; but of all the Colleges which had come under their notice, Jesus College was the greatest sinner in the whole University. That College proposed to establish one Tutorial Fellow to every seven undergraduates. Each was to have, at least, £600 a-year; in addition to that he was to have, under certain conditions, a capitation fee of £5 per head on undergraduates, which was to come out of the funds for the advancement of Higher Education, so that £4,300 a-year would be absorbed by the Tutorial Fellows. These gentlemen would be engaged in delivering more or less vapid lectures, more vapid as they got older. The Commissioners had established 131 of these abominations, and there was every prospect of the whole University in time becoming absorbed by them. But, to turn to the particular case of Cowbridge School, it might, perhaps, be hard for the Fellows of Jesus to make any contribution to their funds, as was usually the case when the Foundation was rich; but that was not the question. Parliament had dealt thus with Eton College and the Dean and Chapter of Westminster in relation to Eton and Westminster Schools. It had been done in the case of the Regius Professor of Greek at Christ Church, and it was for the House to say whether it should not be done in the case of Cambridge. The present system inaugurated by the Commissioners, who had aimed at establishing a Body of Tutorial Fellows and enlarging the Professoriate, did not work well. The Tutorial Fellows "Boycotted" the Professors. He had lately spoken to Mr. Stubbs, a gentleman who had a reputation beyond the walls of his College, upon the subject. Mr. Stubbs told him some time ago that he had prepared a course of lectures on the Secular and Social Causes of the Reformation, and that the only audience he had consisted of three Masters of Arts and one lady. He believed that the Statutes which the Commissioners had framed for the University of Oxford would involve the irremediable ruin of the interests of Higher Education. He considered that if his hon. Friend carried his Motion—in
    2002
    which he supported him—they would set an example of how they should deal with Statutes like those in which the general interests of local education were sacrificed, and in which the best future of the highest education was, as he believed, not only brought into peril, but irretrievably doomed.
    MR. BRYCEsaid, he must protest against the language which the last speaker had used with regard to some persons at Oxford, and more particularly in regard to certain Heads of Colleges. Those Heads of Colleges who had been masters of schools were among the ablest and most energetic of the Oxford residents. No one among them was more generally respected than the Head of Jesus College, nor had any one shown a more sincere desire to do the best he could for the education of the Principality. The real question, however, now before the House was whether those Statutes should pass or not. The hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had complained that those Statutes did not do as much for education in Wales as ought to be done, and that the right of natives of the Principality to Scholarships and Fellowships was not sufficiently recognized. Now, he thought there was a very strong case for attaching certain special privileges to Welsh schools and Welsh students, and for making grants of money to a country which had been so much neglected, and which was so much in want of those endowments. But if they looked at the Statutes of Jesus College they would find that a good deal was done for Wales and for Welsh students, a considerable proportion of the Fellowships and Scholarships being restricted to natives of Wales or of Monmouthshire. If it was said that more ought to have been done, and that these Statutes ought to have reserved nearly the whole of the Scholarships and Fellowships for the Welsh schools, he replied that that would not be a real benefit to Welsh students themselves. It was far better for them that they should mix in the society of what, more or less, was an ordinary College, and that they should come into contact with young Englishmen, than that they should be confined to a purely Welsh atmosphere while their minds were being formed. In the interests of Wales itself, then, he thought that the Commis-

    2003
    sioners would have made a mistake if they had given a larger share than they had done of the College endowments to the students from Wales. With regard to the share to which Cowbridge School was entitled out of the endowments of Jesus College, the hon. Member asked them to disturb an arrangement which had existed for 200 years. Under that arrangement, based upon a decree in Chancery made in the Reign of James II.—a decree which was evidently right in law—Jesus College had enjoyed the property given it by Sir Leoline Jenkins without interruption or adverse claim. When the Commissioners came to deal with Jesus College they found certain property; they ascertained that that property belonged to the College in exactly the same way as any other property held by the College; and though they might have thought it would have been a good thing if Cowbridge School could get a larger share of them, they had to carry out an Act of Parliament, and they could not legally do what it did not authorize. There was not a single word in the Act of 1877 which would justify the appropriation of any property belonging to the College to any external Body or person. There was a discussion in that House in 1877 as to whether the Commissioners should have the power to devote a portion of the revenues of any College to purposes not directly connected with such College or with the University, and it was decided that they should have no such power. The Commissioners had done all that they legally could, and one might almost be surprised that they should have been able to go as far as they had gone in favour of Cow-bridge School.
    SIR MATTHEW WHITE RIDLEY,as a Member of the Commission, said, that he should have been content to have rested their defence upon the speech of the Home Secretary, for what had been said appeared to him to be conclusive. There was nothing that would have enabled them to give money to Cowbridge School; and, therefore, there was no case to answer. It was not their fault that the Act did not enable them to do more. If it was desired that more should be done, as in the case of other public schools, let a Bill be brought in to divert some of the endowments of Jesus College to practical education in Wales, and he
    2004
    would promise all the assistance he could in developing the project; but it was not fair to attack these Statutes or the Commissioners for that which they were unable to do. The result of rejecting these Statutes would be to leave things in the position in which they stood previous to the Act of 1877, and to deprive Cowbridge and other schools of endowments they now had, and to restore the former close and clerical character of the Foundation. Unquestionably, the action of the Commissioners, so far as regarded Jesus College, had not been an unfriendly one towards Wales or towards the School at Cowbridge. For his purpose it did not matter what the figures were; the Commissioners had gone to the full extent of their legal rights in doing what they could to improve and aid Higher Education in Wales. Not very much had been said as to the College Exhibitions; but he supposed that those to which allusion had been made were the Leoline Jenkins Exhibitions, which had been thrown into the general Exhibition fund. He believed, but was not certain, that there was a specific application of part of that fund; but, however that might be, the general policy of the Commissioners had been to enable the Governing Bodies of the Colleges to assist needy and deserving students. Many hon. Members who took an interest in this question would, perhaps, have been glad if some of the money which now brought Welsh students compulsorily to Jesus College had been diverted so as to help them to enter other Colleges; but the Commissioners had not the power of making any such change, and were obliged to confine the school and College endowments to the several schools and Colleges. If there was one set of Statutes which were practically unassailable, it was the Statutes of Jesus College, with respect to which the Commissioners had here and there stretched a point, in the belief that the circumstances of Wales were exceptional, and demanded that the Scholarships and Fellowships should be kept close. In any case, however, the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey vivian) was mistaken in supposing that Wales would be benefited by the rejection of the new Statutes. Not only was there no authority now in existence which had the power of re-casting them, but no

