Sitting of 4 May 1882

MINUTES.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee—£9,282,435, Consolidated Fund.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Military Manœuvres [Compensation]*.
Ordered—Tramways Provisional Orders (No. 3)*.
Second Reading—Documentary Evidence* [143]; County Courts (Ireland) [18].
Committee—Municipal Corporations (re-comm.) [113]—R.P.
Committee—Report—Public Health (Scotland) Act Amendment* [115].
Withdrawn—School Boards* [103].

NEW WRIT ISSUED.
For the Northern Division of the West Riding of Yorkshire, v. Lord Frederick Charles Cavendish, Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
POSTPONEMENT OF MOTION.

  IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.
  MR. W. H. SMITH, who had the following Notice upon the Paper:—
  "To call attention to certain dormant provisions of the Land Act (Ireland) 1881; and to move, 'That, in the opinion of this House, further legislation is imperatively required to provide increased facilities to enable tenants to acquire the freehold of the land in their occupation on just and reasonable terms,'"
  said: I wish, Sir, to ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments, in order to make a statement in regard to the Motion of which I have given Notice. Since I gave that Notice very important events have occurred. I refer to the statements which were made by Ministers in both Houses of Parliament last Tuesday, and to the declaration of the Government that the state of affairs in Ireland is critical; that a new departure is necessary—such a departure as involves the most serious loss to the Government, and I think to the country, of the services of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). In the course of that statement, Sir—[Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Order!"]—I appeal to the indulgence of the House. I think it will be for the convenience of the House that, with your indulgence, I should be permitted to say a very few words. I say, in the course of that statement several announcements were made, and amongst them we were told that legislation was intended, and was of overwhelming and pressing and immediate importance upon one subject at least, and would be proposed upon several others. We were informed that provision was to be made by a Bill to strengthen the ordinary law, to meet difficulties such as have been experienced in the administration of justice, and in defining and securing private rights in Ireland; and we were also informed that the Government would make proposals to Parliament on the very question with regard to which I have a Notice on the Paper. Under these circumstances, looking at the grave crisis in which we are now involved, it would not seem to me to be seemly if I proceeded with a Motion upon the subject of which I am informed authoritatively that the Government intend to
  86
  submit proposals to Parliament. I do not, therefore, intend to stand even for an hour between the House and these proposals for the good government of the country which the Government think necessary, and which they describe as of overwhelming and pressing importance.

QUESTIONS.

  POST OFFICE—POSTAGE RATES TO INDIA.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Postmaster General, If he would explain why letters to India are still in Class B and charged 5d. while those to thirty-seven other countries, including Canada, the United States, and even Persia, are in Class A and charged 2½d.; and, if there is any good reason why the postage to India should not at once be reduced to the lower figure?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my right hon. Friend, I have to state that the weekly service by which letters between this country and India are conveyed through France and Italy is very costly, and involves, I regret to say, a serious loss both to England and India. In consequence of this loss, we exercise the right, which is given to us under the Postal Union Treaty, to make a surcharge of 2½d. over and above the fundamental Union rate of 2½d. The same rate of 5d. is charged on letters to Persia when forwarded by the quick sea route of the Persian Gulf.

  POST OFFICE—LETTER CARRIERS.
  MR. W. M. TORRENSasked the Postmaster General, Whether he has been able to consider fully, as promised, the position of the persons employed as letter-carriers, and likewise of those engaged as auxiliary letter-carriers, with reference to their pay and other circumstances affecting their condition?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Finsbury (Mr. W. M. Torrens), I have to state that I am now, and have been for some time, in communication with the Treasury on the subject to which he refers, and I hope shortly to be able to give effect to the decision which may be arrived at.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, since the

  87
  Financial Statement for the current year was made, he has communicated with Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer as to the source from which the Letter Carriers and Auxiliary Letter Carriers of the United Kingdom are to derive the increase of their pay?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Schreiber), I have to state that any money that may be necessary to apply to the purpose to which he refers will, no doubt, have to be provided by a subvention in the form of a Supplementary Estimate.

  POST OFFICE—THE PARCELS POST SYSTEM.
  MR. BROADHURSTasked the Postmaster General, Whether he can give the House an assurance that the increase to the postman's labour proposed by the postal parcels system shall in no way be permitted to add to their Sunday labour?
  MR. H. H. FOWLERasked the Postmaster General, Whether, in making the arrangements for the establishment of the parcels post, he will provide that parcels shall not be collected or delivered on Sundays?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to the Questions of my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke and Wolverhampton, I have to say that the important subjects to which they relate will receive careful consideration in making any arrangements for the establishment of a parcels post. Although it would be premature to give any positive assurance on the subject until these arrangements are in a more forward state, I may say that, in my opinion, the Sunday labour of letter carriers and other officers of the Department will certainly not be increased by the establishment of the parcels post.

  POST OFFICE—BRAINTREE POST OFFICE.
  COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISEasked the Postmaster General, If his attention has been called to the inadequate accommodation afforded by the Post Office at Braintree, and its unsatisfactory character; and, whether he will take steps to remedy the inconvenience which is now felt in that town and the surrounding district?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, the subject of providing improved Post Office accom-
  88
  modation at Braintree has engaged my attention, and I should be very glad if it were practicable to make a satisfactory change; but, at present, there are no means of doing so without incurring undue expense; but I can assure the hon. and gallant Member opposite (Colonel Brise) the matter shall not be lost sight of.

  LAW AND POLICE—THE RIOTS AT CAMBORNE, CORNWALL.
  MR. O'DONNELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he has received information of the failure of the magistrates and police of Camborne to punish the rioters who sacked the Catholic Church, as well as a number of houses of Irish people in that town and the neighbouring villages, and brutally assaulted and hunted Irishmen in the streets; whether his attention has been called to the following statements in the "Pall Mall Gazette" of April the 28th, with regard to the rioting at Camborne:—
  "The main facts are undisputed. A furious mob led by a man brandishing a red flag marched to attack their Irish fellow-citizens with sticks and stones. Violent assaults were committed, a place of worship was wrecked, and the town was taken possession of by the mob. After a time the police arrested the ringleader, and he was duly brought up before the magistrates for punishment. The presiding magistrate declared that 'if the Irishmen had been met with and killed, he would have been held guilty.' Evidence which would have sufficed to convict of murder was held to be insufficient to justify committing the prisoner for trial on the charge of riotous behaviour, and the ringleader of one of the most disgraceful riots of recent times was acquitted amid the enthusiastic applause of the mob. Not one single individual has been punished in any way for the savage outburst of last week;"
  and, what steps the Government intend to take for the better protection of life and property, and the vindication of law and order at Camborne, and in the neighbouring districts?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I cannot accept the statement in this Question or in the newspaper extract as accurate. They seem greatly exaggerated. The facts, as far as I am informed, are that there was a disgraceful riot and disturbances, extending over several days. The measures taken to repress them were successful, and I have urged on the magistrates the propriety and necessity of punishing the

  89
  offenders. That is all the information I have it in my power to give, and all that I can do in the matter. With regard to the existing state of things, I have no reason to believe that any person is in peril, or that the public peace is endangered.

  LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF INNKEEPERS—MR. J. O'GORMAN.
  MR. O'SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he is aware that John R. O'Gorman had to pay a large amount in damages and costs for refusing to entertain an emergency man at his hotel in Charleville; whether he has been arrested and detained in prison for over six months; and, whether he will give orders for his release?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he must request that this and other Questions on the Paper of a similar nature might be postponed till the return of the newly-appointed Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant.
  MR. HEALYasked, whether, in the usual course, Questions put to the Chief Secretary for Ireland were not forwarded to officials in Ireland, who sent back the required information? In that case, the transfer of Office from one Chief Secretary to another ought not to interfere with the answering of the Questions.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member for Wexford was not now confining himself to asking a Question.
  MR. HEALYsaid, his Question was, How it happened that the transfer of the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland from one person to another should interfere with the answering of Questions put to the former holder of the Office?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), always answered every Question upon his own responsibility, and he took the best means in each case of informing himself on the subject.

  THE LIBERAL ASSOCIATION OF IPSWICH AND IRISH LANDLORDS.
  SIR EARDLEY WILMOT (for Mr. BELLINGHAM)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his
  90
  attention has been drawn to a report contained in the "East Anglian Daily Times" of April 26th, and commented upon in other papers, of a speech made at a meeting of the Middle Ward Liberal Association at Ipswich, at which Mr. Smith, Secretary, is reported to have said in referring to the condition of Ireland,
  "That he felt a sort of satisfaction when he heard that the Irish people had taken to shooting landlords, and that if anybody ought to be shot in Ireland it was the landlords;"
  and, whether, since the accuracy of this report had been confirmed by the editor of the "East Anglian Daily Times," whose reporter took the words down as they were spoken, he will consider whether speakers using language inciting to the shooting of landlords in Ireland or elsewhere should be prosecuted in England as well as in Ireland?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he had no knowlege of the matter.

  ARMY ORGANIZATION—MOUNTED INFANTRY.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the Secretary of State for War, What steps have been taken, in conformity with the undertaking of last Session, to establish a force of mounted infantry; whether he has had any communication with Major Barrow, lately returned from South Africa, on the subject; and whether at the forthcoming autumn manœuvres opportunity will be given of utilizing or experimenting with such a body?
  MR. CHILDERS: Sir, the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) is entirely mistaken in stating that I undertook last Session to establish a force of Mounted Infantry. What I undertook to do was to inquire into the whole question, and I mentioned several alternative proposals which had been made to the War Office, and on which I looked favourably. Major Barrow has furnished several Reports on the subject, and some of his suggestions have been adopted. What we have decided to do is to keep necessary equipment for Mounted Infantry against the occasion, if it should arise, of employing soldiers on horseback, but not to organize a permanent force of this nature. A small pamphlet laying down the clothing,

  91
  organization, drill, and equipment for Mounted Infantry will shortly be issued. We have not contemplated forming such a force for the Autumn Manœuvres; but the hon. Baronet's suggestion shall be considered.

  POOR LAW—VAGRANCY.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the President of the Local Government Board, What has been the result of the inquiries which, at the beginning of the Session, he undertook to make into the subject of the great increase of tramps; and, also, as to how many of them have served in the Army, and how many are actually belonging to the Reserve and receiving the Government pay?
  MR. DODSON: Sir, it is not quite correct to say, as the hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) has done, that I undertook to make inquiry into the great increase in the number of tramps. What I stated, when the former Question was put to me on this subject by the hon. Member was, that the Local Government Board were then engaged in obtaining information to enable them to determine what alterations are needed in the law; that information is not yet complete. It is impossible to say how many of the vagrants have served in the Army and how many are actually belonging to the Reserve, as the Workhouse records do not, as a rule, furnish these particulars.

  THE REVENUE—THE WINE DUTIES-SPANISH WINES.
  MR. MACIVER, who had on the Paper the following Question:—
  "To ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the readjustment of the Duty on Spanish wine in the direction indicated by Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer in his financial statement on June 10th, 1880, which is now said to be 'under consideration,' involves any negotiations or the prospect of any negotiations, with a view to obtaining more favourable terms as regards the admission of our manufactures into Spain or other reciprocal trading advantages in exchange for a reduction of the Duty on Spanish wine?"
  said, he would postpone putting it until after the second reading of the Inland Revenue Bill.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I do not know why the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. MacIver) should postpone his Question. It is, I think, inconvenient that a Question containing a
  92
  misapprehension of facts should remain on the Paper, and I will, therefore, answer it at once.
  MR. MACIVERsaid, that if the hon. Baronet answered the Question, he would ask it again. It might be necessary for him to refer to the answer.
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: I stated on Monday last, Sir, that the question of the Wine Duties had been and still was under consideration, and did not confine my reply to the case of duties on Spanish wines.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE—ADULTERATION OF AMERICAN COTTON.
  MR. SUMMERSasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the adulteration of American cotton imported into this Country; and, whether he has taken, or intends to take, any action with regard to it?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, my attention has been called to this subject through statements made in the newspapers, but not by any communications from parties interested in the matter. As far as I have been able to ascertain, I do not think it would be advisable for the Government to interfere or take any action.

  ISLAND OF CYPRUS—THE NEW CONSTITUTION—STATUS OF THE JEWS.
  MR. ST. AUBYNasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, under the terms of the proposed new Constitution for the Government of Cyprus, as formulated in an official Despatch dated 10th March, 1882, Jews resident in the island will be qualified to sit in the local council, or to vote at elections, or in other manner to perform the ordinary duties of citizenship; and, whether the construction of Paragraph 4 of the said Despatch, forwarded by the Earl of Kimberley to Sir Robert Biddulph, does not exclude Jews from any participation whatever in the administration of local affairs?
  MR. COURTNEY: Sir, there are only 69 Jews in the Island of all ages and both sexes. In the Despatch mentioned the population is divided into Christian and Mahommedan; but in the formal Constitution the division will be between Mahommedan and non-Mahommedan, and the Jews will vote among the latter,

  EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—THE NEW CODE.
  SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Instructions, which he stated were to accompany the New Code, have been issued to the Inspectors of Education, and if, either now or as soon as they are issued, he would lay them upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, the Instructions to Her Majesty's Inspectors, to which the hon. Baronet the Member for South Devon (Sir Massey Lopes) refers, will not be issued until the re-organization of the Inspectorate is completed. No inspection under the New Code can take place till May, 1883. Before that time, and, I hope, during the present Session, the Instructions will be laid on the Table. The object of the re-organization is to secure—(1), uniformity of standard; (2), that the inspection of schools shall not be placed in the hands of young and inexperienced Inspectors, but in that of men having practical experience as teachers; and (3), to open the ranks to those who have had that practical experience. I am now able to state that seven of our ablest and most experienced Inspectors' Assistants who have been schoolmasters, and have served for 10 years and upwards under Her Majesty's Inspectors, have been promoted by the Lord President to the rank of Sub-Inspector.

  LEGAL OBLIGATIONS OF INNKEEPERS —REFUSAL TO ADMIT A SOLDIER.
  COLONEL MILNE HOLMEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the refusal of an innkeeper at Windsor, on a recent occasion to admit into the hotel a soldier belonging to the 2nd Regiment of Life Guards; and, if the innkeeper's conduct is justifiable in Law?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that it would not be proper or legal on the part of an innkeeper to exclude any person from his hotel. The exercise of that exclusion against a man who had the honour to wear the uniform of the Queen, seemed to him most extremely improper. It was not, however, to be understood that he could be compelled to admit him into every room.
  94
  So far from being regarded as a person to be looked down upon and excluded, he ought to be looked upon as a person to be especially honoured.

  LAW AND POLICE—WILFUL OBSTRUCTIONS ON RAILWAYS.
  MR. NORTHCOTEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the circumstances under which an Italian boy named Riccioli was acquitted on April 25th at the Devon Assizes, on a charge of placing obstructions on the railway, with intent to wreck a train; and, if Her Majesty's Government will introduce a measure to better define the character of offences of this nature?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that in connection with this subject several very difficult questions arose which showed the necessity of some amendment of the law. He was in communication with the Railway Companies on the subject.

  LANDLORD AND TENANT (SCOTLAND) —EVICTIONS IN THE ISLAND OF SKYE—THE CROFTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, Whether he has seen the report of the debate in the Glasgow Town Council last Monday, as reported in the "Daily Mail" of Tuesday 25th April, and does his latest information show that the Lord Provost of Glasgow directed Captain M'Call to send the police to Syke; and, would he state whether the Inverness Police had revolvers? He would also ask, As it appears by the words of the Glasgow Police Act, quoted on the Town Council debate, that the Chief Constable has the power to send away the police of Glasgow to any part of the Kingdom without the consent or authority of Lord Provost, Magistrates, or Corporation, does he intend to take steps to have such authority taken from the Chief Constable and restored to the representation of the Corporation of Glasgow?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, I have not seen the report in the newspapers; but according to my information the police were sent on the requisition of the Sheriff of Inverness, addressed to the Chief Constable of Glasgow Police, in terms of the 90th section of the Glasgow Police Act. The Sheriff had previously communicated

  95
  with, the Lord Provost, and obtained his consent. The Inverness Police did not carry revolvers. They had no weapons except their ordinary batons.

  NAVY—BARRACK SERGEANTS OF MARINES.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether it is a fact that Barrack Sergeants of Marines have had their allowances reduced by the same amount as their pay has been increased; and, if so, why they alone of the non-commissioned Officers of Marines are not to be allowed increased advantages?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, it was considered by the Admiralty that the pay and allowances of barrack sergeants under the old scale were quite sufficient, which could not be said for the other non-commissioned officers of Marines. Consequently, when the recent increases were made, the combined pay and allowances of barrack sergeants were not raised.

  INDIA—LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT-SIR ASHLEY EDEN'S MINUTE.
  MR. BAXTERasked the Secretary of State for India, If lie will lay upon the Table of the House the recent Minute by Sir Ashley Eden on the Extension of Local Self-Government in Bengal?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON, in reply, said, that the Minute had not reached the India Office. As soon as it had reached the Office, perhaps his hon. Friend would repeat the Question.

  STATE OF IRELAND—EVICTED FAMILIES.
  MR. SEXTONasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether it is true that John Canny, one of the evicted tenants at Tulla, county Clare, who were prevented by Mr. Clifford Lloyd from availing themselves of the shelter of the huts erected by the Ladies' League, died on Saturday last; whether John Canny and his family, together with another evicted family, have been staying at night since their eviction in a cabin containing three families, numbering twenty persons, and were obliged by day to live and cook their meals in the ditches, and whether the exposure and hardship endured by John Canny produced the disease which has resulted in his death;
  96
  whether it is true that the Ladies' League, within the past year, have erected about three hundred huts in the counties of Galway, Kilkenny, Carlow, Mayo, Leitrim, Limerick, Meath, Roscommon, Tyrone, Longford, King's County, Clare, Wicklow, Fermanagh, Kerry, Cavan, Derry, Queen's County, Waterford, Wexford, Westmeath, Monaghan, Tipperary, Louth, Cork, and Armagh; and that, although the Coercion Act was in force throughout the entire period, and numbers of persons were arrested under it on suspicion of intimidation, no person occupying any of these three hundred huts was ever arrested on such a charge; whether it is true that the only magistrate who has hindered the erection of huts to shelter evicted tenants is Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and, whether the Government will now agree to allow the erection of huts to shelter evicted tenants, and the occupation of such huts by families in need of them, to proceed without impediment?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that with reference to the two first paragraphs of the Question, John Canny was an old man of, he believed, 74; he had been in one of those huts and had died. The Cannys were not prevented from occupying any of those huts, and before they took possession of them they and several other persons, 20 in all, lived in a farm house containing a kitchen and two rooms, and cooked their meals, not in the ditches, but in the kitchen of the farm-house. No doctor, so far as he could ascertain, had visited Canny, nor was he able to learn the disease of which Canny had died. With reference to the third paragraph, he was not able to say whether it was a fact that no person occupying any of those huts was chargeable with intimidation. With reference to the fourth paragraph, the answer was "No." As to the last paragraph, he did not know what the intention of the Government might be; but speaking for himself alone, he might repeat what he stated in the House before, and what his right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. W. E. Forster) stated—that where these erections were bonâ fide to shelter the homeless, they ought not to be interfered with; but he (the Attorney General for Ireland) feared in many cases they had been erected for a different purpose.

  IRELAND—RELEASE OF THE CONVICT MICHAEL DAVITT.
  MR. JOSEPH COWENasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If, in view of the intended release of all the other Irish political prisoners, he will order the liberation of Mr. Michael Davitt, who has been the longest in confinement?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, the Government have taken this matter into consideration, and I have to say that the same reasons which have induced them to release the prisoners who have been released have brought them to the determination to release Michael Davitt.
  MR. GIBSON: I wish to ask whether the release of Michael Davitt is entirely unconditional?
  MR. JOSEPH COWEN: I beg to give Notice of this Question, Whether, inasmuch as Mr. Davitt's policy with respect to land in Ireland has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government and adopted in the Report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, the Government, under the circumstances, will advise Her Majesty to grant a free pardon to the founder of the Land League, so that Mr. Davitt may come into Parliament, and defend the doctrines now accepted on all sides?
  MR. GIBSON: I have not received an answer to my Question.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, there will be no conditions attaching to the release of Davitt, except those that were attached to his release when he was liberated by the late Administration. He will be released exactly under the same circumstances, and, I presume, for the same reasons, which induced the late Government to release him—namely, that they thought it might be done consistently with public safety.

  THE PRINTING COMMITTEE—MR. PARNELL.
  MR. R. POWERasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, If he has now any objection to allow the name of Mr. Parnell to remain on the Printing Committee?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, in the absence of my noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who is disabled for the moment by indisposition, I rise to answer this Question. Unquestionably, there
  98
  is no objection to the name remaining. It is not for us to make any difference or distinction between Members of Parliament who are able to attend in this House and discharge their duty.
  MR. R. POWERsaid, after that answer, he should withdraw his opposition to the appointment of the Committee.

  POST OFFICE—YORK POST OFFICE.
  MR. CREYKEasked the Postmaster General, Whether it is the intention of the Government to proceed with the new post office at York this year?
  MR. FAWCETT: Sir, in reply to my hon. Friend, I have to state that I am very anxious to proceed with the proposed new post office at York as speedily as possible; and every effort will be made, both by the Office of Works and the Post Office, to complete a satisfactory contract for the purchase of the intended site; but the owner does not offer to give immediate possession, so that there must be some delay in any case before building operations can be commenced.

  EGYPT—THE EX-KHEDIVE, ISMAIL PASHA.
  MR. M'COANasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether it is within the competence of the present Egyptian Government, without the concurrence of the European Powers, to disturb the existing international arrangement under which the Civil List assigned to the Ex-Khedive, Ismail Pasha, is now paid; and, whether he can lay upon the Table of the House any Correspondence between the Foreign Office and Sir E. Mallet on the subject of the recent court-martial held on certain Egyptian Officers for alleged complicity in a conspiracy against Arabi Pasha?
  SIR CHARLES W. DILKE: Sir, I must ask my hon. Friend to postpone the first part of his Question. With regard to the second part, I fear that the Papers referred to cannot be laid before Parliament at present.

  ARMY—THE AUTUMN MANŒUVRES—THE FIRST CLASS ARMY RESERVE.
  MR. SCHREIBERasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether it is his

  99
  intention that any portion of the First Class Army Reserve should be called out for the Manœuvres of next Autumn; and, if so, what number of them?
  MR. CHILDERS: NO, Sir. The questions attending the calling out of the First Class Reserve are more complicated than they might appear at first, and we do not propose to act on the powers given us by the Army and Reserve Act this year.

  INDIA—ROORKEE COLLEGE.
  MR. PUGHasked the Secretary of State for India, Whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the number of students who have entered the Engineering College at Roorkee during the last three years, and of the number who have passed and obtained appointments as engineers during the same period?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I have ascertained that the admissions of engineer students to the Thomason Civil Engineering College at Roorkee during the years 1880–1–2 have been 8, 9, and 10 respectively, while the number of appointments to the engineer establishment of the Public Works Department during these years has been 8 each year. The number of overseers admitted to the College during the same three years has been 18, 22, and 35, while the appointments to the subordinate branch of the Public Works Department (in which branch the overseers are included) during these years have been 15, 0, 17.

  BOILER EXPLOSIONS—THE EXPLOSION AT BRIERLY HILL.
  MR. HUGH MASONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether an engineer surveyor to the Board of Trade has made an investigation of the steam boiler explosion that occurred at Brierly Hill, near Dudley, on February 7th, 1882; and, if so, whether he would lay the Report upon the Table and have it printed for circulation among Members?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that an inquiry had been made into the matter by Mr. Mills, of the Board of Trade. The Report, however, had only been received that day.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE RELEASED MEMBERS.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Whether, according to the stipulations contained in Clause 5, of 44 Vic. c. 4, the Lord Lieutenant has, since the 1st of April last, considered the cases of Messrs. Parnell, M.P. and O'Kelly, M.P. who, in the Return laid before this House on the 3rd of April, were reported as being detained in prison, inasmuch as they were
  "reasonably suspected of having, since the 30th day of September 1880, been guilty, as principals, of treasonable practices;"
  and, if not, whether those gentlemen have been discharged from prison without any consideration of their cases, or any decision certified under the hand of the Lord Lieutenant or the hand of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, I presume thus the statutory duty imposed upon these distinguished personages was duly discharged by them; and, that being so, I have not asked for any information on this subject.

  MINERAL PROPERTY—TRANSFERS OF LEASES.
  MR. ROLLSasked the First Lord of the Treasury, If he is aware of any instances of landlords (upon the transfer of colliery or other mineral property) enforcing heavy fines equal to several years' dead rent before giving consent to the transfer of the lease, although the tenant may have only realized one-fourth of the outlay; whether it is within the recollection of the Right honourable gentleman that, as far back as the 12th November 1874, he wrote to Mr. Colborne that he was sensible of the practical importance of the subject; and, whether he is prepared to introduce any measure, or to take any step, for protecting tenants of mineral property from such injustice?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, he would answer this Question for his right hon. Friend. Certain letters had passed, and Mr. Colborne was informed that it was a matter in which the Government could not interfere. There was no present intention to introduce

  101
  any such measure as the one referred to in the Question.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION ACT-SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.
  MR. TILLETTasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether his attention has been called to the decision of the High Court of Justice in the recent case of Saunders v. Crawford, reported in the "School Board Chronicle" of the 29th of April; whether the effect of this decision is practically to repeal sub-section one of section eleven of "The Elementary Education Act, 1876," and to prevent school boards and school attendance committees under that section, compelling the attendance at school of children whose education is habitually neglected; whether school boards and attendance committees have the power to compel attendance at school of children up to fourteen years of age; and, whether he proposes to introduce any Bill into the House dealing with the question?
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, my attention has been called to the decision in this case, which is contrary to the intention of Parliament and the view hitherto entertained by the Education Department. But, as the case is now under appeal, we wait the result before considering the necessity for further legislation?

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—RELEASE OF PRISONERS UNDER THE ACT.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether persons who have been imprisoned in Ireland, on reasonable suspicion of treasonable practices, have been or will be released from prison without any assurance on their part to abstain from such practices; and, whether any assurance has been received by Her Majesty's Government from the leaders of the Land League that the No Rent Circular will be withdrawn?
  MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, when this matter was mentioned on Tuesday last, it had not been in my recollection, and I thought it might be well just to take a day to reflect on the subject, which I have done. The Question of the hon.
  102
  Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) undoubtedly has reference to the fact, which, I believe, is well known to the House, that when the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was arrested, he was arrested under two warrants—one of them referring to "reasonable suspicion," in the phraseology of the Act, and the other to treasonable practices.
  MR. SEXTON: No; that was served on him after he was in Kilmainham.
  MR. GLADSTONE: But he is there under those two warrants.
  MR. SEXTON: He is not there. He is out.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I mean to say he is there under two warrants. [Several Irish MEMBERS: He was.] We are of opinion that the same considerations which justified and required the release, where the reasonable suspicion has had reference to what I may roughly call agrarian offences, also justify his release under the warrant for his detention on suspicion of being guilty of treasonable practices.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: The latter part of the Question has not been answered by the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. GLADSTONE: It appears to me, Sir, that the intentions which are entertained in regard to the "no rent" circular, which are important, form a portion of the subject to which I have already adverted, when I stated that Her Majesty's Government had received information, tendered to them, which they deemed to be of great importance, and which justified and mainly prompted their conduct in the matter of the recent releases. I think the considerations which prevented me from entering upon any detail, and made me feel that it would be far more dignified and just on every ground that it should be left to these Gentlemen themselves to make, at the proper time, their own declarations, ought to lead me to request the hon. Gentleman opposite to await such declarations as may be made in this House by the persons to whose conduct the declaration refers.
  SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFF: I beg to say that I shall repeat the Question on Monday.
  MR. DILLON: I venture to ask the Prime Minister, in consequence of the answer which he has given, whether he

  103
  means to convey that any intimation was conveyed to him from me in reference to the "no rent" manifesto?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not heard the name of the hon. Member used in any information that has been conveyed to me upon the subject.
  MR. O'KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I shall also take the liberty, with your permission, in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, to ask him if he has had any notification from me or any communication from me in reference to this matter during my detention, in regard to the "no rent" manifesto?
  MR. SEXTON: I also was a signatory to the "no rent" manifesto. I wish to know if my name was mentioned to the right hon. Gentleman?
  MR. GLADSTONE: No name of any of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken has been separately mentioned in any intimation. [Mr. WARTON: Separately?] Well, it must be separately, must it not? But I am bound to say I have heard statements which appeared to me to include them. [Cries of "Name, name!"]
  MR. DILLON: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman and this country that if my name was included, it was without my authority, knowledge, or consent.
  MR. O'KELLY: I make the same statement.
  MR. SEXTON: I, too, disclaim it.
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman from whom he has received the statements?
  MR. GLADSTONE: The statements which I have received have been statements from Members of this House; and it will be for those Members of this House, one of whom I believe is not in his place now—perhaps the most important of them—to consider when they, or whether they, shall make declarations in relation to the subject-matter to which I have referred. In the meantime, I stand, in the face of the House, upon the declaration I have made, that we have had voluntarily tendered to us information with regard to the intentions and views of Irish Members, under the present circumstances of Ireland, which has led us to the judgment we have formed, and by that judgment we will stand.
  MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, I beg to ask the Prime Minister, if he means to convey that the hon. Member for the
  104
  City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was one of the Members to whom he refers?
  MR. GLADSTONE: After what I have stated, and after the reference which I have made to the absence of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, I shall give no further answer.
  Mr. J. LOWTHER and Mr. ARTHUR ARNOLD rose together. [Cries of "Lowther!"]
  MR. SPEAKER, interposing, said, he understood that the hon. Member for Salford (Mr. Arthur Arnold) rose to Order.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLD: That is so, Sir. I wish to ask you whether an hon. Member has any privilege or right, after a Question has been put and answered, to put a further Question on the same subject?
  MR. SPEAKER: I am not able to say until I hear what the Question is. At the same time, I have to say this—that it is, however, undoubtedly, within the province of a Minister of the Crown, if he should think fit, to desire that Notice be given of a Question, or to decline to answer it in the public interest.
  MR. J. LOWTHER: I was only about to ask the right hon. Gentleman if, for the purpose of removing a misapprehension, he would state what was the nature of the communication to which he has referred?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have been endeavouring distinctly to convey that, in my opinion, it is more dignified and more just to leave it to hon. Members of this House, who either are present, or will shortly be present, in this House, to make their own declarations upon that subject, rather than that those declarations should be conveyed to the House second-hand. What we are responsible for is the judgment we have formed upon the information tendered us; and as regards any explanation with regard to the materials of that judgment, I should think that common courtesy to those hon. Gentlemen dictates, on my part, that I should leave them, in the first instance at any rate, to be their own spokesmen.
  MR. GIBSON: I have only one more Question, Sir, which I will take the liberty of asking the Prime Minister. He just now refreshed his recollection by reading a Memorandum, and I have to ask him if the communication he has referred to was oral or in writing?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I read no Memorandum whatever.
  MR. GIBSON: But you referred to one.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I must say that I think when references of this kind are made, Gentlemen ought to know what they are talking about. I held in my hand a Memorandum on a totally different subject, the purport of which I was endeavouring to gather at the same time. I have to say that I shall give no further answer.
  MR. O'DONNELL: In relation to the Questions which have just come from the Front Opposition Bench, I beg to give Notice that I will ask whether, in the "no rent" manifesto, it was not expressly declared that, on the restoration of Constitutional government in Ireland, the "no rent" manifesto, would be withdrawn, and would cease to operate; and, if I am in Order, I would ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Gibson), in regard to the Question he has just put, whether he does not consider that that Question impugns the honour of the Gentlemen who signed the "no rent" manifesto, and whether he ought not to withdraw such imputations?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member puts a Question to the right hon. Gentleman which does not refer to a Bill or a Motion before the House, and, therefore, cannot be put.

  MAINTENANCE OF MAIN ROADS (SOUTH WALES).
  VISCOUNT EMLYNasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether any part of the amount proposed to be raised by the increased Tax upon Carriages will be applied to the maintenance of main roads in South Wales?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): I am afraid I must refer the noble Viscount to a recent correspondence between myself and several gentlemen who speak on behalf of the counties in the quarter to which his Question draws attention. If the noble Viscount is not in possession of that correspondence, I shall be very happy to give him access to it. I could not, at the present time, enter into the details of a measure which cannot be dealt with piecemeal.

  THEATRES AND MUSIC HALLS (METROPOLIS)—PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE-CAPTAIN SHAW'S REPORT.
  MR. DIXON-HARTLANDasked the Chairman of the Metropolitan Board of Works, What steps the Board of Works has taken with regard to the theatres reported upon by Captain Shaw, in reference to having the recommendations in that Report carried out; what number of theatres not included in that Report are now under inspection; and, when that inspection was commenced?
  SIR JAMES M'GAREL-HOGG: Sir, I beg to state that copies of Captain Shaw's Reports have been sent to the various theatres concerned, and the lessees have been invited to send in any observations they may have to make on his recommendations. Some replies have already been received and are under consideration. The number of theatres now under inspection and not included in Captain Shaw's previous Reports is 11, and this will be added to as rapidly as circumstances will admit. As regards the third part of the Question, the inspections have been commenced at various dates, as Captain Shaw has been able to undertake them.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-MORNING SITTINGS.
  MR. GORSTasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Upon what day Her Majesty's Government will first propose to fix an Order of the Day for Two o'clock on Tuesday, May 9?
  MR. GLADSTONE, in reply, said, it would be more convenient if he answered the hon. and learned Gentleman to-morrow evening.
  MR. GORSTgave Notice that if such a Motion were made he would oppose it.

  IRELAND-IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—RESIGNATION OF THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT.