    2005
    future Commissioners were likely to relax them in a manner more favourable to the claims of Wales. The Commissioners had made an honest attempt, supported by the Principal of the College, to satisfy the legitimate wants of Welsh Education. If it was alleged that the Church of England religious teaching given in the College kept away Nonconformist students, he could only say that there was now less teaching of that kind than there used to be; that attendance at chapel was voluntary; and that nothing was done to prevent Nonconformists from being on an equality with the other members of the College. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers), who, as was well known, had his own views about the University, had made several complaints, but had not made sufficient allowance for the difficulties the Commissioners had had to meet. He (Sir Matthew Ridley) held that, on the whole, they had done their duty well; but it was not easy for them to impress their policy on all the Colleges; and so, wherever they had apparently failed to make reforms, it was to be remembered that they had not been free to act apart from the general feeling of the University. For the sereasons, he could not support the proposal to reject the Statutes of this College.
    SIR EDWARD REEDsaid, that the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) was very unsatisfactory; but a more extraordinary answer than that of the Home Secretary to the statement of the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) he had never heard. If Liberal principles were what the right hon. and learned Gentleman stated that night, Welsh Members had a good deal to learn. He (Sir Edward Reed) objected to the alienation of the revenues of Jesus College merely for the sake of bringing the English and the Welsh students into more intimate association with each other. According to the admitted facts of the case, in the original bequest in the 16th century of certain properties in Lambeth, it was provided that two-thirds of the income thence derived should go to Jesus College, and the other one-third to Cowbridge Grammar School. That being the case, the same ratio should be now observed when the property had increased seventeen-fold in value. If that
    2006
    rule were followed, Cowbridge School, instead of being pushed aside with £400 per annum, would be entitled to nearly £2,000 per annum. Within three years of the bequest coming into operation a question arose about a certain small residue, and the Court of Chancery decided that it should become the property of the College to which the whole had been bequeathed in trust, partly for the benefit of Cowbridge School, and now the College appropriated the larger part of the increased value. His contention and that of his hon. Friends was that Cowbridge Grammar School was as much before the mind of the testator as Jesus College. But because, 200 years ago, the Court of Chancery decided that the miserable residue then in question should go to the College, they were told that it was not only legally right that this College should go on appropriating nearly the whole of the property, but that it was absolutely wrong for them to ask that the case should be reconsidered.
    SIR JOHN MOWBRAYsaid, he could not enter into the controversy which had arisen between the hon. Member for Pembroke (Sir Edward Reed) and the Home Secretary as to what were Liberal principles. Nothing could be more difficult than for that House to consider the complicated legal question. The was asked to enter upon that inquiry upon an ex parte statement, and to set aside the decisions come to by the Commissioners after the most minute and careful examination; but there was really nothing which the House could do. This money could not be touched without the consent of Jesus College, inasmuch as the legal right of the College to the surplus of the property had been settled and established bylaw for two centuries. The Statutes could not be altered in part, but must be accepted or rejected as a whole. The hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Thorold Rogers) had spoken in so vague and discursive a manner that it was difficult to meet his remarks; but as regarded his observations on dogmatic schoolmasters, he (Sir John Mowbray) could say confidently that the present Principal of Jesus College was an able and accomplished scholar, who had been a successful schoolmaster, and was now an energetic Head of a College. He was one of the few Members now in the House who recollected the prolonged discussion which took place upon the Uni-

    2007
    versity Bills in 1854 and 1877; he remembered the difficulty then experienced in interesting the House, or maintaining its attention to the subject; and he thought even a Select Committee would experience the same difficulty now. If he might venture to make a suggestion, he thought that the University required rest. They had had University Commissions and University Acts in 1850, 1854, and again in 1874 and 1877; and it was most important that the new Statutes should have a fair trial, after which they might, if necessary, be revised. But, if they were to be revised, it would be proper to intrust the task to some Body more competent to deal with the question than that House—and that Body was the Universities Committee of the Privy Council, which ought to be strengthened and made efficient for the work.
    MR. MORGAN LLOYDsaid, that their case was that Jesus College was a Welsh College, founded and endowed for Welshmen; and the Commissioners, in failing to recognize that fact, had failed to satisfy any class in Wales. Jesus College, though locally situated in Oxford, was as much a Welsh College as Trinity College, Dublin, was an Irish College; and as all the endowments were intended for the Welsh people, and were, in justice, the property of the Welsh people, the Commissioners had no right to divert any portion of those endowments towards any other object. He believed the Commissioners had taken pains to form a fair scheme; but they had adopted a wrong principle, and had dealt with the College revenues as if they had not been the special property of the people of Wales.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he well remembered that the House was assured they might trust the Universities to deal with the Commission in a much more liberal way than they had done. The practical question was how they could best remedy the evil. The hon. Baronet opposite (Sir John Mowbray) had referred them to future legislation as the only means of gaining what was due. They would probably have an opportunity of dealing with the subject when the question of Welsh Education came on; and he would suggest that it would be well to leave this matter to that opportunity.
    MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, there had not been a single opportunity for the
    2008
    discussion of the important Statutes connected with the Universities and Colleges, which in a very few days would become law. The intention of Parliament, in providing that they should lie on the Table for a certain time before they became law, would thus be defeated. There was an important Body—the Universities Committee of the Privy Council—to which alone hereafter would belong the revision of any of these University Statutes. Some proposition should be made by the Government for the re-constitution of that Committee before the Session ended. The matter bad been brought before Parliament at the end of last Session; but, owing to a disagreement between the two Houses, nothing was done. It was the duty of the Government not to delay in that matter. He hoped that the hon. Member for Glamorganshire (Mr. Hussey Vivian) would be satisfied with the discussion, and would not press his Motion to a division.
    MR. HUSSEY VIVIANsaid, he could not avoid thanking his right hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) for his kind lecture upon Liberalism. His right hon. and learned Friend appeared to be greatly in love with any arrangement, however unjust, which had the prescription of 200 years in its favour. Now, certainly, he (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had learned his Liberalism in a different school. He had always been under the impression that no prescription gave any right to the continued existence of an abuse, if it were an abuse, and he could not help thinking that it was an abuse, when they had a College which educated some 60 students, and which spent in doing so a sum of £15,000 a-year. He did not think that Institutions of that kind could be defended, or that anyone who took exception to Institutions of that kind should be accused of a want of Liberalism. He thought that true Liberal principles would rather lie in the proper use of ancient endowments to develop and extend, as far as possible, the benefits of education in the present day. His right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that no property would be safe if a prescription of 200 years was to be attacked. This property was not private property, but a public endowment left for the benefit of the public. That was a doctrine he

    2009
    was astonished to hear come from his right hon. and learned Friend; and it was very much in contrast with the calm and excellent statement made by the hon. Baronet the Member for North Northumberland (Sir Matthew White Ridley). He (Mr. Hussey Vivian) had no wish whatever to attack the Commissioners, nor did he think he had said anything which could be construed into an attack upon the Commission. He had simply taken an exception to a Statute proposed for Jesus College. He did not say that the Commissioners could have proposed a larger provision for Cowbridge School, because he believed that their powers in that respect were limited. He had taken exception to that one Statute becoming the law of the land, because he thought that it was absolutely necessary that they should protest in the strongest manner against the perpetuation of what he still held to be one of the grossest cases of injustice which had ever come under his notice. Certainly, the matter should not rest where it was. It was probable that if he went to a division now, with the combined opposition of the Government and the Conservatives, he would be left in a small minority; but he thought that it would not have been consistent with his duty, if he allowed this Statute to become law without protesting in the strongest manner against it, and bringing forward publicly the gross injustice which had existed for the last 200 years. He was sensible that it was of no use whatever to put the House to the trouble of a division after the declaration of Her Majesty's Government that they did not intend to support him in this Motion. But, at the same time, he wished to state that, whenever an opportunity occurred of redressing this grievance, he should undoubtedly endeavour, to the best of his ability, to do so, and especially when they were afforded an opportunity of discussing the question of Higher and Intermediate Education in Wales. He begged distinctly to give Notice that when that question was brought on he would revert to this subject, and that he would do his very best to obtain for the ancient Grammar School at Cowbridge the full enjoyment of the endowment left to it 200 years ago. He begged now to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  DISTRESS AMENDMENT BILL.— [Bill 73.]
  (Sir Henry Holland, Sir Walter B. Barttelot, Mr. Joseph Pease, Mr. Cropper.)

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  SIR HENRY HOLLANDsaid, that in moving that the Speaker should leave the Chair, in order that the House might go into Committee on this Bill, he wished to explain that, as the whole subject of distress was now under the consideration of a Committee upstairs, he did not propose to ask for more than that the Speaker should leave the Chair. What he proposed was that, when the House got into Committee, the formal Motion for postponing the Preamble should be agreed to, and after Clause 1 had been passed he would move to report Progress.
  Motion made, and Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair,"—(Sir Henry Holland,)—put, and agreed to.
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Preamble postponed.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again,"—(Sir Henry Holland,)—put, and agreed to.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Tuesday next.