    PERSONAL EXPLANATION.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: Mr. Speaker, I have received Her Majesty's gracious permission to make a statement—I trust it will not be a long one—explaining the reason why I have been obliged to take the step, most painful to me, of resigning my seat in the Government of my right hon. Friend. I believe it is customary that such a statement should

    107
    be made; but notwithstanding that it is customary, and notwithstanding the permission that I have received, I must honestly say that, from personal considerations alone, I would not have made it for two reasons. I do not wish to trouble the House, or to take up its time with any personal considerations; and, also, I am so sensible of the difficulties connected with the government of Ireland that I would gladly avoid giving the reasons why I am obliged to differ with my Colleagues. I cannot suppose that my statement of the reasons will have effect; and as the step has now been taken, and as the line of policy has been adopted, and, therefore, must be carried out, I should have preferred saying nothing which could in any way cause inconvenience in what must happen. But I believe the public and this House generally demand that any Member appointed to any responsible or important post should say why he has resigned it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, a day or two ago, rightly stated that the reason for my resigning was that I did not think it right to share the responsibility of the release of the three hon. Members of Parliament who were detained under the provisons of the Protection Act. Now, I trust the House will believe me when I say that if I could have thought it right not only that these three Gentlemen should be released, but that every person detained under the provisions of that Act should also be released, I should only have been too glad to have consented. No one who has not realized the odious position which any Minister is placed in who has to carry out the provisions of an Act involving the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, can have any idea how odious it is—a man being made, as it were, the gaoler of his fellow-subjects—the duration of their imprisonment and, in some measure, their treatment depending upon his responsibility, and upon the fact that it is necessarily his opinion, rather than the law, which must be considered. That is, I say, so odious a position, that I cannot imagine any Chief Secretary who would not be glad beyond measure if he could have felt that he could rightly advise his Colleagues that they should be released. And now, just let me say that as to the other prisoners under this Act, so with these three hon. Members—I have tried
    108
    to work the Act according to the repeated promises and assurances that I have made to the House that we only detained the Queen's subjects in prison without trial for the purpose of the prevention of crime, and not for the purpose of punishment. Then, why am I opposed to this unconditional release at this moment? Well, Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to give my reasons. If I speak at all—if I give any explanation—I must give a full one. Therefore I must speak plainly, but I hope not offensively. But the same reason which made me think I was obliged to vindicate the detention of the three hon. Members on the ground of the prevention of crime makes me now object to their release, because I believe that it will tend to the encouragement of crime. Now, why were these Gentlemen arrested? I have often told the House—I do not think I need dwell upon it—but I must just give the actual grounds of the arrest. Two of these hon. Gentlemen were arrested on suspicion of treasonable practices. The hon. Member for Roscommon (Mr. O'Kelly) was arrested on that ground; and the same warrant was issued, although not until two or three days after his arrest, with regard to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell.) The hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) was arrested on the ground of intimidation, and there were two warrants which I signed in regard to the hon. Member for the City of Cork, also for intimidation. I will make no allusion at present to the warrants for treasonable practices; but I must make a remark or two with regard to those for intimidation. I have often asserted that these arrests for intimidation were—[At this point the entrance of Mr. Parnell into the House, and the cheers with which he was greeted by the Home Rule Members, drowned the voice of the right hon. Gentleman and prevented the conclusion of the sentence from being heard.] Perhaps [the right hon. Gentleman continued] I may say that, although I could not advise the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, I am glad that as he is released I shall have the advantage of having him sitting opposite to me while I am obliged to allude to him in the course of my statement. I will take the two warrants against the hon. Member for the City of Cork—the

    109
    two warrants for intimidation. I have often stated that I did not consider that the persons arrested on such warrants could, in any right description, be termed political prisoners. Also, I can hardly agree with what, no doubt, is the opinion held by several of my hon. Friends—as clearly shown in the Notice of Amendment placed on the Books of the House a day or two ago—that they were not simply arrested for illegal agitation. It was our duty to arrest them upon what we considered reasonable suspicion of the commission of a crime punishable by law, being either an act of intimidation or an incitement thereto. That is to say, that the Act gave us no power to arrest merely for illegal agitation; but it did give us power to arrest on suspicion of, or participation in, those actual crimes by which men were ruined or injured, or forced, by the fear of being ruined or injured, to do things which they did not wish to do, or not to do things which they did wish to do. Now, it is a common notion that they were arrested—that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was arrested—merely for obstructing the action of the Land Act. It is quite true that one of the warrants that I signed was for intimidation to prevent persons from applying to the Land Court, and the other was for intimidation against the payment of rents. But I must state that the obstruction of the Land Act was a very small part of that intimidation for which it was thought necessary to pass the Protection Act, and under which I worked its provisions. The real ground why these Gentlemen were arrested, and why many others were arrested, was because they were trying to carry out their will—their unwritten law, as they often called it—and to carry it out by working the ruin and the injury of the Queen's subjects, by intimidation of one kind or another; and that that was carried on to such an degree that no Government could have allowed it to continue without becoming a Government merely in name and a sham. I must repeat now that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork had not been placed in Kilmainham at the time he was placed there, he would very quickly have become in reality what he was called by many of his friends—the uncrowned King of Ireland. I do not for a moment say that he or the other hon.
    110
    Members now present incited to outrage or the intimidation of special individuals; but what they did was, to my mind, far more dangerous than that. They organized and instituted, and successfully carried into force, a system of the intimidation of individuals generally, punishing them for obeying the law of the land and doing what they had a right to do, and very often what it was their duty to do, and punishing them for disobedience to their will and to their unwritten law. I have been obliged to go over the grounds on which these Gentlemen were arrested, Now, under what circumstances could I have approved of their release? I will at once admit that it was impossible to detain them for ever, and that we must have looked forward to their release at one time or another. I would have released them as soon as I obtained security that the law of the land would no longer be set at nought and trampled under foot by them; but until I knew that they either could not or would not try to put their will in the place of the law, and make men do what they pleased, and until I knew that the Queen's Courts and the Queen's servants would be able to prevent them from punishing the Queen's subjects by ruin for disobedience to any ukase they might claim to issue, I would have detained them in custody; and that not on the principle of punishment for crime, but for the prevention of crime. There are three conditions, on either of which I would have considered their release safe; but, to my mind, not one of these three conditions has been fulfilled. There should have been a public promise on their part; or Ireland quiet; or the acquisition of fresh powers by the Government. Now let me explain what I mean by these conditions. What do I mean by a public promise? I mean a public undertaking, or promise, to make no further attempt to set up their will, or rather their law, against the law of the land; and, under no circumstances, to aid or abet, or instigate to intimidation, to prevent men from doing what they had a right to do. We have no such promise. The hon. Member for the City of Cork, who has been alluded to this evening, has in no way, that I am aware of, disowned—I am alluding to his famous Ennis speech—this system of intimidation, of tabooing people, and

    111
    of ruining people because they did not do what he was trying to make them do. In no way whatever has he disowned that speech, or the principles which induced him to make it. I am told that hopes are held out to us that there will be a change of action on his part, and on the part of his friends. Publicly, we certainly have had a Bill brought forward for the amendment of the Land Act. Yesterday week the introduction of that Bill, and the discussion upon it, induced me to say at the close that I thought it was hopeful of a better tone of feeling; but what I want is the avowal of a change—not a promise to help the Government if the Government will do something, but an undertaking to cease to oppose the Government in the execution of the law. And I must say that I entreat the House, and may I entreat my old Colleagues, not to rely upon these expectations; and, above all, not to act upon them? Let the House do what it thinks right upon these questions; let it pass what Bill it thinks fit upon that most difficult and urgent question of arrears—and I will go as far as most Members in regard to that matter—let them do what they think right upon the Purchase Clauses of the Laud Act, or upon any other amendment of the Land Act; but do not try to buy obedience to the law by concessions. A surrender is bad, but a compromise or arrangement is worse. I think we may remember what the Tudor King said to a great Irishman in former times—"If all Ireland cannot govern the Earl of Kildare, then let the Earl of Kildare govern Ireland." The King thought it was better that the Earl of Kildare should govern Ireland, than that there should be an arrangement between the Earl of Kildare and his Representative. In like manner, if all England cannot govern the hon. Member for Cork, then let us acknowledge that he is the greatest power in Ireland today; but I believe that with all England, helped by a large portion of Ireland, no concessions are necessary—that no arrangements are necessary—and that the Government should not be weakened by any concession. Well, then, I repeat, my first condition has not been fulfilled. There has been no public undertaking to cease from intimidation under any circumstances; there has been merely a hope held out publicly yesterday
    112
    week, that if Parliament passed a certain Bill, that if it settled this difficult question of arrears on a certain basis, then the Party below the Gangway would cease to obstruct the law. I am talking of the condition of the hon. Member and his Friends telling us that they would not continue the action which they had pursued. I would have taken their word. The hon. Member for the City of Cork knows how I differ from him—he knows what a wonder and surprise it is to me that he can bring himself to do what he has done; but he is not only a gentleman in station; he is also a man of honour, and I would have taken his word. But his word we have not got. The next condition would be Ireland quiet—so quiet that he and his Friends could not, if they tried, do much harm, or, at any rate, not so much harm as would vindicate us in keeping them any longer in prison. I am sorry to say that that condition is not fulfilled. I differ from some—very likely from many Members of the House—I think there is considerable improvement in the condition of Ireland. There is no open resistance to the law. The Land League has been defeated, first in its dictation as to what rent should be paid, and next as to its orders that no rent should be paid. Rents are very generally paid to a very great extent all over Ireland, in spite of the Land League. "Boycotting" has been checked. The pike which was hoisted in the presence of the hon. Member, and which he may be said to have made and forged in his speech at Ennis, that pike has, to some extent, been struck down; and though there is intimidation, there is not so much as there was. I am not now taking any merit to myself, or even to those who have been acting under me and with me. But, of course, with the hard experience we have had for many months, we have found out the weak points of the Administration, and we have strengthened the strong points. The patrolling and the action of the police are much more vigorous and more effective than they have ever been before. We hear of cases of men being found out and discovered and arrested in the commission of outrages, which we did not hear of at first. I must say that an arrangement, which, with the assistance of my noble Friend, Lord Cowper, I was able to make, for the appointment of six special

    113
    magistrates, has done great good. There have been far fewer crimes in consequence. [An hon. MEMBER: Major Bond.] The hon. Member knows I am not alluding to Major Bond—he knows that I am alluding to the six special magistrates. Only one word more. I am not going to dwell upon the matter. It would not become me to take advantage of the kind indulgence and attention of the House, on this personal occasion, to enter into debateable subjects to which the House will have hereafter to give its attention; but I cannot allude to the magistrates, or the Castle at Dublin, without begging hon. Members to withhold their judgment in condemnation of the arrangement soft he Castle. Undoubtedly it was desirable that there should be less government by writing, and more government by personal supervision; but I hope that the Queen may be served, and long served, by such faithful and devoted and loyal and hardworking servants as most of her servants in the Castle of Dublin; and I may say the same of the police and the Resident Magistrates in the performance of their most arduous duties. Let me call attention to what has been done, and to what very nearly was not done. A danger which was very imminent last autumn—namely, that there would be no government, at least no legitimate government, in Ireland—has been warded off; and I cannot resist the temptation of relating what, a week or two ago, a lady stated to me in Ireland. I do not know that she would like me to give her name; but she is a lady who has been fighting valiantly against every kind of intimidation—and the women have shown fully as much courage as the men—in Ireland. She said—"Well, I have differed from you sometimes; but I am compelled now to acknowledge that there is a Government in Ireland." Why had we this Government in Ireland, and why were we able to maintain it? My right hon. Friend said truly that the Protection Act had not failed. It was by the Protection Act—and I know of no other means by which it could have been done—that we secured government in Ireland, or, rather, prevented the government of Ireland from not being the Queen's Government; and that we broke up the Land League, or, at any rate, so far broke it up that it had to become a Ladies' Land League; that it tried to
    114
    hide itself under petticoats, or to fly to Paris, or take refuge in the sanctuary of this House. I must say one other thing, and that is that I took pains to obtain what I believe to be confidential, but accurate information, from every parish in Munster and Connaught, and from parts of Ulster, and from some of the counties in Leinster; and the information that I obtained was that, in many cases, the districts are more peaceable now and less disturbed than they were on the 1st of January; and that, upon the whole, the state of things is better, although, undoubtedly, it is still very bad. There are still many outrages. They have slightly diminished of late; but there are many as compared with last year and the year before. Undoubtedly, the secret societies have been more active; and I am very glad my right hon. Friend stated that they would occupy the attention of the Government. But this much I must say, and that is that if there is one thing worse even than secret societies, it is the open acknowledgment of the powerlessness of the law without the assistance of the law-breakers. Better even secret societies with which we must contend, and which we must put down as we have put them down before; better even these hideous incidents of the demoralization of Ireland than paying black-mail to law-breakers. There is no doubt, also, that the Land Courts are at work, and that the Land Act has taken hold of the imaginations of men, and is appealing very strongly to their interest; but the battle of law against lawlessness is not won; and I believe that, since that battle was begun, there never was a time in which it was more dangerous to relax the authority of the law. I know very well there are many on both sides of the House who do not agree with me; that they will not admit that, unless this step had been taken, we had hope of success. I believe that soon the law would have been shown to be all-powerful; that soon these secret societies, in their last manifestation, would have been put down; and that we should have had, neither secretly nor openly in Ireland, to contend with organizations defying the law. I hope the step that has been taken will not make that time more distant. That was the second condition, that Ireland should be quiet, and it has not been fulfilled. Now, there was a third condition, and

    115
    that was the one to which I myself looked forward as the condition upon which we should have been able to open the prison doors. That was the passing of a fresh Act—an Act which seemed to be required by special circumstances. I will not take up the time of the House on this point. I only rejoice that my right hon. Friend sees the necessity of an Act; but if he had been, more or less, for the last two years in Ireland, as I have been, however important the questions of Procedure are—and no one more than I acknowledges their importance, or is more anxious to see them carried out—I think he would feel that this Irish matter, this law for strengthening the power of the Government, must take, or, rather, ought to take, precedence of anything else. What I hope will be pointed to in such an Act is the greater certainty of punishment, and more appeals to the district to make them interested in the prevention of crime. But what I had hoped was this—that as soon as possible—there may be different definitions as to how soon that may be—there would have been an agreement that, as soon as the absolutely necessary Business was disposed of, this Act should be passed, and then I had fully hoped that we might, at any rate, have tried the experiment, not merely of releasing these three Gentlemen, or those who were arrested on similar grounds, but of releasing all whom we have detained without trial. Well, my Colleagues have decided otherwise, and I had to consider what I should do. It may be that I am mistaken. I only trust that I am. You may well say—What is the opinion of one man against that of 13, many of them far better qualified to form an opinion than I am. That one man, however, had the opinion so strong, that it was impossible for him to appear here, and not to acknowledge that he held it. I hope, as I say, that I may be mistaken. There may be an immediate diminution of outrages. Most heartily do I hope there will be. I observe in The Times correspondence from Ireland yesterday—[An hon. MEMBER: Patton.]—I do not know whether hon. Members will dispute the statement—that since the release many men are hoping that rents will be even better paid than they have been, and that the May rents, only just due, will be paid. I am glad to hear it.
    116
    I am glad that men should be doing their duty in paying the debts they owe, and that many men and women who have been put to sore straits for the want of their rents should be getting their money. But it is not altogether. with an unmixed feeling that I heard that statement made in that way. It may teach this lesson to both landlord and tenant—that the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends can get rent paid, and debts paid, when the Government cannot. And I cannot forget that for many months we have been teaching the lesson, and with success, that whatever the hon. Member and his Friends did, or tried to do, the Government would insist upon men paying their lawful debts, whatever obstacles these hon. Members might interpose in the way. But, Mr. Speaker, that is a lesson which it is not difficult to unlearn. There may, as I say, be this immediate diminution. Another fear which I had, and had very strongly, is one in which I hope, with all my heart, I am wrong, and that is that the price paid for this immediate diminution of outrage, if we obtain it, will be a weakening of the powers of Government, not of this Government merely, but of any Government, to perform its first duty of giving protection to life, liberty, and property, and doing it without any arrangements with those who threaten to defy the law. There is another matter which I will only allude to for a moment. There were two of these warrants for treasonable practices. I hope that treasonable practices, by which I mean incitement to excitable people in Ireland to what may lead them into armed resistance—though, perhaps, it may not be so intended—may not be made more probable by the course that has been taken. What I have to say is this—that with these fears, amounting to strong convictions, I could not retain my position. I asked myself the question in every possible way. No man tears himself away from his Party without a desperate wrench, and without trying to find how he can avoid it. I asked myself this question—"Will the arrangement which has been made, which I entirely approve of, which, I may say, I promoted, and which, I may almost say, I instigated—will the appointment of my noble Friend Lord Spencer as Lord Lieutenant help me to maintain my position?" When I say I promoted it,