METROPOLIS MANAGEMENT AND BUILDING ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg, Admiral Sir John Hay, Sir Andrew Lusk.)

[BILL 107.] COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Sir James M'Garel-Hogg.)
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he thought that, at that hour of the night, it was impossible for the House to discuss the Bill with any advantage. The Bill was a very important one, and the second reading of it was passed with out any statement having been made by the hon. Baronet who was in charge of it; and who still, without making any statement with regard to it, now proposed to go into Committee. There

2011
were very important matters affecting the City of London raised in the Bill, which he was quite sure the hon. Baronet would consider when his attention was called to them. Therefore, it was probable that they would really gain time by postponing the Committee, because the opposition now raised to the Bill might be disarmed if certain alterations were made in it affecting the Metropolis generally, but affecting also, very materially, the City of London. If the Bill were carried in its present shape those who had the direction of improvements in the City would be prevented from acting, and from using the powers already possessed by them under special Acts of Parliament. The clauses of the Bill certainly required more consideration than could be devoted to them at that hour of the night. There were altogether 25 clauses in the Bill, and most of them affected the City of London. In the City of London, a Body called the Commissioners of Sewers had the management and direction of the laying out of the streets, and the street improvements; but if the Bill passed as it now stood they would be entirely deprived of their authority. That authority was conferred upon them by more than one Act of Parliament, and the passing of this new Bill would prevent them from carrying out those Acts for the benefit of the inhabitants of the City and of the Metropolis generally. It was well known that the City of London still retained many of the peculiarities of all old cities; many of its streets were very narrow, and when improvements were being effected, it would be impossible, in many cases, to make streets where streets were most urgently required, because, under this Bill, no street was to be made that should be less than 40 feet in width. It was well known that in many parts of the City, where new streets and thoroughfares had been most advantageously opened out, it would have been altogether impossible to provide that they should be 40 feet wide. Consequently, if the Commissioners of Sewers were to be controlled by the provisions of the present Bill, many of the improvements, which it was still desirable to carry out, would be prevented. He was afraid that the Bill bad been drawn up without proper thought; and it would be improper to call upon the House to consider all the
2012
important details at such an hour of the night, when it was impossible to examine them thoroughly. Then, again, as to the question of making thoroughfares. There were many thoroughfares in the City of London that were simply footways, and the Commissioners were constantly extending these footways and opening up new communications; but their future action in that respect would be prevented by one of the provisions of the Bill. As the Bill stood, it would be necessary for the authorities in the City to apply for permission to the Metropolitan Board of Works. Such a provision might be all very well where they were dealing with new districts—where the land had not been built upon already. It was essential that in such a case the streets authorized to be constructed should be wide, and laid out with due regard to all modern sanitary requirements, and to the communication proposed to be effected with existing thoroughfares. But it was impossible to do that in the City of London. The circumstances of the City were exceptional; and, therefore, the City ought to be exempted from the operation of the provisions of the Bill. Hon. Members might feel some surprise that the City should ask for exemption from a measure which was introduced for the general advantage of the Metropolis; but the City already possessed Parliamentary powers fully adequate to enable them to carry out their own improvements, and the authorities ought not to have their efforts crippled by the intervention of another public Body. The Corporation of London were not backward in carrying out necessary improvements. Notwithstanding the difficulties they had to contend with, they had not been deterred by any question of expense from undertaking any improvement that the interests of the public demanded. The present Bill, under the circumstances he had pointed out, would require careful consideration, clause by clause; many of its provisions would require material alterations, fresh clauses would have to be brought up, and the whole framework of the Bill would require reconsideration and considerable discussion. No statement was made by the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) on the second reading of the Bill, beyond a short explanation that it was merely a formal

2013
measure to carry out an Order of the House. In moving that the House should go into Committee upon it, the hon. Baronet still refrained from making a full explanatory statement, and moved its committal as a mere matter of form. But he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) was satisfied that when the Bill got into Committee, and the clauses came up for consideration, they would be found to be anything but a mere matter of form; and certainly the hon. Baronet would not have expedited matters by having abstained from making any preliminary statement. In introducing a Bill of this nature, some understanding ought to have been come to between the Metropolitan Board of Works and the authorities of the City of London. There ought to be a mutual good understanding between the two Bodies. It was the duty of both to carry out improvements for the benefit of the Metropolis; but it was not necessary that either should interfere with the action of the other. Both of them had different spheres of action, and both possessed very large powers. Hitherto such powers had been used beneficially for the inhabitants of the Metropolis; and this was not the first time that the Metropolitan Board of Works had introduced clauses into a Bill which would give them the right of interfering materially with the powers possessed by the City. But the House bad always declined to sanction such clauses; and he must say that he looked upon the action of the Board of Works, in the present instance, with some surprise and astonishment. The second reading was obtained at the close of the Day Sitting on Wednesday last, and it was obtained rather as a matter of surprise. There were three Motions on the Paper against it; but the hon. Gentlemen who had given Notice of such Motions were not in their places between a quarter to 6 and 6 o'clock, and the second reading was moved and carried without opposition, the hon. Baronet being in his place to watch the interests of the Bill. But the second reading having been accomplished in that way, surely it became all the more necessary that the principle and objects of the Bill should be explained and discussed on the Motion for going into Committee. The hon. Baronet, however, had not considered it his duty to take such a course, and had contented himself with moving, as a
2014
matter of form, the committal of the Bill. Some of the provisions were admirable ones. It provided, very properly, that no temporary or permanent erections should be constructed within the district under the control of the Metropolitan Works without an application, in the first instance, to the Board. But was it right that the City of London should be placed in the same position as a private individual in regard to the Board of Works, and that the Board should have power to control and regulate the proceedings of the City in regard to all questions affecting street improvements? At the present moment the City of London was engaged in the erection of additional Courts in connection with their Court of Common Council, and they were carrying out other public buildings. Was it to be tolerated that in regard to similar vented from carrying them out, unless, in works in future they were to be pre-the first instance, they applied to, and obtained the sanction of, the Metropolitan Board. Such an intention was never put forward when the Board of Works was established. He was satisfied that his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board would say that if that was the meaning of the Bill it was not his intention; but, unfortunately, the House could not take his hon. Friend's intentions. They could only take the provisions they found in the Bill, and in regard to those provisions it was highly essential that so important a Body as the Corporation of the City of London should be fully protected, and should have an opportunity of going thoroughly into the matter. The Bill consisted of three parts, and it raised a great variety of questions. Clause 7 related to the construction of new streets; and as the hon. Baronet had not made any statement whatever in reference to the provisions of the Bill, it was necessary that he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) should do so, in order to justify the course he was now taking. Clause 7 proposed that after the passing of the Act, any person forming a road passage or footway, which did not form a direct communication between two streets, should be required, in the first instance, to obtain the approval and sanction of the Metropolitan Board of Works. [Cries of"Divide!"] The impatience displayed by the House to enter into the question at all showed the impropriety of the course pursued by the