    117
    let me give the reason. It was not from any want of confidence or reliance in my noble Friend Lord Cowper, or from any failure of assistance from him. He and I have worked together with the greatest harmony and agreement through all these difficult times. But I promoted the appointment of Lord Spencer simply for this reason—that in the great difficulties which there were in Ireland, it was necessary, as I thought, that there should be a Cabinet Minister there to direct affairs. As I happened to be a Cabinet Minister, who also had to be in London, I plainly could not be in two places at once. I asked myself for a moment whether, inasmuch as the new Lord Lieutenant would have the most actual responsibility for the administration, I could not silence my fears and not listen to my convictions. But I was obliged to remember that I should have to vindicate his policy in this House. Everyone who works with others is, I suppose, sometimes obliged to refrain from saying, or even from doing, what he would like to say or do; but I do not think that any man is called upon to vindicate or to say a thing which he does not believe, or of which he does not approve. It is quite true—and I could not but think that there was force in the statement—that I might to some extent be intensifying the danger by leaving my post—that it would appear to make the change more marked; but there, again, no public good is really advanced by an act of private dishonor. Nor do I really believe that the public good would be diminished. I think there is a greater chance of an immediate diminution of outrages. There is the great pleasure amongst hon. Members opposite and their Friends of getting rid of the late Chief Secretary; and if this puts men into good humor in Ireland, as well as here, it may be that in their efforts to stop outrages, if they make them at all, they will be stronger than they would otherwise have been. Most certainly the price paid, and which I fear must be paid, for such diminution of outrages—the weakening of Government—will be less than if there had been the disgraceful spectacle of my swallowing what was known to be my convictions in order to retain my seat in the Government. I therefore was driven to take this step. It has been very painful to myself. I shall not de-
    118
    tain the House much longer. It is painful to leave the Councils, and the proud position of being one of the Leaders of that great Party, to which all my life I have belonged; though, to my own mind, I have not in any way forsaken any one of its principles, and most assuredly I remain a faithful soldier in the ranks. It is painful to leave Colleagues and intimate friends at a time of difficulty; and, above all, it is more painful to me than I can find words to express to leave the service of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, than whom there never was a Chief who won more the affection, the loyalty, the respect, and the reverence of one who has served under him. I have only two things more to say. This step having been taken, I hope it may succeed. Anything which I can do without dishonor to my conscientious convictions will be done to smooth the difficult path of my Successors, both Lord Spencer and my noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish), who, I am glad to hear, is the man who is to succeed to the not very enviable post of Chief Secretary. I have now only to thank the House most sincerely for the generous and kind attention they have given me. May I add one word more to thank, as I do most sincerely, the very large majority of the House on both sides, for the personal kindness they have shown to me for two years in the difficulties, which have been not slight, of the post which I have occupied.
    MR. O'KELLY: Sir, I have to ask the indulgence of the House to address a simple question to the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. I am one of those persons whom he has held in prison for the last six months, the only charge made against me being one of treasonable practices. May I ask the simple question on what that charge was founded? ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the right hon. Gentleman has, under the exceptional circumstances, made an explanation to the House. But as there is now no Bill, or other Question before the House, the hon. Member is out of Order unless he desires to make a personal explanation.
    MR. GLADSTONE: If, Sir, the statement the hon. Member wishes to make partakes of the nature of a personal ex-

    119
    planation arising out of the statement of my right hon. Friend, I will give way to him; otherwise, in conformity with the practice of Parliament, I should wish to make a statement upon the same subject as that of my right hon. Friend, and which, I think, will be of some use to the House as tending to clear its views of the position. Does the hon. Member wish to proceed? [Mr. O'KELLY: No.] Then, Sir, let me say, in the first place, that the statement of my right hon. Friend has been such as I had expected from him—such as I had expected from him from the experience of a long and close association, which has given me abundant means of appreciating his personal qualities. I have on all occasions spoken freely upon that subject, and I need not now enter into details; but I may say this, in acknowledgment to my right hon. Friend, that no man believes more fully than I do—and more fully than I am certain every one of his late Colleagues do—that in retiring from Office at this period it has not been his intention in any manner to abandon or compromise the Liberal principles to which he has devoted his life, and I hope that for very many years to come—for my right hon. Friend is a good deal younger than I am—he will continue still to defend and adorn those principles. There was, Sir, but one passage in the speech of my right hon. Friend which caused me surprise and regret, and I cannot but believe that it was introduced by inadvertence. It was the passage in which he referred to the course taken by the Government in laying down from the commencement of the Session that, notwithstanding the grave condition of affairs in Ireland, the question of the Procedure of the House should take precedence of all other questions. [Laughter.] I will patiently wait, Sir, till those manifestations cease. I am persuaded they are not approved by the great body of this House; and I think that some day or other they will be regretted by those who make them. Those circumstances are too grave for such manifestations. I only regret them on my own account, because I have a difficult duty to perform, and my desire is not to fail in that duty more than is unavoidable. I have referred to my right hon. Friend's reference to the course taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the Procedure of the House only to express
    120
    my regret that he should have made it, and I now pass on. There are three or four observations, not, however, of very great length, which I wish to make on portions of my right hon. Friend's statement. The first observation I have made in order—namely, the reference to Procedure. The second, Sir, is with respect to a considerable portion of the speech of my right hon. Friend, in which he entered into a vindication of the arrests which have just been terminated by release. I hope that my right hon. Friend has no apprehension—indeed, I am quite certain he has no apprehension—that Her Majesty's Government, as it is now constituted, is likely to shield itself from any portion of its full responsibility for those arrests. It has been justly said that the policy of my right hon. Friend was the policy of the Government, and the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was the subject of direct personal communications between my right hon. Friend and myself—two or three days, I think, before it took place. Had it been the pleasure of hon. Gentlemen opposite to make any reference to those arrests I should not have stood in their way; but at the present moment I only advert to this matter in order to acknowledge, and even more than acknowledge—to claim my full share in. the responsibility for each and all of those arrests. The third point I wish to notice is regarding words used by my right hon. Friend more than once in his speech, equivalent to saying that he desired to obtain from the hon. Member for the City of Cork and those with whom he acted an avowal of change. I wish to lay emphasis on the word "change." It is something like, in effect, asking for a penitential confession of guilt. I think I am correct in saying that I express the sentiments of the Government, and I certainly express my own clear and full opinion, when I say that I disclaim alike the desire and the right to ask of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, or any of those who sit near him, anything of the sort. In considering whether we should be justified in closing the prison doors on the hon. Member for the City of Cork, I had no title to ask any question but the one whether I believed that the effect of his release would be prejudicial to the public tranquility. I do not believe the hon.

    121
    Member would ever come with a declaration of that kind, and certainly I am not the man to go to any Member of the House and ask him for any statement involving his own humiliation. We differ widely from the hon. Member. No man has spoken out more broadly the whole extent of the imputation that he thought might lie against the conduct of the hon. Member than myself. But I frankly own that for this purpose, whatever opinion I hold—be it true or false—it has nothing whatever to do with the question whether we should have been justified in prolonging the imprisonment, which on our responsibility we were compelled to do. Well, Sir, that is the third remark I wish to make. The fourth is this. I do not complain at all of the statement of my right hon. Friend, and I know the difficulty of making these explanations on parting from Office. It has been my own fate on former occasions, and I only wonder at, and admire, the self-denial and self-abnegation which has marked my right hon. Friend's statement. I find in it a new faith and assurance that both our public and personal relations will remain unchanged. But my right hon. Friend has also, and I think again and again, used expressions, not unnatural from his point of view, to this effect—"Do not Buy obedience to the law; do not enter into any arrangement; do not pay blackmail." Now, with every one of those propositions I entirely agree. But I hold them—and this is the point of difference between my right hon. Friend and myself—I hold them to be wholly without application to the circumstances in which we stand. There is no arrangement between the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of Cork and us. That very word "arrangement," which has been used by my right hon. Friend, I myself used on Tuesday in order to repudiate the idea. There is no bargain, no arrangement, and no negotiations; for nothing has been asked, and nothing has been taken. By those words I abide in their strict sense, and I repeat what has been already stated, that we have frankly availed ourselves of information tendered to us as to the views of men whose position in Ireland makes them, at any rate, sensible factors in the materials that go to determine the condition of that country; and that information has led to conclusions on our part to which we
    122
    have hastened to give effect. But in that information I do not assert, I do not insinuate—on the contrary, I exclude all promises, which we have neither asked nor given. Now, Sir, what is buying obedience to the law, and what is paying black-mail? To pay black-mail, or to buy obedience to the law, is to give something that you would not otherwise give. Are we going to do so? What, then, is that it we are going to give? What is it that we have promised in conjunction with the release of the hon. Member for the City of Cork? Sir, there is nothing promised in connection with that release. It is, as the House knows, the intention of Her Majesty's Government, upon the earliest opportunity they can find, to legislate on the subject of arrears of rent. On Wednesday in last week I had not received the information that has since come to my knowledge; I spoke simply upon the public manifestation—a manifestation of the greatest and most salutary importance—afforded by the Bill then under discussion, even though I could not assent to many of its provisions. I spoke simply with the manifestation afforded by the Bill, and by the speeches with which it was proposed and. supported; but I stated on that occasion, as I may be permitted to remind the House, that we admitted the necessity of dealing with the question of arrears, and that there were two methods of dealing with them, the one permissive and by loan, and the other compulsory as regards the individual and by gift; and I expressed a great desire to know the sentiments of Irish Members of all sections in reference to this question. Sir, I believe the impression made on those who did me the honor to attend to the slight exposition that I made was that, in endeavoring to describe these two methods of proceeding, the leaning of my speech was towards the method unquestionably more effectual—namely, the method resting on the two pillars, so to speak, of gift and of compulsion—and I referred in terms of not too literal adhesion, but of general commendation, to the framework of the clause—Clause 10—in the Bill then under discussion. Now, those were the declarations of Wednesday week. They do not constitute blackmail. They do not constitute price paid for obedience to the law. They referred to a measure which it would have been

    123
    our duty to propose and to carry. Whether we had or had not received any information as to the views of the hon. Member, it would have been our duty to propose and to carry such a measure, even as part of our general obligations to the people of Ireland. Now, having gone thus far, I wish to refer very briefly to the three conditions laid down by my right hon. Friend. I am not sure whether the House gathered with perfect clearness what was plain and obvious to me, aided as I was by previous knowledge of the sentiments of my right hon. Friend, that these conditions were not cumulative.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I stated so. I said either one or the other.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Then I am perfectly satisfied. I will take those conditions, with the permission of the House, in the reverse order. The third condition was this—that my right hon. Friend would have been ready to release the three Members of Parliament lately detained after the passing of a fresh Act, with additional powers for the government of Ireland.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: The whole of the "suspects."
    MR. GLADSTONE: Yes; but that is no qualification at all of what I am about to press; but we were to wait, as regards these gentlemen, for the passing of a fresh Act establishing new powers for the government of Ireland. Now, the point I wish to put to the House—I hope I may be able to make it clear—is that, if it was our conviction that the release of those three Gentlemen was a measure favorable to the peace of Ireland, and not unfavorable to it, then it was our bounden and absolute duty not to wait for the passing of such a measure. It could not have had a shadow of justification. Then take the second condition of my right hon. Friend. My right hon. Friend, said Ireland was not quiet, and undoubtedly we do not greatly differ from the statement given by my right hon. Friend in the picture which he drew of the state of Ireland, and we do not found our justification upon any allegation in the face of the House that the present condition of Ireland is quiet or satisfactory. Then my right hon. Friend clearly conveyed to the House, without having Ireland in a condition quiet and satisfactory, and without having any Act for strengthening
    124
    the powers of the ordinary law, he would have been willing to concur in the release of the prisoners who had been released had there been a public undertaking from them of a satisfactory character with reference to their conduct upon and after their release in regard to the maintenance of law and order. Now, let us consider what this involves. We had information which, with the views we entertained, carried to our minds the weight of a rational conviction that those hon. Gentlemen, on their release—taking into view the debate of Wednesday, and the declaration of what was, in their minds, regarded as quite essential—namely, the settlement of the question of arrears—I say we had in our minds the belief, founded on information, that those Gentlemen would find themselves in a condition to range themselves on the side of what I should call law and order and individual freedom in Ireland. There is still one element wanting in the conditions stated by my right hon. Friend. He says he would have required a public undertaking. Now, Sir, what does that mean? It means that we must have entered into an arrangement with the hon. Gentleman. It means we must have knocked at the door of the cell in which, unhappily, he was for the time confined, and should have said to him—"We are not going to take exception to what we understand to be fair sentiments; but we are going to require of you to make a public undertaking." Sir, we made no demand of that kind upon the hon. Gentleman. In my opinion, it would have been a grave and serious error had we made such a demand. We desire to trust ourselves freely, Sir, notwithstanding the wide differences that have prevailed between us, to the honour, to the spirit, and the unrestrained liberty of the hon. Gentleman and those with, whom he acts. Again, then, Sir, I have only to refer the House to that which previously it has been my duty to state. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford has to-day illustrated it by saying that it was his duty to open the prison doors upon either one of two conditions—first, that the release would not be dangerous; the second, that the intention of the persons released was not such as to inspire him with apprehension. But, Sir, I must observe that, although my right hon. Friend thinks it was of vital necessity that we should

    125
    have asked the hon. Member for the City of Cork for a public undertaking, my right hon. Friend has himself, and I am extremely glad of it, ordered the release of very numerous persons in Ireland without any public undertaking whatever—expressed or implied. So that the proposition conies to this—that, although I was ready to release others in whose intentions as to law and order I had no reason to confide, yet we were to draw the line of distinction against the Members of this House who were imprisoned, and to negotiate with them for a public undertaking as a condition of release.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend; but I think I must have very poorly expressed myself if I conveyed the impression that I made it a condition that we were to ask the hon. Members for a public undertaking. I never for a moment thought that. What I stated was, that if any of these three things happened—that Ireland was so safe that they could not do harm, or if we obtained fresh powers which enabled us to try the experiment of letting them out, or that they themselves came forward with an undertaking.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I am very glad, Sir, that my right hon. Friend's explanation makes a farther contribution towards clearing the situation. My right hon. Friend says he would not have gone to ask for any public undertaking. Well, but then, Sir, in my opinion, that does not alter the case as to our position. We were in the position of having received information—["Oh, oh!"]—I submit myself to the hon. Gentleman the Member for—but, no; I will not name him, and will await his pleasure. We were in this condition. We received information upon evidence which we knew to be most trustworthy, and which conveyed to our minds the conclusion that I have described—namely, that were the intentions which, as I have said, the Government referred to on Wednesday week fulfilled, it would be a course which would attain the objects of my right hon. Friend. But then, Sir, what were we to do? One thing of two we must have done. We must either have gone to Kilmainham and asked for an engagement—[renewed cries of "Oh, oh!"]—I must own, Sir, this interruption is to me unusual and un-
    126
    known in this House. Either we must have gone to the hon. Member for Cork, and asked him for an engagement, which my right hon. Friend justly says he would have objected to doing, or else, having information as to the views of Irish Members, the hon. Member for Cork included, which gave to us the conviction I have described, we were still to have kept him in prison. Was it possible for Ministers of the Crown, possessed of such information in regard to persons whose honor we have no title to dispute, to treat it as if it had never reached them, and to continue them in their confinement? Well, there is the whole case, I think in some degree elucidated by the discussion to-day, by the explanation of my right hon. Friend, and the explanation the House has permitted me to make as it stands between us. I will only close as I began, by thanking my right hon. Friend for his kind expressions towards myself, and by stating my undiminished confidence alike in his ability and character, and by renewing all the fervent wishes I have expressed for his future happiness and welfare.
    MR. PARNELL: Sir, I desire to trespass on the time of the House for a few moments, not to join in the debate which appears likely to be originated by the two speeches we have just heard; but for the purpose of making a statement of a personal character with reference to what we have heard from the Prime Minister as to the part I have taken in the matters which have been touched on by the right hon. Gentleman. My statement, Sir, will be of a very simple character, and in making it I desire to put the House and the public fairly and fully in possession of anything which I may have said or written to any friends of mine during the last week or so, regarding the maintenance of law and order in Ireland, and regarding the question of the amendment of the Land Act. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has made two statements, which, on the face of them, are of a contradictory character. He stated in the first portion of his speech that the Government had thankfully availed themselves of information tendered to them with reference to the views of myself and of the hon. Members for the Counties of Tipperary and Roscommon.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I did not limit it to any two Gentlemen.
    MR. PARNELL: And that their information had led the Government to the conclusion upon which—
    MR. GLADSTONE: "Their" information! "This" information.
    MR. PARNELL: And that this information had led the Government to the conclusion upon which they had acted—that upon our release we would find ourselves in a position to range ourselves upon the side of law and order. That is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Not quite literally; but if the hon. Member will kindly go on I shall be able to correct him later.
    MR. PARNELL: That is the statement of the right hon. Gentleman to which I wish to call attention.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think I had better refer the hon. Gentleman to the record of what I said. On each occasion on which I referred to the subject I may not have given expression to my full view; but I stated quite distinctly that, according to our understanding, it was absolutely essential in the view of the hon. Gentleman—as, indeed, I had understood it to be in the view, in the Wednesday's debate, of all the Gentlemen present in this House holding the same sentiments—that the particular question of arrears should be settled upon a certain basis. Subject to that modification, I think the statement is correct.
    MR. PARNELL: I accept the explanation of the right hon. Gentleman; but the statement I have just quoted is the one I wish to comment upon, and which I wish to compare with the subsequent statement, the effect of which is what the right hon. Gentleman has just given. Later on in his speech the Prime Minister said that they were in the position of having received information that, were the intentions of the Government announced on Wednesday regarding the arrears carried out, a course would be taken in regard to the restoration of law and order.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, no, Sir; I beg pardon. I never made that statement. On Wednesday I referred to two alternative methods of procedure, and I did not state any decision of the Government on that day as between the
    128
    one and the other. My understanding about arrears was that, in the view of Irish Members sitting in that quarter of the House, it was vital that one of those methods, and not the other, should be accepted; but I never stated that I supposed, nor was I represented to suppose, that the statement made by me on Wednesday in last week was all that was sought by the hon. Gentleman.
    MR. PARNELL: I do not wish to contrast the two methods of settling the arrears of rent, or to suggest that the right hon. Gentleman on Wednesday pinned himself or the Government to one method or the other. What I wish to point out is that the right hon. Gentleman stated that the Government was in the position of having received information that, were the course adopted by the Government on Wednesday regarding the arrears fulfilled, we should take a certain course.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Oh, no; pardon me; I never said such a thing; because no intentions of the Government were announced on Wednesday, except as to dealing with the question of arrears.
    MR. PARNELL: Precisely; that were the intentions of the Government announced on Wednesday—that is to say, the intentions of the Government to deal with the question of arrears fulfilled—a course would be taken by us with regard to the restoration of law and order. Well, Sir, I have quoted the two statements of the right hon. Gentleman—
    MR. GLADSTONE: I never stated it.
    MR. PARNELL: In order to show that they are of an entirely different character. In the first portion of the speech the idea is conveyed that if my hon. Friends the Members for Tipperary and Roscommon and myself were released, we would take some special action in regard to the restoration of law and order. I presume that the right hon. Gentleman has received communications from some of my friends to whom I may have made written or verbal or written communications on the state of Ireland; but I wish to say emphatically that I have not, in conversation with my friends, either verbally or in writing, entered into the question of the release of my hon. Friends and myself as any condition. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I have not, either in writing or verbally, referred to my release. I have not, either in writing or