2015
promoters of the Bill, and quite justified his assertion that this was not the time when the House should be required to go into a discussion of the Bill clause by clause. But he wanted to know if it was more likely, when the Speaker was out of the Chair, that a Committee would feel itself in any better condition to go into the Bill clause by clause? The clause to which he was now referring was one of the most important parts of the Bill. It stated that where any road, passage, or way would not afford a direct communication between two streets, the persons by whom it was proposed to be made should, at least three months before such road, passage, or way was commenced or laid out, make an application to the Board of Works giving notice of the intention, and setting out a plan of the proposed street, with such particulars as the Board might direct; and that the Board might, within such period of three months, lay down any conditions it considered necessary, or might altogether decline to sanction the laying out of such road, passage, or way. The existence of such a clause would prevent the Commissioners of Sewers for the City of London from carrying out any new street improvements, or laying out any road, passage, or way between one street and another, without being delayed in commencing their works for a period of three months. If the clause were carried, the City of London would be required to pray the Board of Works to permit them to make a new street; and if the Board contested the matter, the interests of the public would suffer, and street improvements which, under existing powers of the City authorities, were now making day by day would be entirely stopped. The Commissioners of Sewers met for this very purpose once a fortnight, and their committees weekly, and it was very rarely that a sitting was held without some suggestion being made for opening out a communication between one street and another, and for carrying out other improvements to facilitate the traffic from one part of the City to another. Most hon. Members would be acquainted with the neighbourhood of Throgmorton Street and Drapers' Hall. Large improvements had been carried out there by certain of the City Companies, who possessed the whole of the land between Throgmorton Street and London Wall. The new street
2016
—Throgmorton Avenue—was open for carriages between two-thirds or three-fourths of its length, and then came another portion that was not open for carriages, but only as a footway. This large improvement, forming a new communication between the Bank and London Wall, and the Liverpool Street Railway Station, had been effected without any expense whatever to the City, at the cost of two of the City Companies acting under the direction and permission of the Commissioners of Sewers. This important improvement could not have been made under the present Bill. Surely the Commissioners of Sewers were fully adequate to be intrusted with the carrying out of such improvements, which involved the expenditure of large sums of money, and the general convenience of the public, without the interference of the Metropolitan Board of Works. Towards the cost of some of the improvements in the City the Board of Works had themselves contributed, because they believed that they were improvements not for the advantage of the City only, but for that of the whole of the Metropolis. The question, then, was whether the Commissioners of Sewers were to be deprived, by a Bill in which their names were not even mentioned, of the powers which they already possessed under Parliamentary sanction, and which they had exercised for many years to the advantage of the inhabitants of London? Seeing that the second reading of the Bill was carried by a surprise at the close of a Wednesday's Sitting, he did not think his hon. Friend the Member for Truro should persist, at such a late hour of the night, in forcing it through Committee. He believed he (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) had made out a sufficiently strong case, at any rate, for the postponement of the Motion, until an opportunity could be afforded for the full and complete discussion of its provisions. He did not deny that many of the clauses contained in the measure were necessary for the Metropolis generally; but what he contended was that the City of London ought not to be included within them, as they would act most detrimentally in hampering the future action of the City, so far as new street improvements were concerned. They would necessarily occasion great delay in the execution of new works, and would assuredly give rise to

2017
a considerable amount of friction between two important public bodies—the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works. They had already received from the Secretary of State (Sir William Harcourt) an intimation that great changes with regard to both Bodies were looming in the distance, that the Metropolitan Board was not to be placed on a permanent footing, and that the Corporation of London was to be got rid of altogether. The Chairman of the Metropolitan Board, now omnipotent, was hereafter to be placed in a subordinate position. Was it right, then, under the guise of a Bill of this nature, to initiate great and important changes in the management of the affairs of the City. It would be most inconvenient to pass a clause such as that which he had indicated, and to pass it, also, in the absence of anything in the nature of explanation. He had no wish to attribute motives to the Metropolitan Board, or to allege that there was any desire on their part to take advantage of the City of London; but what he wished to point out in reference to this clause was that, in reference to street and footways within the City, it would materially cripple the future beneficial action of the Commissioners of Sewers; and he would leave the House to say whether this was the right time for depriving the Commissioners of the powers they possessed and handing them over to the Board of Works. At the present moment, when the City contemplated important improvements, it was customary to inform the Metropolitan Board, and very frequently the Board were asked to contribute towards the expense. The consequence was that great harmony prevailed between the two Bodies, which would be materially disturbed, if not entirely destroyed, by a proposal to place the Corporation under the control and authority of the Board. The Bill provided that hereafter any proposal to form a roadway should be subject to such conditions as the Metropolitan Board might think it necessary to prescribe; and until the sanction of the Board was given no such road, passage, or way should be laid out or proceeded with. It was also provided that any person infringing the Act should, for such offence, be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40 s. He would simply ask upon what principle of justice or propriety the House of Commons were
2018
to be asked to place the Commissioners of Sewers under the authority of the Metropolitan Board, and to subject them to penalties, for merely carrying out important public improvements to their own satisfaction? He did not think the hon. Baronet the Member for Truro could be aware how the clauses of the Bill would affect the City of London, because, if he were, he would scarcely dream of forcing them through Committee at that hour of the night. Clause 8 said—
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears to me to be going through the Bill clause by clause. In so doing he is anticipating the functions of the Committee.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he had no wish to transgress, or to go through the Bill clause by clause; but he must say that the Bill, in many of its clauses, contained provisions that materially affected the City of London; and he did not think the House ought to allow it to go into Committee until some arrangement was arrived at, or, at any rate, until the hon. Member for Truro explained the objects of the measure. [Cries of "Divide!"] It might be wise to prevent persons from laying out thoroughfares in other parts of the Metropolis; but regulations that were adapted for the Metropolis generally would not apply to the City.
CAPTAIN MAXWELL-HERONrose to Order. He wished to ask if the hon. Member was not trespassing upon the indulgence of the House, and really wasting intentionally the time of the House?
MR. SPEAKER: I have already pointed out to the hon. Member that it is irregular, at this stage of a Bill, to go through the measure clause by clause, and I trust that the hon. Member will observe the intimation I have made to him.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he would certainly endeavour to comply with the intimation conveyed by the right hon. Gentleman. The Bill dealt not only with the questions he had pointed out, but with the amount of space to be left in the City when new buildings were contemplated. It was not a Bill to give additional powers to the Metropolitan Board of Works to those which they now possessed; but it was an attempt to bring in a Bill to interfere

2019
with and obstruct the action of the Corporation of London, and to prevent them from carrying out their own wishes in instituting improvements for relieving the traffic of the City, and to meet the growing wants of the public. It must be borne in mind that the City of London contributed very largely towards the cost of the improvements made outside the City by the Metropolitan Board of Works. For every sovereign expended the City contributed half-a-crown; but towards the improvements effected in the City itself, if the Metropolitan Board of Works considered them local improvements, they did not contribute a farthing. They were made and completed not out of the income from the estates of the City, but out of funds collected by taxes levied on the inhabitants living within the City. Consequently, the Metropolitan Board of Works were not asking for authority over funds which they contributed themselves, but over funds contributed solely by occupiers within the City. The rest of the Metropolis was in a different position, and the two portions of the Metropolis were on a distinct and separate footing. All the City demanded was that they should be allowed to carry out their own improvements without being interfered with by the Metropolitan Board, in the same way as they had carried them out hitherto, at the expense of the citizens themselves. He begged to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the hon. Member for Truro, that the House should resolve itself into Committee on that day six months.
MR. BOORDsaid, that, after the exhaustive speech they had just listened to, he did not propose to address many words to the House. He had no doubt that the hon. Member had very forcibly conveyed his views to the House. At any rate, if he had not done so, it was not the hon. Member's fault. He merely rose now to second the Amendment of the hon. Member, in order that, as a Metropolitan Member, he might be able to express to the House the really serious objections that were entertained towards the Bill. He believed that many weighty objections would be urged to it by the Local Boards of the Metropolis. No doubt, the hon. Baronet (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) would attempt to make capital out of the fact that the Bill had already passed a second reading, and,
2020
therefore, its principle had already been accepted by the House; but, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) had explained, the second reading was obtained at a Wednesday Sitting, between a quarter to 6 and 6 o'clock, when, unfortunately, he (Mr. Boord), and other hon. Members who had given Notice of opposition to the Bill, were accidentally absent. The Local Boards in his district objected very strongly to the Bill, because it altered the Metropolis Management Act of 1862, in a sense injurious to them, and conferred large additional powers upon the Metropolitan Board of Works. It enabled the Board, among other things, to annex conditions to the erection of buildings, which were not required, and which the Local Boards entirely objected to. It prevented the City of London from making a roadway under 40 feet in width. In the suburbs of London that, no doubt, was a moderate restriction; but it ought not to apply to the narrow streets and passages of the City. After what had taken place, he would not weary the House with any further remarks; but he would content himself with seconding the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite, that the Bill be committed on that day six months.
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House will, upon this day six months, resolve itself into the said Committee."—(Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence.)
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, the discussion, which had occupied the last hour, illustrated two things—first, the mode in which Public Business was conducted in the House; and, in the second place, what chance the Metropolis had of any improvement in its management. In the first place, they saw the manner in which a Bill—not a mere Private Bill, but a Bill introduced by an important local Body—was dealt with. The House might have gone into Committee upon it, and might have made valuable progress with its details. But the worthy Alderman had occupied the greater part of an hour in saying what might have been said in five minutes. [Mr. WARTON: Only 20 minutes.] It appeared