    129
    verbally, referred to this release; and with respect to the first statement of the Prime Minister—I am sure the right hon. Gentleman did not intend it—I wish to say it is the reverse of the fact. I have stated verbally to more than one of my friends, and I have written that I believed the settlement of this Arrears Question, which compels the Government to turn out into the road tenants who are unable to pay their rents, who have no hope of being able to pay rents to which they were rendered liable in the bad seasons of 1878, 1879, and 1880, would have an enormous effect on the restoration of law and order in Ireland—would take away the last excuse for the outrages which have been, unhappily, committed in such large and increasing numbers during the last six months; and that if such a settlement were made, I believed that we, in common with all persons who desire to see the prosperity of Ireland, would be able to take such steps as would have a material effect in diminishing those exceptional, those lamentable outrages. I have desired to make a statement with regard to a matter of fact. I do not wish to enter into the debatable matter which has been introduced by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland.
    MR.DILLON: Sir, if the House is kind enough to allow me to say a few words of personal explanation I will not trespass upon it for more than five minutes. I merely wish to say that there is one sentence which I have taken down verbatim from the Prime Minister's speech, which is calculated to convey a wrong impression, and I think it would be desirable, before any formal debate should take place, that the House should be in possession of the truth. The right hon. Gentleman said the Government were in the position of having received information, on evidence which they knew to be most trustworthy, that were the intentions expressed by the Government on Wednesday in the discussion on the Land Act Amendment Bill fulfilled the hon. Members would find themselves in a position to range themselves on the side of law and order. Now, Sir, I only desire to say on my own behalf—I speak only for myself—that during the somewhat lengthened period since I last appeared in this House I never had, either directly or indirectly, in any sense, any communication with the Ministers of the
    130
    Crown or the Government of Ireland. What the right hon. Gentleman's source of information may be I do not know; but the only explanation which presents itself to my mind of the statements and hints which have been thrown out from that Bench is that I was aware of the drafting of a Bill which was submitted to this House, and that I never took any trouble to conceal my conviction that if the proposals in that Bill were passed into law, and the Coercion Act were withdrawn, it would be easier to maintain law and order in Ireland. I have never taken any trouble to suppress my conviction to that effect. I said it over and over again to friends, but I did not care in the least degree whether it reached the ears of the Government or not. In making that statement, I have not deviated a hair's breadth from what I said before in this House—namely, that if you leave the Irish people their public rights and stop evictions you will stop outrages and you will have no trouble to maintain law and order. I say the provisions of that Bill would stop evictions, and if you leave the Irish people their right of public meeting, and if you restore to the responsible Leaders of the Irish people the responsibility and power of controlling the people, you will find it less difficult than you have done to maintain law and order in Ireland. I have only to say, in conclusion, that having been for some time under the custody of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, against whom, I may say, I do not entertain the slightest personal animosity, I now feel myself just as free to take any course which may seem right and judicious to me, the Government not having yet stated what they proposed to do, as I did when I went into Kilmainham Gaol; and if the Prime Minister believes that I feel myself in any way honorably bound to shape my actions otherwise than may seem to me right, he is greatly mistaken.
    MR. O'KELLY: The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland, in the course of his speech, has taken occasion to repeat over and over again the statement by which he endeavored to blacken our characters when he put us into prison. In the course of his speech to-day he has not thought it necessary to adduce the slightest proof in support of the serious charge which

    131
    he brought against me personally. After arresting me, as I hold, without cause, without justification, he has risen in this House to defend his conduct, and in doing so he has directed against me a charge of a serious nature, as though it was a matter of no consequence to accuse me of being concerned in treasonable practices, without deigning to adduce one iota or one shadow of proof in justification of that assertion. When I rose to challenge the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I wanted to ask him to state here in the House, that hon. Gentlemen might form some just notions of the grounds of his action, upon what information and upon what proof he laid that charge of treasonable practices against me. The right hon. Gentleman intimated that, if I had not come to him for liberation, he would have allowed me to remain in prison. But, Sir, anyone who knows me must know that sooner than ask the right hon. Gentleman to liberate me I would have died in prison. The statement made by the Prime Minister appears to throw on us some shadow of suspicion that we came to the Government offering some conditions. ["No, no!"] That was the impression made upon me. It is an impression, at least, that we are justified in repudiating at once, because there is no shadow of foundation for it. The right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland has constantly stated that we were enemies of law and order in Ireland. Now, I challenge that statement, and I say that there has not been within the four seas of Ireland so great an enemy of law and order as the right hon. Gentleman. I say, further, that there is not a man in Ireland who is anxious for disorder or in favour of violence. [Cries of "Order!"]
    MR.SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that he is now going beyond the bounds of personal explanation. He is now attacking another Member of the House, which he cannot do within the limits of a personal explanation.
    MR.O'KELLY: Perhaps I have been carried away too far in answering the charge brought against me; but it is no light charge to throw in the face of men as honorable as the right hon. Gentleman himself, whose lives are quite as pure as his, whose lives will bear examination quite as well as his, to charge
    132
    them with being the enemies of law and order in their own country, and, further, to make against some of them a specific charge of great gravity without adducing the slightest evidence in support of it.
    MR.GLADSTONE: I only wish to say a word of explanation. I believe there is no difference as to the sense of what I stated; but I perceive, upon consideration, that the words I used—the words "upon release"—may be understood, if taken alone, to imply that the hon. Gentlemen covenanted to do something on release. But I think the positive declaration I have made, that there has been nothing given and nothing taken, may be regarded as quite ample to remove any misapprehension. I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman should be sensitive on the subject. With regard to what happened on Wednesday, I will not go back upon that matter; but I hope it will be clearly understood that I had been aware all along, from information I had received, that the hon. Member for Cork City undoubtedly looked to the effective settlement of the Arrears Question as the basis of a restoration of law and order in Ireland.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Sir, the House has, in accordance with its usual custom, given to the right hon. Gentleman who has recently quitted the Ministry, and to the Prime Minister, as representing the Ministry which he has quitted, and to the other Gentlemen whose names have been brought into the discussion in a manner which seemed to require some statement from them, an opportunity of making personal explanations. But it does seem to me that it would not be inappropriate that those who have no personal explanations to give should still be allowed to make one or two observations upon the extremely vague statements we have heard in the course of the evening. I wish, in the first place, to say what I am sure is the feeling of the House, that upon no occasion on which I have heard a retiring Minister make a statement of the grounds of his retirement have I heard anything more dignified than the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. As one who has frequently had occasion to differ from the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his conduct of Irish affairs, I wish to express on my own behalf and that of my Friends our sense

    133
    of the great labour, industry, courage, and fidelity with, which he has discharged his duty. The grounds which the right hon. Gentleman has stated to us as the grounds on which he felt it necessary to sever himself from his late Colleagues are of so serious a nature, that I think his statement will cause general uneasiness and alarm in the country. The right hon. Gentleman began by telling us the ground on which he separated himself from his Colleagues—that they were prepared to allow a certain number of Gentlemen, Members of this House, and other "suspects," who were detained under the Protection of Person and Property Act, to be discharged; and that he separated himself from his Colleagues on the ground that he could not take the responsibility of an act which, in his opinion, would tend to the encouragement of crime in Ireland. Now, Sir, I do not wish to draw any distinction between, the action and position of the late Chief Secretary for Ireland and the position of the Members of the Government. They were all equally responsible. But we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman had, far beyond all his Colleagues, the opportunity of knowing exactly and appreciating the real state of affairs in Ireland; and when he tells us that this act, which of itself seems to require some explanation, was one which he could not confirm, because he thought it dangerous, and because he thought it might tend to the encouragement of crime, I must say that that is a statement so serious that it demands on the part of his late Colleagues the most ample and satisfactory explanation of the grounds upon which they proceeded. What did the right hon. Gentleman tell us? He told us that if the original act of arresting these Members had not taken place, the state of Ireland would have been so serious that the Government would have become the Government only in name. He told us that they were the authors of an organized system of intimidation—that it was absolutely impossible for the law to take its course if these Gentlemen were not checked in their career as they were. He goes on to say that he quite understood that they could not remain in prison for ever, and that he should have been content to agree to their discharge if one of three conditions had been
    134
    secured—if either there had been a public promise on their part to make no further attempt to set up their will against the law, or if the state of Ireland had been such as to give the assurance that quiet and order were restored, or if the Government had acquired fresh powers of dealing with disorderly and illegal practices. If any one of these conditions had been fulfilled, the right hon. Gentleman was willing to consent to the release of the "suspects." But he tells us that none of these conditions were complied with; and I would ask the House, having listened to the Prime Minister and the dialogue which has taken place—a rather peculiar dialogue between himself and the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the other two Gentlemen—whether we can at all satisfy ourselves that the Government have made out a case? There is one condition, unfortunately, which we know is not fulfilled. Neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the Prime Minister has ventured to say that the state of Ireland is yet a state of peace and quietness. That being acknowledged by all, it is unnecessary I should dwell on it. They do not rest their conduct on this. Very well. What do they rest it on? Is it upon their intention to acquire fresh powers or upon the avowals made of the intention of the hon. Members to range themselves on the side of law and order? That appears to be the ground mainly put forward and rested upon by the Prime Minister. It is mainly because of the assurance which he thinks he has received, that these Gentlemen are prepared to range themselves on the side of law and order, that he has taken this very serious step. I should like to know, first of all, what sort of advice the Government have taken on this matter to induce them to think that this step is a safe one? Evidently it was not the advice of their late Colleague. Whose advice was it, then? Was it the advice of the Resident Magistrates and of the authorities throughout Ireland? I think we ought to have some information on that head. These are the gentlemen who are administering the law under great difficulties, and sometimes at some risk. They are men thoroughly acquainted with the condition of the country. Have they been consulted, and have they acceded? I ask this with all the more earnestness because I re-

    135
    member well that at the time of the accession of Her Majesty's Government to Office, they had placed before them by those who were well qualified to speak from different parts of Ireland, representations to them and to the Government who preceded them, of the necessity of renewing the Peace Preservation Act. They set those opinions aside, and rested upon their own judgment—upon their own a priori opinion—and so far as I can make out, it is very much more upon their a priori opinion than upon anything of a more substantial character they have taken this step. The right hon. Gentleman said just now that if he was of opinion that the release of the "suspects" would have the effect of promoting order, rather than endangering it, he was bound to release them. Certainly But where is the evidence? I think he has failed to make out his case. I entirely understand the main point which has been insisted upon by the hon. Member for Cork City and the other two Gentlemen—namely, that they made no kind of condition as to their release being dependent upon acting under any engagement whatever. That is the point they have insisted upon, and naturally insisted upon, in order that they do not compromise their own honor by desiring to obtain their release on conditions; but, while I understand that, I fail to understand how far they have gone in expressing their opinion that Ireland may be pacified now that it is their intention to support measures for the pacification of the country, supposing certain arrangements are carried out by the Government. References are made continually to what was said in regard to the Bill who was before us on Wednesday week dealing with the question of arrears. Evidently that Bill is in some way connected with the arrangement. To what extent has that Bill been accepted? How far are the particular provisions of that Bill to be insisted upon How far are Members to be bound by the course taken in regard to the Bill? That is a matter with regard to which many of us are still in doubt. If that is one of the conditions, let us ask as to the remaining ones. Is the Government about to ask for the acquisition of fresh powers or not? That is a point on which there ought to be no misunderstanding; but I am sorry to say I am very far from yet under-
    136
    standing it is the intention of the Government seriously to propose a measure of the kind. We are told we are to go on with Procedure, and that we shall know after that. I am bound to say that seems rather like a mockery. I think it will have the effect of giving the impression in Ireland, either that the Ministers do not know exactly what they are going to do, or that they are halfhearted about it. What seems to me most important is that there should not be the possibility of mistake on the part of the Irish people as to the firmness and intentions of the Government. If they have measures of a remedial character for dealing with Arrears, or with the Purchase Clauses, or any other part of the Land Act, let us know what they are. Do not keep them dangling before us, exciting hopes, producing extravagant demands, and creating additional confusion; but let us have a statement of their policy, let us be told precisely what measures they intend to bring forward, and let us have all this beyond the possibility of misunderstanding or doubt; and, similarly, if they require any fresh powers for the administration of justice, and for the maintenance of peace and order, let them bring forward these measures, and let them lay them before the House and the country, and then we shall understand, and then the people of Ireland will understand, that this new departure on the party of the Government is not in the nature of a concession. I can quite understand that it will be necessary to suspend the proceedings in the various stages of the least urgent Bills for the purpose of passing the necessary measures, and it would be a great point if we even had the declaration of a policy before us; but now we do not know whether there is any policy at all. It seems to me that we are at the point of a new departure. The old policy has been abandoned. The policy they have insisted on for more than a year has been dropped. Why has it been abandoned? Is it because it has succeeded or failed? You abandon a policy for one of two reasons—either because you have attained your object and it is no longer necessary, or because that it has failed, and you resolve to try something else. But here we are left in the dark as to whether it is one thing or the other. Indeed, I sometimes doubt whether they have

    137
    themselves made up their minds, for when we ask questions they do not deign to enlighten us on points on which this House has an absolute right to require information. Instead of giving us any information, they say—"You see what we have done, and if you do not approve, bring a Vote of Censure against us." That is a pleasant and easy way out of the difficulty; but I venture to think that it is one which will be wholly unsatisfactory to the country. It is a question on which the House and the country have a right to be informed; but we are left without the information which it is absolutely necessary we should have. I do not think that at the present moment it would be right for me to go into the general question of the condition of Ireland. I feel it is one of increasing gravity. It is one upon which we are entering and trenching in a manner extremely dangerous and unsatisfactory. But what I am anxious to press upon the Government is that they should, as speedily as possible, make up their minds and explain their policy to the House. Do not let it be drawn from them by driblets. That is what I am always afraid of in the present Government with regard to these matters. They do not come forward and make a clean breast of it; they do not come forward and say this is our policy or that is our policy. They allow themselves to be pushed on here and invited there, tempted on one side and bullied on the other, admitting this and hinting that. In that way you get perfect confusion in the minds of those whose interests are affected, and a corresponding weakening of authority on the part of those whose duty it is to maintain peace and order. The conduct of the Government, unless followed up by a distinct statement and a vigorous policy, must weaken the hands of those who are charged with the duty of maintaining law and order in Ireland, and at the same time must dangerously stimulate the expectations and passions of evil-disposed people. That which seems to me the cardinal point of the whole matter is that we should so act as not to give to the lawless part of the population the idea that they have obtained a triumph over the Government. I am bound to say, as matters stand at present, it looks suspiciously as if they had. The Government has it still in their power to show
    138
    that this is not the case, if they will but take energetic and prompt steps for the purpose of showing what their policy is and the manner in which they intend to give effect to it. I beg to move the adjournment of the House.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Sir Stafford Northcote.)
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFsaid, he would not have troubled the House but for the hazy and mysterious answer given by the Prime Minister at an earlier part of the evening, when he had asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he had received any assurance from the Gentlemen in Kilmainham with regard to their future conduct and the withdrawal of the "no rent" manifesto. He again appealed to the right hon. Gentleman for information on the subject. The Prime Minister appeared to take great credit to himself for not appealing to the hon. Member for the City of Cork to give an assurance that on his release he would abstain from the practices for which he had been detained in Kilmainham. He would, however, recollect the language in which the right hon. Gentleman announced to the enthusiastic citizens of London the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork. This was the language then used by the right hon. Gentleman—
    "Even within these few moments I have been informed that towards the vindication of law, of order, and 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—(loud and prolonged cheering, accompanied by the waving of hats and handkerchiefs)—in the arrest of the man who, unhappily, from motives which I do not challenge, which I cannot examine, and with which I have nothing to do, has made himself beyond all others prominent in the attempt to destroy the authority of the law (cheers), and to substitute what would end in being nothing more nor less than anarchical oppression exercised on the people of Ireland. (Loud cheers.)"
    On February 16, 1882, the Attorney General for Ireland made use of these words—
    "Mr. Parnell himself was at this time steeped in treason to the lips. There was an obvious attempt on the part of Mr. Parnell and the Land League to subvert the supremacy of the Queen, and, using a legal expression, to levy war against her. Mr. Parnell was accordingly arrested. They must not imagine there was any desire on the part of the Law Officers of the Crown in Ireland to shift the responsibility

    139
    to the great Officers of the State. The Law Officers, when asked for their opinion, had no hesitation in giving it, and there was quite enough to sustain that opinion in point of law." [3 Hansard, cclxvi. 810.]
    That, then, was the opinion of the Attorney General for Ireland, who now remained on the Treasury Bench—while his Colleague retired—pachydermatous of notions of official decorum. On March 28, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Sligo, the Prime Minister said he was tempted to inquire—
    "What instincts of barbarism they were that were now being principally stimulated and indulged in Ireland; who were the persons by whom these instincts were deliberately stimulated, with the effect of carrying rapine, murder, and mutilation into the homes and dwellings of the families of the innocent people in Ireland as a punishment for the offence of paying rent." [Ibid. cclxviii. 171–2.]
    Such were the declarations that had come from the Treasury Bench. He held that if the statements of the Prime Minister and his Colleagues were true when they were made they must be true now. Either there existed no case for the arrest of the hon. Members who had been imprisoned and no justification for keeping them in prison after the periodical re-consideration of their cases by the Lord Lieutenant, or there must exist such justification still. On the 13th of April, according to the result of the review of the cases of the imprisoned Members, nothing had occurred to cause the release of the "suspects." Now, however, they were free. He would ask were they still "steeped to the lips in treason," were they still "the promoters of outrage," or had they given an assurance that when released they would not resume the practices for which they were imprisoned? Michael Davit was to be released. Had he given an assurance that he would not resume the practices for which he had been thrown into gaol a second time? They had heard a good deal about the subterranean communication with Kilmainham. He could not at first understand whether there had or had not been such communication. He had difficulty some time ago in finding out another mysterious transaction—the Mission of Mr. Errington to Home. He wondered whether the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) had gone to Kilmainham as an agente raccommandato on a confidential mission to the hon. Member for the City
    140
    of Cork. It was very extraordinary how those moderate Home Rulers were being employed—one being sent to communicate with what the Prime Minister termed as "the social power of the Pope," and the other to confer with the social revolution in Ireland. On April 4, the Prime Minister said—
    "We have, in fact, for six months been engaged in—there is no mistake about it—a deadly conflict with an adverse power."
    That adverse power was the Land League; and the Land League had beaten the Government, and the Prime Minister seemed to recognize in the hon. Member for the City of Cork the real Ruler of Ireland. Hitherto the policy of the Prime Minister had been to give sops to Ireland, while endeavoring to maintain their status quo. That policy had broken down, and the right hon. Gentleman had had recourse to the desperate remedy of handing over the government of Ireland to the Land League, a remedy based on the principle of "Heads I win, tails you lose." The Government hoped by that remedy to obtain a certain amount of tranquility in Ireland. But if the remedy did not succeed they would retire, and leave the confusion in Ireland to be dealt with, by someone else.
    MR. O'SHEAsaid that, as his name had been mentioned several times during the debate, he desired to say a few words. Since he had had the honor of a seat in that House, he had had the advantage of making many friendships on both sides of it, and amongst every Party and every section, and, having the opportunity of correcting any misunderstanding as to opinions held here and there, he hoped he should not be regarded as too officious if he endeavored to put matters right. He certainly took upon himself some time since to offer some suggestions to various persons, and he was glad to think that those suggestions had been kindly received and candidly considered. Now, it was most natural that a person wishing his information to be constantly and continuously correct, should occasionally refresh it at the fountain-head. It was, animated solely by such a desire, and uninspired by anybody whatever, that on. Saturday last he visited his hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork, in Kilmainham, and he could assure his hon. Friend who had just spoken, who was al ways seeking for deep plots and

    141
    secret missions, that his return ticket was not paid for out of the Secret Service Fund.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid he hoped that before the debate preceded much further they should have some reply from the Government to the questions addressed to them by the Leader of the Opposition, so that there might be some limitation to the debate and some vindication of the credit of the Government. Could they assure the House that the action they had taken had been taken on the authority and with the concurrence of those who had been employed specially to preserve peace and order in Ireland? The House had no information or knowledge of any guidance which the Government had received. The question for the House was, What view would be taken of the action of the Government, not merely by politicians, but by those whose co-operation with regard to the maintenance of order was loudly called for by the Prime Minister seven months ago, when he proposed to take action against the Land League? The right hon. Gentleman had been very careful to tell the House that the Coercion Act had not failed, and he had shown them how he thought that Act had helped the Government in a great crisis; but he was careful to limit the improvement of Ireland to the 1st of January last. What was the position at the present moment? The Government said they had acted on the views of men who were actors on the scene in Ireland. Had they consulted anybody else? The right hon. Gentleman had told them that they found they could go through the crisis in Ireland without a Coercion Act. Would it be in the power of any future Government under those circumstances to venture to propose a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act? He believed it would be absolutely impossible for years to come for any Minister to come down to the House and propose a suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act. The Government had turned their faces from the Conservative Benches and looked for suggestions from Members below the Gangway. He wished to know what was to be done in regard to the settlement of the question of Arrears, as to which the Prime Minister had made declarations that could not fail in the meantime seriously to affect the payment of rent?
    142
    Was that settlement, among so many other urgent matters, to be deferred until the question of the clôture had been decided? It was essentially necessary that whatever measures were taken should be taken without delay. If the time were allowed to pass without the adoption of efficient measures, and if the result were the renewal of outrages, a heavy burden of discredit would rest on Her Majesty's Government.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid that, looking at the gravity of the occasion, he was surprised that the Prime Minister, or some one of his Colleagues, had not risen to answer the important questions that had been put to them. He ventured to say that never in the history of this generation had they been in the midst of a greater or graver crisis than at the present moment. There seemed to be a surprising apathy in the House at the condition of Ireland, which, he would venture to say, during the present century had never been in a worse condition. The Prime Minister had reversed the whole front of his proceedings; he had played into the hands of those whom he had denounced less than six months ago as the instigators of crime and disorder in Ireland; yet now, without telling the House that any change had taken place for the better in the condition of Ireland, he had restored those persons to liberty whom he had previously stated it was absolutely necessary, for the maintenance of peace and order, to retain in prison. He thought that the Prime Minister had treated the House with very scant courtesy in respect of the proceedings of Tuesday. Twice the right hon. Gentleman told the House that it was absolutely necessary that the Rules of Procedure should be proceeded with at 2 o'clock, showing that, in his opinion that was of far more importance than the condition of Ireland, but stated that at 9o'clock he would make a statement certainly not of wide importance. Without a word of warning, at the 2 o'clock Sitting, when the Wigan Writ had been disposed of, he made a statement of the utmost importance. When he came down to the House at 2 o'clock, at least he ought to have informed hon. Members of what he was going to do so as to enable them to be in their places. He would tell the right hon. Gentleman frankly that a leader of men required showing some courtesy and consideration to

    143
    those whom he addressed, and that if he exhibited those qualities a little more he would certainly lead the House better than he was able to do at the present time. The right hon. Gentleman had now not ventured to tell them that Ireland was in the prosperous, contented, and happy condition which he told the people of Mid Lothian that it was in.
    MR. GLADSTONE: No; I never said that. I never spoke of the prosperity of Ireland at that time. I described the period since 1870 as one of great comparative contentment. I did not describe the prosperity of the period at all.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he always endeavored to render the right hon. Gentleman's words correctly; but any mention of them in the House was always almost absolutely and entirely denied. He would read the words used by the right hon. Gentleman—
    "There is an absence of crime and outrage, with a general sense of comfort and satisfaction, such as has been unknown in the previous history of the country."
    He appealed to every man of fair dealing and honour in that House whether in those words were not combined everything he had just stated, and which had been so absolutely and entirely denied by the Prime Minister?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise to Order. The hon. and gallant Member most distinctly, and without any mistake as to his meaning, charges me with untruth in the denial of words which he says I have used; and I wish to know if he is in Order in so doing?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Baronet would not be in Order in imputing falsehood to any hon. Member; but I did not understand him to do so. The hon. and gallant Member must, however, accept the disavowal of the expression attributed to the Prime Minister.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid that if the right hon. Gentleman could deny that the words he had read were made use of in a celebrated speech of his, then he would retract every word he had said.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I have explained to the House on a former occasion that that was not a celebrated speech at all. [A laugh.] Again I thank the hon.
    144
    Member for Londonderry (Mr. Lewis) for another of those repeated instances of courtesy he has shown me. I have previously stated that, in my opinion, that speech was not really a public speech. It was delivered in a small room to my Committee. The description I gave was a description of the general state of Ireland as it appeared to me. My belief is that there is a misstatement in the use of the word "is" for "has been;" otherwise I believe the report to be substantially correct.
    SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, that the speech was made in the Liberal Club in Edinburgh, and he challenged anyone to say that a statement that there was an absence of crime and outrage, and a general sense of comfort and satisfaction previously unknown in that country, did not amount to saying that Ireland was a prosperous and contented country. In the May following the right hon. Gentleman found Ireland not to be in that prosperous state, and it was his bounden duty either to have continued the much despised Peace Preservation Act, or to have brought in some other measure. Instead of that, he did not attempt to deal with the subject till January, 1881. In the meantime he had allowed the Land League to have all its own way, without doing anything to repress outrage and crime. He was now going to revert to the system which, after trying, he had declared it impossible to get on with, and that Ireland could not be governed without the most stringent Coercion Act ever introduced. The Conservative Members sat up night after night to enable him to pass that Act, and they were now rewarded by a reversal of the policy which they had been told a short time ago was essential for the peace and prosperity of the country. As he had done before, he was now beating an ignominious retreat, and handing over to the Land League the welfare and control of Ireland. When the right hon. Gentleman, at the Lord Mayor's Dinner in 1881, used the words quoted by the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff), all the Liberal papers said—"Here is no pandering to rebellion. He is now determined that every means shall be taken to maintain law and order." What a change had a period of six months produced in the right hon. Gentleman's

    145
    convictions! Was the state of Ireland now any better than it was then? The Returns showed that in the first three months of 1880 the outrages were 294, and in 1881, 769; but that in the same period of 1882 the crimes had risen to 1,417. Yet this was the time the right hon. Gentleman had chosen to change his front and to let out of prison the very men whom he had charged with creating the present condition of things in Ireland. There was a remarkable speech made last night at Hertford by no less a person than the Secretary for the Colonies. In that speech Lord Kimberley said—
    "We cannot persevere in the policy of shutting up men without trial, and therefore we release a considerable number of them. Is the Government to blame? Is not their policy perfectly intelligible, perfectly consistent with all we have said and done? We come forward and say:—'Our measures have to a certain extent succeeded, but experience has shown we need stronger measures for the enforcement of order, and we shall ask Parliament to grant us those measures.'"
    He put that portion down, because it was the only thing in that speech which was worthy of being taken down. He (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) asked the right hon. Gentleman, and he asked the Home Secretary, whom he saw smiling, when they were going to have those measures laid before them? If the House did its duty none of the Government measures, not even the Procedure Rules, would be allowed to be proceeded with until they knew the line of policy which was now about to be adopted with regard to Ireland. The late Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant—than whom no more honest and straightforward man had ever filled that post—had, amidst all his difficulties, borne himself in a manner deserving of the highest praise. He asked the Prime Minister whether, between the months of August, 1880, and January, 1881, the right hon. Gentleman had not come more than once to London and asked for further powers. There was a time when the troops and the police were used in Ireland with vigor and effect, when the law was maintained and disorder suppressed. That was not the case at present; and he should like to hear some explanation on that subject, particularly how far the right hon. Gentleman had been permitted to act. He should also like to know what were the instructions given to the police to guide
    146
    them in the performance of their difficult and most delicate duties. Had the hon. Members for the City of Cork and Tipperary altered the purpose with which they had entered on this crusade—namely that England and Ireland should be separated; that Ireland should have her own Parliament and manage her own affairs? If they had not altered that intention, he would ask had not the question been stimulated by the Prime Minister, who, in ambiguous language, had held out a hope that Home Rule would be given to Ireland? One thing more he wished to say—namely that he had never heard from the lips of the right hon. Gentleman or of his Colleagues the slightest commiseration for those who had. Suffered so grievously throughout this trying crisis, and whose lives and property had been sacrificed to the desire of pacifying people who never would be contented with anything that could be given them. It was well that the country should look to what might happen, and would certainly happen, unless the right hon. Gentleman, with those stronger measures which he was to have at his back in case of emergency, acted with energy. The people of this country would never for moment consent to the separation of Ireland from England; and. the Minister who led up to civil war and to a re-conquest of Ireland would have his name written in the blackest pages of the history of his country.
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Sir, I think it is only the energy and excitement under which my hon. and gallant Friend sometimes speaks that could induce him to bring so heavy a charge against Gentlemen sitting on this Bench as that they have felt no commiseration for the victims of outrage and disorder in Ireland. [Cries of "Expressed!"] Why, I have myself expressed it over and over again. I do not think that, in his calmer moments, the hon. and gallant Member for West Sussex would entertain such a charge; but, in the most energetic terms I can use consistently with self respect, I repudiate such an accusation. My hon. and gallant Friend refers to my having smiled; but that was in relation to another charge he made, and which was equally unfounded—a charge that the Prime Minister had acted discourteously in making an important statement at an unexpected time. But what are the circumstances under which he

    147
    charges us with an act of discourtesy? The right hon. Member for Bradford tendered his resignation. Lord Salisbury in the House of Lords had given Notice of a Question which made it absolutely necessary that a statement should be made; and it was out of courtesy and consideration for the House of Commons that the Prime Minister determined to make his statement as he did, thinking it not fitting that the matter of the release of the prisoners and the resignation of the Chief Secretary should be made to the House of Lords before it was communicated to the House of Commons. It is out of such materials that the charge of discourtesy is fabricated against the Government; and I cannot help smiling at a complaint which strikes me as so unreasonable. A much more serious imputation has been thrown out. We have been asked why not the troops and the police have been more used. And the hon. and gallant Member couples that with a well-deserved eulogium on the administration of Irish affairs by the late Chief Secretary. Who is it that does not use the police and the Constabulary to the satisfaction of the hon. and gallant Member? Why, the Irish Secretary. By his complaints the hon. and gallant Member casts the gravest imputations on the political capacity of the Chief Secretary, whom he just now eulogized. It is perfectly obvious that the course the right hon. Gentleman has taken shows that whenever a policy is pursued of which he disapproves he will no longer be responsible for it. The hon. and gallant Member has no right to say that the Government have in any way trammeled or restrained the late Chief Secretary in any course which he thought essential and expedient for the good government of the country. That is the observation I rose to reply to; but I will answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. Member for West Surrey (Mr. Brodrick). They asked if we had consulted the Resident Magistrates? We have not. It is not a policy which depends at all on them. I can state in a single word the nature of the policy we have pursued, and, in my opinion, it is not inconsistent.
    MR. BRODRICKsaid, he asked the right hon. and learned Gentleman if the Government had consulted the Resident Magistrates, or any of those con-
    148
    nected with the administration of law in Ireland?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Well, it is still less a question of law; it is a question of the highest policy. With respect to the imprisonment of the Members of Parliament, the Government is charged with the grave responsibility of determining whether the imprisonment of certain individuals was or was not essential to the maintenance of law and order in Ireland. They determined at a certain time that the imprisonment of those persons was necessary. How did they arrive at that conclusion? Simply by their own judgment. They had the discretion and the power, and they, taking a general view of the condition of things at the time, and the relation of those individuals to the circumstances of Ireland, came to the conclusion that it was necessary for the cause of law and order in Ireland that those individuals should be confined. They have now come to the conclusion that, having regard to the circumstances and to the relation of those persons to the condition of Ireland, it is more advantageous to the cause of peace and order that they should be released. Is not that a reasonable conclusion? The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down has stated it himself. He says—"I have no doubt that in the first instance there will be less outrage in Ireland, and more rent will be paid." What a confirmation is that of the opinion the Government has formed! They formed their opinion in the same way as they had formed it when they considered that it would be advantageous to law and order that those persons should be confined. It is certainly a matter of opinion. The late Chief Secretary had to do the same thing daily, certainly weekly. He detained certain persons in prison, and then, on a certain day, he had to form an opinion that it was either necessary or not necessary to keep them in prison any longer. It is now found to be conducive to law and order that the hon. Members should be discharged, and it is upon that principle that they have been discharged from prison. That course was adopted without any secret conditions. Hundreds of men have been discharged without any conditions. Why is not that principle to be applied to these men in the same way as it has been applied to others in the past? My