2021
that the City of London were prepared to object to any Bill brought in by the Metropolitan Board of Works which in any way affected the City of London; and the position was one with which the House had long been familiar. His hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) stated that the Bill might be of advantage to the rest of the Metropolis, and that the whole of the Metropolis, except the City, would be benefited by the adoption of the main part of the Bill.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he had stated that there were certain clauses in the Bill which might be of advantage to the Metropolis generally.
SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTsaid, he thought that was a good reason why the House should go into Committee upon it. He believed that out of the 4,000,000 people contained in the Metropolis, the City of London only represented about 50,000; and for the great majority of the 4,000,000 the Bill was, in many respects, a good Bill. Therefore, if they were to have the time of the House occupied in resisting that which was admitted to be for the good of 4,000,000 people, because it was considered possible that in some way or other it might affect the prerogatives of 50,000, they might as well give up the work of legislation altogether. This was a sample of the manner in which the Corporation of London were prepared to deal with legislation for the Metropolis, and to take up the time of the public. There might be objections to some of the clauses of the Bill, as the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Boord) stated; but what was the character of those objections? The hon. Gentleman said the limit of 40 feet was not a limit which ought to be laid down for the construction of streets within the City. But surely that was a matter for the consideration of a Committee. As far as he could learn, no ground of objection had been raised against the Bill which might not easily be disposed of in Committee. He did not intend to follow the irregularity committed by his hon. Friend behind him, and discuss the Bill clause by clause. Anyone could see that the measure was essentially one of details; and if they were to say that at 12 o'clock at an Evening Sitting, upon a private Member's
2022
night, they would not go into a Bill of this kind, they might just as well give up doing any Business at all. Nothing, in his opinion, could be more unreasonable than that an hon. Member should get up at 12 o'clock at night and object to proceeding with a Bill in Committee. He expressed no opinion as to the merits of the Bill generally, except that it was a Bill introduced into the House and promoted by a responsible authority, and that it was admitted by his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to be a Bill which contained many clauses that would be of advantage to the Metropolis generally, and to 4,000,000 people who lived outside the City. Nothing could be more unreasonable than to say that the measure could not be discussed at that hour because the City was affected by it. No question whatever had been raised upon the principle of the measure; and it would be perfectly competent for his hon. Friend, when they got into Committee, to state his objection to the clauses. His hon. Friend could, if he chose, introduce a single clause, stating that the Bill should not in any way affect the prerogatives or rights of the City of London. By that means the whole object for which he sought to throw out what he admitted to be a valuable measure would be accomplished. That seemed to him to be the business-like way of dealing with the matter, and the whole object desired by the Members representing the City of London would be attained by adopting it. It must not be forgotten that the Bill was introduced by an hon. Member filling the responsible position of Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works. He should, therefore, support the hon. Baronet in getting the Bill into Committee, so that the House might proceed at once to consider its details.
SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSwould only say one word. He had been waiting anxiously in the House all night in the hope that he might get a chance of proceeding with the Settled Land Bill—a much more important measure than that which was now under discussion. If he could have obtained the opportunity, he should gladly have welcomed it, in the hope that they might have made some progress. In regard to the present Bill, he agreed with the observations of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt),

2023
that the observations of the hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) might have been compressed into very much less space, and perhaps the speech itself might have formed a proper subject for the clôture. He would not say more upon that subject; but he thought his hon. Friend the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board was entitled to go into Committee upon the Bill. The measure was essentially one of detail, and as the only object of the hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Lawrence) was to amend the provisions of the Bill, he could easily accomplish that object by introducing fresh clauses.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGappealed to the House to assist him in the trying difficulties of his position, in endeavouring to bring in measures for the benefit of the Metropolis. He was most grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, the present Home Secretary (Sir William Harcourt), and to his right hon. Friend the late Home Secretary (Sir R. Assheton Cross), for the assistance they had given to him on the present occasion. His hon. Friend opposite, the worthy Alderman, who so admirably defended the interests of the City of London (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) complained that he (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) had not, on the second reading of the Bill, entered at length into any of the details of the measure. His reason for that was that the Bill contained a number of clauses which had already been introduced in a Private Bill. He had explained that those clauses would be withdrawn and included in a Public Bill. It was to give effect to this understanding that the present measure had been introduced. In point of fact, the provisions of the Bill had been before the House for the last six months, because, having been originally contained in a Private Bill, it was necessary that previous Notice of them should be given. [An hon. MEMBER: The Session has not yet lasted six months.] He was quite aware of that fact; but the hon. Member seemed to forget that in the case of a Private Bill it was necessary to give Notice of what was intended to be done. The details of the measure had, consequently, been a long time before the public, and everybody knew what was proposed. He had not, therefore, felt it necessary to enter into a discussion as to the details of the Bill; and he certainly
2024
hoped that when any person occupying the position he did came forward with a measure for the improvement of the Metropolis Management Act he would receive the assistance of the House. It was not the first time that the question had been under discussion, and he hoped the House would allow the Bill to go into Committee. It was simply a matter of detail, and if his hon. Friend the Member for the City would bring up a clause it should be fairly considered.
MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, he certainly thought that the right hon. Gentleman below him (Sir R. Assheton Cross) had shown some ingratitude towards the City of London. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman that when he sat as a Minister upon the Benches opposite, and appealed to the country, the City of London was the only place which gave him a generous and unwavering support. Yet the reward they now received was that the right hon. Gentleman, now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench as the Representative of the Conservative Party, turned against the only constituency that gave him continued support on that occasion. Under those circumstances, he thought he had some reason to complain of the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman on this occasion. It was quite evident that the right hon. Gentleman cared nothing about the City of London. [Cries of"Order!" and "Question!"] He would turn now to the remarks which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir William Harcourt). They all knew that he was going to bring in a Bill to abolish the Corporation of the City of London. Of course, he had no claim upon the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The City of London did not support the Government of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was so distinguished a Member. ["Question!"] He believed that he was speaking to the question. He was speaking upon a Bill which very much concerned the interests of his constituents; and, therefore, he thought he had a right to ask the indulgence of the House. He could not appeal to the Home Secretary to support any Bill which interfered with the ancient duties of the City of London; but he wished to make a remark on the statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had made.

2025
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the population of the City of London only represented about 50,000 persons. That might be perfectly true so far as regarded those who slept within the City; but he believed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, before he filled the high and distinguished position he now so worthily held, occasionally went into the City of London, and he must be aware that there was another City altogether by day, and that the number of those who traversed its streets in the day time was very much larger than those who slept in it by night. Therefore, he did not think it was fair to throw in the teeth of the City of London the circumstance of the comparatively small number of persons who slept there. They ought rather to look at the question of the importance and wealth of the City of London, and the large number of persons who entered it for business purposes during the day. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would only look round the House—not, perhaps, at that particular moment, but when it was fuller than it was now—he would see how very much larger a number of Members of the House were ratepayers of the City of London than of any other constituency of the country. He did not suppose that so large a number of Members of that House were represented by any other hon. Members as those who were represented by his hon. Colleague and himself. Under these circumstances, he thought they were entitled to complain of the way in which the City of London was treated on this occasion. His hon. Colleague had gone very fully into the arguments against the Bill, and he had no wish to repeat what his hon. Friend had so well said; but, at the same time, he thought it was their duty, in the interests of their constituents, to enter a protest against the provisions of the Bill. It had been said that they ought to allow the Bill to go into Committee, and that they could then raise any question in regard to the clauses of the Bill. But he would remind the House of what was well said by an hon. Friend of his—whom he did not at present see in his place—the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), in regard to another Bill—namely, that when they got into Committee the Government of the day were absolute. He gathered from the remarks which had been made
2026
by the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he intended to support the clauses of the Bill; and he felt that it was only the duty of himself (Mr. R. N. Fowler) and his hon. Colleague (Mr. Alderman W. Lawrence) to make representations against the character of the legislation proposed to be introduced. He had no wish to detain the House longer. He concurred cordially in all that had fallen from his hon. Friend. His hon. Friend had ably put the arguments against the Bill; and he would appeal to the House to consider carefully before they passed a measure the effect of which would be to place very great difficulties in the way of those who might hereafter be required to make street improvements within the City of London.
MR. DIXON-HARTLANDsaid, that, before the Bill went into Committee, he should be glad to receive some sort of pledge from the hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) that the question of the safety of the theatres would be dealt with. He thought it might be possible to introduce a clause into the Bill giving the Board of Works the power of dealing effectively with the exits of the theatres. In the Act of 1878, which it was proposed by the Board of Works to amend by the present Bill, the word "moderately" was introduced in relation to any structure dedicated to purposes of public amusement; but the law would hold that the word was to be regarded according to the reasonable interpretation of the word, and not in regard to what the public might require. Therefore, before the Bill went into Committee, he should like to have some pledge that it was intended to deal with the exits of the theatres.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, he was afraid that his hon. Friend could not have read the Bill. This subject had been dealt with in a Bill which had already gone up to the House of Lords, and in which he had inserted the clause he had promised. In due course he hoped that that Bill would become an Act of Parliament.
MR. WARTONsaid, that in the peculiar circumstances under which the Bill had been brought in, seeing that its provisions had not been explained, and that there was no discussion upon the second reading, the other stages ought not to be

2027
hurried through. [Cries of"Divide!"] He intended, in spite of the cries he heard, to make a protest on this occasion. They had been taunted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary in the most supercilious style. ["Order!"] He believed that the word was quite Parliamentary, although the word "bare" might not be. They had been taunted as to the way in which the Public Business of the House was carried on; and he presumed that the right hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to found upon what had taken place a fresh argument in favour of the clôture; but even the clôture, when introduced by Her Majesty's Government, would not apply to a ease like this, because there were not 100 Liberal Members calling out for it. ["Question!"] If hon. Members opposite would only remember that fact they would see that their efforts to silence a Member under the clôture might be as little successful then as it was now. Of course, it was not for him to dispute any ruling of the Chair; but he thought it was right he should know what the Rules of the House were. It was extremely inconvenient, when it was proposed that the House should go into Committee upon a Bill, to be told that they were not able to discuss the clauses of the measure. They had often been told that they must not, upon such a question, go back upon the principle of the Bill, and therefore it was difficult to discover what it was they ought to do. He could not for the life of him see what the principle of the Bill was, except that it was to do away with the authority and rights of the Corporation of the City of London. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary was always fond of doing everything in his power to injure the prestige and destroy the rights of the Corporation of London. It was perfectly certain that at the last General Election nothing gave more umbrage to the Leader of the Government than the fact that the great and important constituency of the City of London, by an overwhelming majority, asserted their belief in Conservative principles. He hoped hon. Members would give due Notice when Bills of this kind were coming on, so that he might take care to be in the House. The opponents of the measure had been misled by the fact that certain of the clauses to which objection had been taken had been
2028
struck out of the Private Bill, the officers of the House having stated that they could not be allowed to remain in a Private Bill. They had not anticipated that those clauses would be inserted in a Public Bill. The opponents had, therefore, been misled, not that he was hinting at anything like a breach of faith on the part of the promoters.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: I beg leave to state most distinctly—
MR. WARTONclaimed to be in possession of the House. He said again that he was not, in the slightest degree, attributing anything like impropriety to the promoters. One danger might pass and another might crop up, it seemed; and whilst this was very inconvenient he did not say there was anything wrong in it. No doubt, the Chairman of Committees or the Clerks at the Table had told the promoters of the Private Bill that the clauses could not be introduced. He did not blame those in charge of the Public Bill for taking advantage of every opportunity they had for advancing it; but, in the present instance, the result of that course had been that there had been no statement made as to what the measure was. Was it a trifling Bill or an important one? It was a long one, having no fewer than 26 clauses, some of them 30 or 40 lines in length. It was not, therefore, a measure to hurry through Parliament. He should recommend the opponents to the Bill to divide, not because he thought there was any chance of their being successful, but as a protest against the measure. He trusted those in charge of the Bill would be satisfied with moving the Speaker out of the Chair, and the House into Committee, and that he would say he would not go on with the Bill until the House had had reasonable time to consider it. If they would adopt this course, no doubt the opponents of the Bill would be equally reasonable, and would give ample and fair consideration to the clauses, and amongst the "opponents" he clearly ranked the Home Secretary, who gloatingly delighted in seizing every opportunity that presented itself for showing hostility to the City of London.
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, it was not his intention to trouble the House to divide.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.
Bill considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to.
Clause 4 (Metropolis Management Acts and Part II. of Act to be construed as one Act).
MR. WARTONsaid, he wished to put a question to the highest legal authority of the Government at present in the House—namely, the Attorney General for Ireland, whose experience and knowledge of the City of London was not extensive. ["Order!"] He meant no disrespect. He had always admired the righthon. and learned Gentleman's statements in regard to Ireland; but it was not to be expected that the Attorney General for Ireland should be familiar with the law relating to the City of London, and he had made the allusion to which exception had been taken because there was no English Law Officer in the House. He would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he could inform the Committee, before they passed this clause, whether "Metropolis Act" included the City?
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Yes, Sir; it does.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Warton.)
MR. ALDERMAN W. LAWRENCEsaid, he did not wish to impede the progress of the Bill in Committee. He did not
2030
object to this clause passing; but he put it to the hon. Baronet (Sir James M'Garel-Hogg) whether it would not be well, after passing Clause 5, to agree to Progress being reported? He felt convinced that when the Bill came into Committee again—if the course he suggested were adopted—that all differences would be arranged, and there would be no opposition. ["No, no!"] He was only suggesting a means by which the Bill could be got through. There was no disposition, at any rate on his part, to impede the Bill.
SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGGsaid, that if Clauses 4 and 5 were passed, he would agree to Progress being reported on Clause 6, which, he thought, was objected to.
MR. WARTONsaid, that, on the understanding that they did not go beyond Clause 5, he would withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

MOTION.