    149
    right hon. Friend has formed the opinion in hundreds of previous cases that it was advantageous that certain persons should be discharged; but then arose a difference of opinion between the Government and the late Chief Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman thought it would not be advantageous to law and order to release these Members, whereas the Government thought it would. Is there, or is there not, ground for believing that the hon. Member for the City of Cork and the other persons who have been released will use their influence and exertions in favor of law and order, or against law and order? The whole question is in that single sentence. Upon the determination of that question depended the further question whether it was wise to release them or not. The Government was of opinion that these persons would use their influence and exertions in favor of law and order in Ireland now, and had, therefore, taken the responsibility of releasing them. Many persons will doubtless condemn the Government for so doing; but the Government, having formed their opinion, will abide by it. Their policy is based on fair and reasonable grounds, and there has been no real change of policy. My right hon. Friend has thought it right to release persons whom he considered it safe to release, and that is the policy of the Government now. We, upon our responsibility, have come to the conclusion that it is safe to release those Gentlemen, and we have the conviction that the effect of that release will be to conduce to the cause of law and order in Ireland, and will more tend to quietness than their continued imprisonment. That is a fair and candid statement of the grounds on which the Government has acted, and if they are wrong they deserve to be condemned. I do not know that I have anything more to say—[Mr. LEWIS: Hear, hear!]—I do not expect to be treated with courtesy by the hon. Member for Londonderry. No Member on this side of the House ever does receive that treatment from him which he might expect—
    MR. LEWIS: I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether it is not the right and freedom of every Member in this House to express his assent or dissent to another Member, provided it is not done in an obtrusive manner?
    SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I cordially assent to that proposition. The only question is as to its application. I ought to have apologized to the House for taking any notice of the interruption.
    MR. ONSLOWsaid, he was surprised that the Home Secretary had endeavored to throw the whole blame of the non-success of the policy of the Government on the shoulders of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). Whether that policy was right or wrong, the Members of the Government, individually and collectively, were responsible; and. when that policy had been found to fail, it was unstatesmanlike to attempt to throw the responsibility on the Member of the Government who had had to carry it out. He did not for one moment contend that the Government, as a whole, was responsible for each individual arrest; but the mode of action employed by the Chief Secretary was the policy of the Government. If not, why did not the Government interfere with the mode of procedure taken by him? The Home Secretary said there was no change of policy; but that was a mere haggling with words. The new policy was diametrically opposed to the recent policy of the Government; their policy for many months had been coercion coupled with conciliation. He supposed the Coercion Act was no longer to be carried out, and the Land Act was to be amended—so that the two old methods were to be thrown to the winds. The Home Secretary had said the Government had acted on their own judgment, and had not taken the advice of the Resident Magistrates or of the Executive in Ireland. It was monstrous that the Government should take these steps without the mature advice of those who were able to give it. How was it possible for the hon. Member for Cork City to give the Government better information on the state of affairs in Ireland than their own responsible Officers—namely the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary? But this new departure had been brought about by the demonstrations made by the Radical Jackal Press, which had been so long howling for the blood of the Chief Secretary. Those who deserted him in these circumstances did not deserve the name of a Government. It had been said they had been discharging "suspects" from time to

    151
    time; but no one knew anything about or cared for the greater number of these "suspects." It was a very different thing releasing the Leaders of the Land League, whose policy at present guided the majority in Ireland. If there was anything in the argument of the Home Secretary, he could not see why the Leaders should not have been the first to have been released. It was said that they were now on the side of law and order; but when there was agitation it was the duty of the Executive to maintain law and order. As matters stood now, the Government devolved their primary duty on the hon. Member for Cork City. They confessed that it was impossible for them without his assistance to stop outrage and agrarian crime; and they, therefore, appealed to him to do what he could to save their reputation, and to help them to bring back law and order—i.e., they were now appealing to one who had been the chief instigator of breaches of the law to restore peace. The Home Secretary said the Government had acted on the best information. The foundation for that appeared to be that there had been some kind of communication with the hon. Member for Cork City. In the face of the country and of Europe the Government was disgraced, because they had failed in their primary duty to protect loyal subjects. There was scarcely a Member on the Opposition Benches who did not agree with every word that had fallen from the right hon. Member for Bradford. One of the strongest supporters of the policy of the late Chief Secretary had been the Attorney General for Ireland. No one had used stronger language against the "suspects," and especially against the hon. Member for Cork City, than the hon. and learned Gentleman had done. He would say to his face that it appeared inconsistent with the duty he owed to the late Chief Secretary to take the loaves and fishes of Office and to continue to be a responsible Minister of the Crown. [Several hon. MEMBERS: He is not responsible.] He is responsible for the legal advice tendered to his official superiors. He maintained that the present Government had, at a time of the greatest difficulty, deserted their Colleague, not that the right hon. Gentleman had deserted the Government. The conduct of the right hon. Gentleman
    152
    had been perfectly consistent from first to last. An advocate of the Coercion Bill, he had refused to truckle to the Land League, and, like an English statesman, had sacrificed his Office rather than his opinions. He only trusted, for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman's reputation, that he would never again find himself in the irksome fellowship of a Liberal Administration. The Prime Minister, on the other hand, and the Members of his Government had effected a complete change of front. No more than a week or two ago they steadily set their faces against any alteration of the Land Act, declaring that the peace of Ireland depended upon its having a fair trial; but now they themselves proposed to amend it, and with that object placed themselves at the mercy of the lately imprisoned Members, and implored them to save the Government. The noble Lord the Secretary of State for India had the other day asked why the Opposition did not challenge the Government policy; but they all knew on which side of the House the majority was to be found, and in the case of such a challenge as the noble Lord contemplated the majority would be swelled by those who had so recently been regarded as the enemies of law and order. He could assure the Government, however, that, whether their policy was right or wrong, the greatest desire of the Opposition was to see Ireland well governed by the responsible Advisers of the Crown.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that during the time he had been a Member of the House it had not been the practice to make personal attacks such as he had been subjected to tonight; and he thought it was not likely that in a House composed of Gentlemen from every part of the Kingdom that this example would be followed. The hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) had been pleased to attribute to the Attorney General for Ireland, because he had not resigned his Office together with the Chief Secretary, base and sordid motives. He (the Attorney General for Ireland) considered it sufficient to deny that aspersion absolutely and, he supposed it was unnecessary to say, indignantly. The hon. Member who had last addressed the House, in language which he supposed

    153
    it would not be un-Parliamentary to characterize as coarse, had spoken of his preference for the loaves and fishes, but had not contrived to elicit a cheer from a single Member of the House. Now, he certainly had not thought fit to resign his Office; and in retaining it he had, he believed, the approval of the late Chief Secretary. For what, then, was he to be assailed? Since he had had the honor of a seat in that House, and of being connected with the Ministry, he had at all times done his duty. He appealed to the House whether he had ever shrunk from his duty? Was he likely, then, to shrink from it now? His undoubted duty now, he believed, was to stick to the ship, rather than to weaken and embarrass the action of the Government in the present crisis. The Government had embarked upon a policy which they were satisfied would secure peace, tranquility, and happiness to Ireland; and he believed it was his duty to support that policy. He trusted that the faith worthy confidence reposed in hon. Members below the Gangway opposite would lead them to do their best to assist the Government in their endeavor to restore tranquility and peace to their unhappy country, and to create good feeling amongst all those classes of the people who had been so long sundered and estranged.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was desirous of avoiding personal controversy, recrimination, and the imputation of motives. He thought the majority of the House would agree with him in thinking that they could not be justified in giving to so serious a subject a personal color. He was bound to say, although he had opposed the policy of the Government, he did not recollect anything which the Attorney General for Ireland had uttered during the last two years that would justify him in suspecting for a moment that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's public action in the House had been dictated by motives of personal aggrandizement. As a general rule, no class of persons was more open to the reproach of personal motives than those who indulged in personal accusations. The hon. Member had complained that the Government had not consulted the magistrates and those who were responsible for the mechanical administration of the law in Ireland;
    154
    but he failed to see the force of that criticism. It was the exclusive consultation of the police and magistrates of Ireland which had led the Government into so many deplorable mistakes. They had revelations within a recent period of the kind of judicial advice which might have been expected from certain Irish magistrates on a question of this description. They had their Major Bonds and their Major Trails, and their Inspector Smiths, and various other gentlemen. He admitted that the question of the liberation of the three hon. Members was a matter intimately connected with, the preservation of law and order; but he would not ask anybody, was the government of England carried on by the advice of the police and magistrates of England? He knew very well the Home Secretary was not in the habit of consulting the unpaid magistracy of England, or the sub-inspectors of police in England, when he had determined to recommend for the adoption of Her Majesty's Government some scheme of public policy. It had been insinuated by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland and by others that the liberation of the lately imprisoned Members was nothing more or less than a buying of the Land League. Why, the Conservative Party, who was so loud in bringing this accusation against Her Majesty's Government, had themselves adopted the policy of buying the Land League. And for what purpose, if not to purchase the support of the Irish Parliamentary Party in that House? The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) praised the speech of the late Chief Secretary. Now, he must confess that he had himself some sympathy with a man who, occupying a high position among his own Party, felt that the time had come when he could no longer consistently maintain his connection with his Colleagues. But he was bound to say that there was not one strong point, not one telling argument, in that speech which the right hon. Gentleman had not, consciously or unconsciously, borrowed from his political opponents. He could not help thinking that every strong point was a Tory argument, and every weak explanation in his speech was the explanation of a man who, though, no doubt, actuated by the most honorable intentions, had a very mistaken view of the requirements of the Irish Adminis-

    155
    tration at the present time. The Government had been accused of buying off lawlessness by concession. But that was only a reproduction of the argument used last year by the Opposition, when the House was told that if they passed the Laud Bill they would be buying off the lawbreakers in Ireland. But the House was more concerned to know what would be the effect of the action of Her Majesty's Government upon the people of Ireland. Speaking on behalf of the constituency which he had the honour to represent, he had no hesitation in saying that Her Majesty's Government had not done a wiser act, or shown more true courage and true statesmanship for the last two years, than when they determined upon the liberation of the lately-imprisoned Members, and upon departing, as far as was in their power, from the hated policy of coercion. It had been frequently said, during the last two years to Irish Representatives who had taken a line in reference to these matters somewhat like his own, that they did not sufficiently support Her Majesty's Government. Indeed, he was asked a short time ago why he had not gone to Ireland to uphold the cause of law and order, and the policy of Her Majesty's Government; and he had a very ready answer. It was this—that he had approved of one-half of their policy, the policy of remedial legislation, which he believed was calculated to do a great deal towards removing the grievances of the tenant farmers of Ireland; but that they knew very well that with equal energy he opposed their coercive legislation, and that if he went to Ireland he should have, while praising them with one voice, to condemn them with another; and the result of such an advocacy need not be described. But now he was in perfect unison with the policy of Her Majesty's Government, because they had made a declaration which he trusted nothing would happen in Ireland to prevent them from fulfilling—the declaration that they relied more upon the effects of remedial legislation than upon force to bring back contentment to the people of Ireland. The hon. Members who had that night again taken their seats in the House had justified the expectations formed of them when in clear and emphatic terms they repudiated the idea of making any conditions with the Government. It
    156
    would have been impossible to induce any of those hon. Members to quit their prison upon such terms. At the same time, they had expressed the opinion that the remedial legislation which the Government contemplated must necessarily produce a good effect upon the feelings and dispositions of the people of Ireland. The changes consequent upon the resignation of the late Chief Secretary opened up another question—namely, why Irish affairs were not put into Irish hands? He did not see why he should hesitate to say now, as he always did, that there could be no end to the Irish difficulty until the Irish Administration, root and branch, local and central, general and national, had been placed substantially in Irish hands. From rumours which had reached him to-night, he was led to believe that Her Majesty's Govennment intended to try once more the experiment of administering Irish affairs by English brains and understanding. He hoped they would succeed; but he, nevertheless, adhered to his original conviction, that both Parties in the House must recognize that the only ultimate solution of the Irish difficulty was that state of mind on the part of England which recognized that Irish opinion must by law be made as potent in the government of Ireland as English opinion in the government of England. He freely admitted that, while recognizing this, it was not fair to expect any Government to make at once a change from the present system to the one which he had described; but when they were re-forming the Administration of Ireland they ought to try whether, in the ranks of Irish gentlemen, someone might not be found competent to undertake the government of his country. English Administrators had only too closely followed the spirit of the advice given by the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), that nothing should be done without consulting the Resident Magistrates and police; but he ventured to think that if an Irishman acquainted with his countrymen, who had resided for many years amongst the people, were installed in the government of Ireland, he would be 20 years ahead of an Englishman in Irish administration in ascertaining what was the drift of Irish opinion and determination, and he would exercise one of the highest faculties of a statesman in forseeing difficulties and in

    157
    taking measures to meet them. Irish administration ought to be placed in Irish hands, no matter what Party was in power. He should be delighted, if the Conservatives were in power, to see either of the distinguished Members for Dublin University Chief Secretary for Ireland. It might be that they would not direct a policy in sympathy with his religious convictions; they might not altogether agree with his Celtic aspirations; but he and others could console themselves with the reflection that—
    "Our tyrants then
    Were still at least our countrymen."
    He was not one of the number of Irishmen who thought that the time had come when an Irishman possessing the national sentiment, and the true stamp, and the true colour, could undertake to administer the affairs of Ireland. He believed a great deal remained to be done before it would be prudent—he did not say for the English Government to appoint an Irish Nationalist to Office, but for an Irishman to undertake so arduous a task. But, at all events, let them not indulge in personal recrimination. Let them try, if they could, to recognize in the recent act of Her Majesty's Government that they had incurred great responsibility, great risk, in doing a just, a noble, and a generous act. Her Majesty's Government had made a large and a noble sacrifice upon the altar of peace when they determined to no longer support their old Colleague and Champion and Friend, the right hon. Member for Bradford. He appealed to the Gentlemen of the Conservative Party, and asked them if they had no contribution to make to this problem except the contribution of angry criticism; and would they tell him that such a contribution was calculated to promote the peace of Ireland?
    MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, he felt great diffidence in rising to make a few observations after listening to the remarkable and instructive address which they had just heard from the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power). That address was full of wisdom and instruction, and he trusted that it would not be thrown away, either in its sentiment or in its recommendation, upon Her Majesty's Government. He did not rise either to attack the Government or to defend them. He rose to make a
    158
    few remarks upon the act which had signalized the past few days. It was not for him, nor for any Member in that House representing Ireland, to defend the odious policy of coercion. The shame of that Act did not lie upon their shoulders, for Irish Members on both sides of the House had, with equal unanimity and equal earnestness, protested against that form of coercion which was involved in the suspension of the Habeas Corpus, believing that it would eventually bring confusion and disaster upon Ireland. The policy of allowing one man to apprehend his fellow-men, and to keep them in prison without an opportunity of justifying their conduct, led from one backward step to another, until, in a short time, they found nearly 600 of their countrymen locked up in Her Majesty's gaols in Ireland. Whose policy was that? It was not merely the policy of Her Majesty's Government—it was the policy of the House of Commons; and the House of Commons was the tribunal which was now to be vindicated if this Act was to be renewed. But those only who could be really vindicated in history were the Irish Members, who, from both sides of the House, protested against the Act from the very first. There was one remarkable thing which would happen from the reversal of this policy. They saw to-night the solution of that alliance which had existed for a time between the Conservative Party and the Irish Members opposite. He often told his hon. Friends opposite that that alliance was based upon a foundation which had something in it that would give cause for regret. That alliance was based upon a love and a desire for coercion so far as the Conservative Party were concerned; and upon the abandonment of that policy they saw the Conservative Party openly and ostentatiously renouncing their alliance with hon. Gentlemen opposite. They stated that the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government would tend to the ruin of the Empire; but they declined to formally arraign their conduct before Parliament, because, forsooth, their ranks would no longer be swelled by the Irish Members sitting opposite. He never knew an instance in which history had in a short time so completely vindicated itself as showing the hollowness and insincerity of the Conservative alliance.