  SUNDAY CLOSING (IRELAND) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. RICHARDSON, Bill to renew and amend the Sunday Closing (Ireland) Act, ordered to be brought in by Mr. RICHARDONS, Mr. EWART, Mr. CORRY, Mr. REDMOND, Mr. THOMAS DICKSON, Mr. MELDON, Mr. LEWIS, Mr. ARTHER O'CONNOR, and Mr. BLAKE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 148.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Commonable Rights*(73).
Second Reading—Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (Finchley, &c.)*(63); Payment of Wages in Public Houses Prohibition (41).
Committee—Report—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)*(57).

OXFORD AND CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITIES COMMISSION—LINCOLN COLLEGE (OXFORD) STATUTES.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, he wished to ask the noble and learned Lord (the Lord Chancellor) a Question of which he had given him private Notice. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln had given Notice of his intention to move, on the 12th instant—
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her assent from a portion of the Statutes which have been laid upon the Table relating to Lincoln College, Oxford."
  The Question he desired to ask was, Whether the 50th clause of the University Act of 1817 permitted a Member of Parliament to move the rejection

  1919
  of a part only of a Statute which had been laid upon the Table?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR,in reply, said, he was not sorry his noble Friend had asked this Question. The right rev. Pre-late had asked his (the Lord Chancellor's) opinion on the subject; and he gave it as his opinion that it was competent for any Member of either House to move the rejection of a part of a Statute which had been laid before Parliament. But since his noble Friend gave him Notice of his intention to ask this Question, he had looked at the words of the Statute, and he was now disposed to think that his first opinion was erroneous, and that it was not permissible to move the rejection of a part of a Statute.
  THE ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY,who had given Notice of the Motion for the 12th instant, on behalf of the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Lincoln), said, he would take care that his right rev. Brother was informed of the opinion now expressed by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that, although the course proposed to be taken by the right rev. Prelate was not permissible, he thought it would be open to him to bring in a Motion to reject the whole of the Statutes for the particular College referred to.

STATE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS—THE IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  MINISTERIAL STATEMENT.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
  "To inquire of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Earl Cowper has resigned the Lord Lieutenancy of Ireland; and, if so, whether the Earl Spencer has been appointed to that office, and whether his Lordship holds it with his present office of President of the Council; and what steps are to be taken by Her Majesty's Government for the pacification of Ireland?"
  said: My Lords, I put these Questions to the noble Earl yesterday; but his information was not sufficient to enable him to answer them. I now ask whether the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (Earl Cowper) has resigned; whether the noble Earl, whom I see opposite, (Earl Spencer) has taken his place; and, if so, whether any inference is to be
  1920
  drawn from this unusual combination of two Offices which are generally thought to be incompatible. I should be glad also to know whether the noble Earl is in a condition to inform the House whether there is any change in the policy of the Government indicated by this change of Office of the Lord Lieutenant?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I feel that I, perhaps, ought, at the outset, to make some sort of apology to the noble Marquess for having requested him yesterday to give me Notice of Questions of a most important character, and of the highest interest both to this country and your Lordships' House. But, at the same time, I cannot admit his inference that I was absolutely ignorant of the subjects of his Questions. My reason for asking that the Questions might be postponed was a desire to adhere to the Rule of this House, which my long experience of it shows to me is of advantage not only to the Government, but of the greatest possible advantage to the House itself—that important Questions should not be hurriedly and suddenly asked without Notice, either public or private. I cannot help thinking, too, that a little time for consideration is of advantage to the Questioner. Yesterday I was so overwhelmed by the suddenness and the number of the Questions put by the noble Marquess, that I was at fault as to my arithmetic. I thought at first that the noble Marquess put nine Questions to me. On quiet consideration, I found he had only put eight, and immediately afterwards he reduced them to four. But even that reduction was not sufficient, because I see, on looking at the Notice Paper, that he has reduced these four to two or three.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: That is not mine. That is the compression of the gentlemen at the Table.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Well, I think there is some inconvenience in the practice of putting these Questions without Notice. I see, too, that the Question which the noble Marquess told us was the most important of all is omitted from the Paper. My Lords, with regard to the first Question, it is certainly true that Earl Cowper has resigned. He did so some weeks ago; but with that consideration and public spirit he

  1921
  has always shown in difficult times, he left at the option of Mr. Gladstone the particular moment at which that resignation should take place. My Lords, the noble Marquess stated yesterday—and, notwithstanding the omission in the Notice, he still thinks it important to know—what are the reasons for that resignation? I have some doubts whether it is a usual course, or whether there is any right on the part of a Member of this House to ask Her Majesty's Government what are the reasons why any one of their Members has left them. I cannot help remembering circumstances about four years ago, when Her Majesty's then Ministry found the attempt to give reasons why one of their Colleagues left their body was not a success. I certainly do not think it is my duty to give the reasons that have operated in this case; but, as I think my noble Friend (Earl Cowper) will not object, I will go so far as to say—and I think it will be satisfactory for the noble Marquess to know—that the resignation of my noble Friend was not founded on any difference as to the policy of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, I have another announcement to make, which is one that is very painful indeed to me and to Her Majesty's Government; and as it is a fact of importance, I ought to bring it before your Lordships immediately. It is that Mr. Forster, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, has also resigned. With regard to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), I have to say that Her Majesty has been advised to appoint him as the Successor to my noble Friend (Earl Cowper). The noble Marquess to-day, as he did yesterday, found fault with the combination that has been made; and, yesterday, he asked whether it was the fact that the Lord Lieutenancy had been placed in commendam? I beg to say that that phrase, if it can be correctly applied at all in this case, does most certainly not apply to the Lord Lieutenancy, but rather to the Presidency of the Council. I trust that the Council will not suffer during the time that this arrangement will last, and that my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal, whose Office the House, in common with myself, often thought is a great advantage to the Cabinet, will be enabled to assume the work of an Office which, although it has greatly
  1922
  increased of late years, is not the hardest work of the Departments of the Government. The noble Marquess asks what inference is to be drawn from this? The inference is a very simple one. I suppose that nobody will deny the very critical state of Ireland at this moment; and we thought it desirable that the person who should succeed to the post of the Lord Lieutenant should not only have personal qualities, but should be clothed with the greatest possible authority; and I know of no way in which that authority can be better sustained than by the appointment of a Cabinet Minister who has been intimately acquainted with the views of the Cabinet during the past two years, and is, therefore, best qualified to fill this most important Office. But the noble Marquess says that is an unprecedented combination—
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The word I used was "incompatible." There was a precedent in 1708.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Well, the other day I quoted a remark of Lord John Russell's, to the effect that if you could quote a precedent from the days of Queen Elizabeth it was a most invaluable resource. But I think, if it were necessary, I could quote a later precedent, when the Lord President of the Council occupied both positions, not provisionally, but for a considerable time. The noble Marquess asks me whether there is any fresh policy—I think he expressly used the word—intended on the part of Her Majesty's Government? My Lords, we have no fresh policy. We are acting entirely in harmony, as we believe, with the principles that have guided us up to this present time. We have certain administrative measures and certain legislative measures in our view. My Lords, it has been said that the Protection of Person and Property Bill has been a failure. That is not the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. We believe that in a very important crisis that Act has been of great use, especially in one particular—namely, in enabling the Government to counteract a most formidable agitation against rent. That Act will be in existence some months longer. But at the present time, and as now advised, it is not our intention to ask Parliament to renew the Act as it stands. At this moment the Government are

  1923
  carefully considering a measure designed for the purpose of strengthening the means of the administration of justice, and to protect the lives and property of private persons. As soon as the necessary Business in the House of Commons will permit, that measure will be introduced, and no other legislation except, perhaps, some of a financial character, will be allowed to come on before it is advanced or completed. My Lords, if the existence of secret societies, taken in connection with the number of those societies, shall create a necessity, we shall apply the provisions of the Protection of Person and Property Act to those societies, and we shall propose to renew the Act as far as those provisions are concerned; and also ask for such other powers as may be thought necessary for the occasion. One administrative measure which has been decided upon, but which has not been acted on, is of great importance. It was the very painful duty of Her Majesty's Government to imprison not only many persons of different classes, but also three Members of Parliament during a longtime. They did it under a sense of grave responsibility. They believed it was necessary to do so, not as penal measure, but as a measure of protection, in order to secure the safety of the public at large, and the maintenance of order in Ireland. Acting under the same grave sense of responsibility, in the same way, and with exactly the same object in view, they have now come to the conclusion that the time has arrived when it is no longer desirable to keep these three Members in prison; and an examination of other cases will immediately take place, though not as regards those who have committed crimes. I may now, my Lords, advert to another point—with regard to legislation. Your Lordships are aware that the Land Act does not deal with the question of arrears, which is an important, although a provisional, question. Then there are also what are popularly known as the "Bright Clauses" of that Act. On both those subjects the Act will require revision, and with regard to them a detailed statement will be made in Parliament at an early date.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Against one, at least, of those three Gentlemen who are to be released—Mr. Parnell—there is a warrant that he is suspected of treasonable practices. I
  1924
  suppose that that statement Her Majesty's Government are prepared to withdraw, if they are going to release them? I also wish to ask whether the prisoner at Portland is to be released as well as the prisoners at Kilmainham?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I must trouble the noble Marquess to give me Notice of the Question.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Earl proffered the information as to the "suspects," and my Question is entirely germane to the information that he has given us.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I beg the noble Marquess's pardon; he is under a mistake. It is quite distinct. The prisoner at Portland is not imprisoned under the same Act. In the one case persons are imprisoned under Act of Parliament, and in the other the prisoner is confined under ticket-of-leave.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON: There is one Question which I wish to ask—namely, Whether or not the noble Earl is prepared to tell the House the reasons that have induced the resignation of Mr. Forster? If he is not prepared to go so far as that, whether he is prepared to reiterate the statement which he just now made in the case of my noble Friend opposite (Earl Cowper), that the resignation did not proceed from difference of opinion with his Colleagues?
  EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly am not prepared to answer the noble Earl's Question, which seems to me to be a singularly unusual one. The right hon. Gentleman is in the House of Commons, and I have no doubt that the proper method will be taken to obtain Her Majesty's permission to give the reasons which prompted him to take the course he has done—painful to himself as well as to his associates.
  VISCOUNT POWERSCOURTsaid, he should not wish to let this occasion pass without bearing tribute to the great tact and temper shown by his Excellency the Lord Lieutenant and the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary in a time of unparalleled anxiety and difficulty. He trusted that Her Majesty's Government would continue to pursue the course upon which they had entered, and that nothing would turn them from the path of the redressing of grievances and the conciliation of the Irish people.
  [Subject dropped.]

PAYMENT OF WAGES IN PUBLIC HOUSES PROHIBITION BILL.
(The Earl Stanhope.)

(NO. 41.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.
EARL STANHOPE,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that a custom existed with many managers to pay their workmen their wages at a public-house, and the object of the Bill was to prohibit such a practice. He believed that such a proceeding was attended with very bad results, and that workmen were thereby induced to spend a considerable part of their wages as soon as they had earned them in treating their companions, or were morally bound to spend some portion of them for the "good of the house," as it was called. He had heard of instances of people being paid their wages and remaining in a drunken state all through Saturday night and all day Sunday in the licensed house; and of cases where the landlords had admitted that, after closing, they had found large sums of money, sometimes as much as£5, lying under the counter, which had been literally thrown away by people who had lost their reason through drink. The Select Committee on Intemperance, which considered the whole subject in 1878, had taken much evidence and made an elaborate Report. Though their Lordships' Committee had not made a special Report on this particular branch of the subject, he found the following paragraph in page 32 of their Report:—
"Almost all the witnesses concurred in expressing their belief that by far the greatest amount of drunkenness occurs on the evening of Saturday, that being the day on which wages are usually paid, and when the men, by leaving off work at an earlier hour, have more leisure and opportunity for indulging in drink."
When wages are paid in public-houses—as was so frequently the case—this fact was doubly true. The Mersey Dock Managers had in February last issued a circular against paying their stevedores in public-houses. Brickmakers were accustomed to pay their gangs in public-houses; and it had come to his knowledge that certain brickmakers in the neighbourhood of Portsmouth had obtained licences and opened houses for the purpose of paying their men in these public-houses, knowing that they would
1926
thus obtain back a considerable portion of their hard-earned wages. He proposed by the Bill that the payment of wages in a public-house should be prohibited by inflicting a penalty of£10 for each offence, and that all offences and penalties might be recovered by any person under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts. He trusted that the House would allow the Bill, which was a step in the right direction; to be read a second time, and that the Government would assist the passing of the measure in the House of Commons.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl Stanhope.)
THE EARL OF ROSEBERYsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) seemed to be under the impression that Her Majesty's Government would be able to take charge of this Bill in the House of Commons; but he could not be aware of the state of things in that House, if he believed the Government were in a position to give disinterested and philanthropic assistance to Bills other than their own. Therefore, while he would not oppose the measure, he could not, on their behalf, undertake that they should assist in its progress through the other House. It must be obvious to him that the state of Public Business in that House was such that the Government had more than enough to do with their own measures, without taking upon themselves to assist Private Bills of that kind. His noble Relative had described the Bill as a step in the right direction. He (the Earl of Rosebery) was not quite sure that this was the case. He would have been glad if the time for Bills of that kind had passed away. It did seem strange that at a time when the power of combination was so well understood by the working classes, and had been in one or two directions exerted so successfully, a Bill of this nature should be needed. The considerations, however, which his noble Relative had brought forward could not fail to have weight, especially as the noble Earl had alluded, he believed, to the case of brickfields, which was a glaring instance of this practice. He confessed he would have been glad if the Bill had been preceded by some such full and careful inquiry as had preceded the Mines Regulation Act; but he considered the measure to be an undoubted

1927
improvement on the existing state of things, and for that reason, as representing the Home Office, he should not oppose the second reading.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he warmly supported the Bill. He had himself carried the same provision in the Mines and Collieries Act, passed many years ago, and he could bear testimony to the good working of the Acts in force with regard to the payment of wages by the large mining and manufacturing bodies throughout the country. They paid wages in their own offices; but the smaller employers of labour did not, they paid the wages due at certain public-houses, and the men were unfortunately compelled to receive their wages there. Sometimes they were kept waiting so long for their money that the temptation to imbibe strong drinks became greater, and by the time the wages arrived they were all spent, and the poor men were left without any to take home for their wives and families. He knew himself that in the case of lightermen the men were told to go to a public-house to receive their wages at 6 o'clock on Saturday evening, and were kept waiting until, perhaps, midnight, spending in the meantime a large portion of their earnings. He did not think that their Lordships could confer a greater boon upon the working classes of the country than that which the Bill proposed to give them.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE,as a member of the Committee on Intemperance, thought that an apology was due for the omission of this subject from their Report; it had not been brought strongly under their notice. He believed, however, that the measure would be received with great satisfaction throughout the country.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYalso supported the Bill, and said, that even if, as the noble Earl who represented the Home Office had said, that working men were indifferent to this Bill, that would not be the case with their wives, who would be grateful for it. He hoped that the noble Earl would re-consider what he had said about Government not being able to undertake to assist its progress. The noble Earl, in saying that Government could hardly get its own Bills passed, seemed to think that he was in "another place," and was making a speech
1928
in behalf of the clôture, which was of no use here.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Tuesday the 16th instant.
House adjourned at Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.