    159
    [An IRISH MEMBER: There was no alliance.] He was not saying that the Irish Members made a formal alliance, but that the Conservative Party made an alliance with his hon. Friends opposite whenever they thought they could embarrass Her Majesty's Government. He knew well that when a crisis came such an alliance must come to an end, because it had no honest foundation. It had been alleged to-night that the release of the Members who had been confined in Kilmainham, and of the other "suspects" imprisoned in Ireland, was a triumph for the Land League. Such a statement was exceedingly absurd. The persons who most objected to the coercion policy were not Land Leaguers. Many Members who objected to coercion used language of the most condemnatory character with regard to the tactics of the Land League, and, therefore, to state that the abandonment of the policy of coercion was a triumph of the Land League was to state what would not bear a moment's examination. He would not have troubled the House at all if he did not desire very earnestly to point out to the Government that, although one great step had been taken for the pacification of Ireland, everything would depend upon the rapidity with which the remedial measures procured by the Prime Minister were introduced and passed. Almost everything that had teen done in the way of remedial legislation had been branded upon its forehead with the words "Too late." At that moment there were many anxious hearts in Ireland waiting to know how soon they should be able to return to their humble homes. There were thousands of persons in Ireland on that very night trembling on the verge of eviction; and those persons felt, to an extent which, perhaps, Members of that House never felt, how hope deferred made the heart grow sick. He entreated Her Majesty's Government to bring in their promised measures with expedition. They were entitled to believe that those measures would meet with no opposition from either side of the House. At all events, it was quite certain that they would not meet that opposition which had been so formidable on other occasions—the opposition of the Irish Members. On the contrary, the Bill which was introduced the other day, and which
    160
    had obtained the approval of the Prime Minister, would, he was quite sure, receive the support of everyone who had the good of the country at heart. The following telegram, which he received yesterday from the remote part of Ireland in which he lived, would show the imminence of eviction in that part:—
    "Relieving officer got notice to-day of over 30 families—about 180 individuals—to be evicted immediately for arrears. The victims are absolutely unable to pay. Press for suspension of evictions pending a settlement of the arrears of rent."
    The only reply he could make to that telegram was to say that he depended upon the sincerity and good faith of the Prime Minister, and upon the determination of the Government that evictions should cease. He knew they had pledged themselves to deal with the question of arrears, and he entreated the people to rely fully on that pledge. That was the telegram which he sent in reply. But suppose week after week passed away, and these poor people were turned out upon the hillside; suppose they saw their little growing crops, upon which they relied to feed their families, taken from them, and their humble houses made desolate, what would happen in that part of the country? Nobody had spoken more strongly than Irish Members against the horrible outrages which had been committed in Ireland, and he hoped nobody would think he would for a moment justify them. But he must say that, looking at his own family and at his own children, if he thought they were about to be turned out upon the hillside—the mother, the children, the young and the old—without any fault of their own, but in consequence of the non-growth of the crops in bad seasons, bitterness of feeling might rise in his mind. [Mr. T. D. SULLIVAN: And if they had no money?] He was glad to think that his hon. Friend believed it was only those who were without money that suffered eviction; but many had suffered eviction who had money. He spoke of those who suffered eviction because they had no money; and he confessed that he did not know what amount of restraint he would require, though he possessed the advantages of education, to prevent him from nourishing a sentiment of revenge, which might

    161
    even lead him to commit a breach, of the law. He believed nothing had happened in Great Britain so horrible as that which, had taken place in Ireland during the rage of evictions. They were fully described in English newspapers, but seemed to create far less impression than disasters in far distant lands. If the arrears were dealt with, at once, he believed eviction would stop and a reign of peace would set in in Ireland. Everything else was secondary. In other respects he hoped the question would not be dealt with piecemeal. There was purchase by the tenants; and he trusted also that the Government would see their way to taking leases in hand. Could not all sections of Irish Representatives combined join to help the Government to frame a comprehensive measure which should, once for all, settle the question? Let them put their heads together, and make an honest effort, in a spirit of wisdom and conciliation, to perfect the Land Act; and let it not be said that, with, the experience of the past two years before them, the Government of the day and the House of Lords required to be taught a still sterner lesson of wisdom before they dealt effectually and thoroughly with the tenure of land in Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid, that some hon. Members seemed to derive satisfaction from the belief that historic justice had been done by the breach of the alliance between the Conservative and Home Rule Parties. No doubt, the Home Rule Party had changed their line of action. But he could not admit that there had been any dissolution of that alliance, because the alliance had never existed. It was perfectly true that on several occasions Gentlemen from Ireland had been united with the Conservatives in a common hostility to the Government. But there never was between the two Parties that sort of alliance which, appeared now to exist between the Home Rule Party and the Government—namely, a harmony of policy. The Home Rule Party might, on isolated occasions, have voted with the Conservatives; but there had never been any union between them of designs and aims. The Attorney General for Ireland, in a personal explanation, had made severe reflections upon his hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth (Sir
    162
    H. Drummond Wolff), who, he said, had charged him with having remained in the Government from sordid motives.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the hon. Member for Portsmouth had used language which, if it meant anything, meant that he had remained in Office from sordid motives.
    SIR H. DRUMMOND WOLFFbegged to disclaim any such meaning. What he had said was that he thought the right hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have left Office with the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and he thought so still. He had not imputed sordid motives to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was glad to accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation, and withdrew the portion of his speech which referred to that subject.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURwished that the Prime Minister had been in the House when the Attorney General made his explanation, because the right hon. and learned Gentleman had hinted to the House why he remained in the Government. It appeared to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that it was the nobler course to remain in the Government even though he dissented from its policy.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that was an unfair representation. What he had said was that he thought it his duty to stick to the ship in the policy which would pacify Ireland.
    MR. A. J. BALFOURbegged to apologize. But when anybody said that he would stick to the ship he generally meant to imply that the ship was sinking. But he was of opinion that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not at all more to be blamed in that matter than the rest of the Government. This was not a time when it was possible to make a general review of the new Irish policy. The House had only heard the negative parts of that policy, and was in the dark as to what was to be done in the future. But whatever might be the final judgment of the House one thing was clear. In the first place, if the new policy was right the old policy was wrong; and, secondly, if it was right, the Government had initiated it at a

    163
    most inopportune moment. If the old policy was wrong, the Conservative Party had a just cause of complaint. Coercion and imprisonment were as repugnant to them as to any Party in that House, notwithstanding the taunts that were levelled at them, and they had accepted the Coercion Acts simply because the. Government came down, and, on their responsibility, told the House that the Acts were necessary for the preservation of order in Ireland. The whole responsibility, therefore, lay with the Government, and it was an undivided responsibility. The only inference that could be drawn from the course adopted by the Government with regard to the Irish Question was that the Party represented by the hon. Gentleman behind him, which had been responsible in the main for the failure of law and order, had gained a great victory. That inference was inevitable, because it had been constantly asserted that outrages in Ireland were continued for the purpose of compelling the Government to make concessions to that Party. It was impossible for anyone in Ireland to refrain from drawing the conclusion that the releases were ordered in consequence of the outrages. Did the Government suppose that in future the people of Ireland would refrain from committing outrages, which they knew by experience was capable of profoundly modifying the whole policy of this country? When did the Government realize the opinion which the hon. Gentleman behind him entertained? He understood that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) had asserted that he had been released because the Government had discovered by some method, not yet explained, that the proposals of the hon. Member, with regard to arrears and certain other things of an analogous character, were not unreasonable. He wished to know whether that was the case. He gathered from the discussion that there had been some communication between the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for the City of Cork, as to which his notions were rendered more cloudy by the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), who appeared to have gone to Kilmainham on his own responsibility, to have communicated with the hon. Member on his own responsibility, and to have communicated the result to
    164
    the Prime Minister. If the Government had now discovered that the opinions which they entertained six months ago as to the proposals of the hon. Member for the City of Cork were erroneous, if the hon. Member was now released because the Government have discovered that he advocated a policy which, in fact, he had always advocated, the conclusion was that they had unjustly detained the hon. Member in prison for six months. He did not see how the Government were to escape from that. It appeared that all along these Gentlemen had been imprisoned under a mistake; that the Government had always agreed with them, but that, unfortunately, there had been some misunderstanding, which had only just been cleared up. They were an unhappy couple who had long quarrelled, but were now happily united under the auspices and with the blessings of the hon. and gallant Member for Clare. The Prime Minister took great credit to himself for not having insisted on a promise from the hon. Member for the City of Cork that he would do nothing to disturb order. The delicacy of the Prime Minister appeared to him singularly ill-placed. The right hon. Gentleman had no hesitation in announcing last year, in a crowded and enthusiastic meeting in London, that a warrant had been issued for the arrest of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, as an enemy of law and order, and as an incitor to outrage. It was strange now to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that he would not for a moment think of asking the hon. Member for a pledge that he would not break the law of the land. Either the hon. Member for the City of Cork had some right to complain of the course which the right hon. Gentleman had taken seven months ago, or the country had some right to complain of the course the Government were taking now. The Government had announced, in indignant language, that they only intended that the Conservative Members should criticize their conduct if they brought forward accusations against them in the shape of a Vote of Censure. No one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that a Vote of Censure never could represent the impartial judgment of the House on a question of policy. The question that was determined on such a Vote was whether the present Government should

    165
    be kept in Office or not. It was not a judgment upon the policy of the Government; it was a Vote of General Confidence in them. If the right hon. Gentleman really wanted an impartial judgment, let him encourage a Motion which would challenge the whole policy of the Government, and which would not be in the shape of a Vote of Censure. He did not think the result of such a Vote would altogether harmonize with their wishes. The Government had announced their firm determination not to allow the House to know, much less to discuss, their policy about Ireland, until they had passed all the Procedure Resolutions. Until that was done Members were to consent to have their mouths shut about the Government policy as to Ireland. Now, considering the length of time those Resolutions had already taken—and he had no ground for doubting that the discussions on them would continue in the future as they had in the past—nothing could be more obvious than that the discussion of the Government policy on Irish affairs was postponed to an indefinite date. Was it tolerable that murder and outrage should be used as a lever to compel the House to pass measures pleasing to the Government? The Coercion Act existed nominally; but, to all practical intents, it was abrogated. The Irish Executive, which had found a Coercion Act insufficient to preserve order, were reduced to the Common Law, and the Government gave us no hint when this state of things was to end. The course which the Government proposed to take with regard to Ireland was contrary to public policy and usage; and the Opposition would be justified in using every means in their power to prevent the Government doing anything whatever until they had given the House some explanation of the policy they meant to pursue in Ireland.
    MR. CARTWRIGHTsaid, he did not endorse the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down as to obstructing the Government. But he thought there was some force in the appeal he had made as to the Government giving some explanation of their policy with regard to Ireland. He did not think that the issue had been fairly put before them that night. It was not simply an issue between a policy of coercion and a policy of non-coercion; but between the present policy of coer-
    166
    cion and the policy which was to be pursued after the expiration of the existing Coereion Act. Last year he voted for coercion in deference to Her Majesty's Ministers, who recommended it on their authority and experience. It had been foreshadowed by the Government that on the expiring of the Coercion Act Ireland would be dealt with by some further legislation; and he thought it only fair to those who had voted for their policy of coercion that the Government should put them in possession of the outline of the substance of the policy they proposed to adopt. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had hinted at a measure for strengthening the ordinary powers of the law in Ireland; and it would certainly do much to strengthen the confidence of those who desired to support the Ministry to put them in possession of the policy which they proposed to pursue. The gravity of the situation in Ireland was evident from the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary; and it was only right and fair that the Government should take their followers into their confidence, and make known to them the main features of a Bill which they must have considered before they arrived at the grave determination they had done.
    MR. CHAPLINobserved that many grave questions had been raised by the statement of the late Chief Secretary; and he desired to express the admiration which, in common with everyone else, he felt for the manly, fearless, and straightforward statement he had made, and which, if there were room for it, would increase the respect universally felt for him by Members on all sides of the House. Speeches had been made by some Members of the Government; and, as far as he could gather their meaning, he did not think they had done much to strengthen their position. The Secretary of State for the Home Department, when asked if the Government had consulted the magistrates and other authorities in Ireland, replied—"No; we have done this entirely upon our own judgment." When he heard that statement he could not help remembering that that was what the Government had done before, when they first came into Office two years ago. They acted on their own judgment, in spite of advice and warning from the magistrates and other authorities; and when he re-

    167
    membered the disastrous consequences and the miserable state of things that had resulted from acting on their own judgment at that time, he was not much encouraged in his hopes of the future of Ireland when they were informed that the Government had not consulted those in Ireland who ought to know best the state of the country, but had acted solely on their own judgment. It must be obvious to all who heard the speech of the Prime Minister that the Government had been influenced in this grave decision mainly by two considerations. One was the Bill and the statement of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond), and the other was some information which the Government had received, but which, up to the present time, they had not thought fitting to disclose to the House. The Prime Minister said he attached much importance to the statement of the hon. Member for New Ross; but that hon. Gentleman concluded the speech in question by an observation to the effect that nothing could ever be satisfactory to Ireland but the concession of Home Rule. Was it to be inferred from the importance attached to the speech of the hon. Member that this new concession was to be made to the extreme Party in Ireland? If not, it was the duty of the Government to say so without delay. It was this certain information which was conveyed by the uninspired visitor to Kilmainham, and in an equally uninspired manner to Downing Street, that was the key of their policy. The Home Secretary put this question to the House—"Was there, or was there not, reasonable ground for the belief that the Gentlemen just released would in future be on the side of law and order in Ireland?" That depended entirely upon the information supplied to the Government; and the House and the country were entitled to full details as to what that information was, so far as the House could judge—from the only information at its disposal. From the public speeches of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) there was not the slightest ground for believing that he would be on the side of law and order, because he had said that he would never rest until he had brought about the separation of England and Ireland. ["No, no!" and an hon. MEMBER: Home Rule!] His words might have been "until he had secured Home Rule for Ireland." He believed that he was cor-
    168
    rect in saying that the establishment of an Irish Parliament was one of the objects which the hon. Member had specified. The course now taken by the Government was merely a repetition of the old policy of concession upon, concession which commenced in 1870, and which had failed, and failed disastrously, from that time to the present. From the point of view of hon. Gentlemen behind him, no doubt it had succeeded; and he did not hesitate to say that the hon. Member for the City of Cork stood in the most triumphant position that he ever remembered to have been occupied by any Member of that House. The hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) was justified in using any legitimate pressure to induce the Government to lay before the country a full statement of its intended policy. Even if, as the Prime. Minister said, it was absolutely necessary to complete the Resolutions on Procedure, the Government could lay the Bills they would propose forthwith upon the Table. Let the right hon. Gentleman make a full statement of his policy. The country were likely to form a wrong impression of the right hon. Gentleman. They would say—"We have placed this powerful Minister in Office, and yet, in spite of all his power, this Minister is making the Queen's Government ridiculous—in spite of all his professions he is nothing but the tool of the agitation he has so long denounced, the dupe, the plaything, and the puppet of the Land League." He should be sorry if any such opinion were entertained of the right hon. Gentleman; and therefore he once more appealed to him to lay before the House the policy he intended to pursue with regard to the future of Ireland.
    MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was not surprised at the considerable amount of discontent expressed by Members of the Conservative Party at the turn which events had taken in Ireland, for it had been the Tory policy which had been followed in Ireland for the last two years. Many remarkable events had been discussed that evening; but there was one which he thought had not been sufficiently dwelt upon. He referred to the withdrawal of the Motion of the late First Lord of the Admiralty, by which he had held out to the Home Rule Party the inducements which he hoped would place the Tory Party in Office. There was, however, one thing which could

    169
    not be withdrawn, which was the Report of the Lords' Committee, which, at any rate, told them that honourable people besides Liberals could review their decisions, and advance most forcibly the platform of the Land League. In spite of the emphatic disclaimers on both sides, he was afraid that an attempt would be made to represent what had taken place that evening as something in the nature of a bargain. As one suspected of Conservative leanings, he ventured to appeal with some feelings of part fellowship, and to mix in the appeal words of warning that the little game would totally fail if any indiscreet partizans of theirs should misrepresent the real gravity or the real honesty of the consummation reached that evening. There was no bargain on the part of the released Members. The House would recollect that when coercion was proposed last year he warned Liberals of the mistake they were making in being misled by the magistrates and Irish permanent officials, and the advice which they were sedulously pouring into the ears of the late Chief Secretary. The Irish Party occupied the same platform as they did previous to the arrests; and the only difference was that the Liberal Party had come to understand the views of the Irish Members as to the necessity of dealing with the arrears of rent, and as to the necessity of largely amending certain portions of the Land Act. Why did the Government not believe them upon these points seven months ago? It was because Tory influences predominated over the Liberal policy. The events of the week were a great triumph for the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell); but if, as he believed, the promises and engagements made on behalf of the Liberal Party were as sincere as he trusted they were, the Liberal Party and the Premier had gained a greater triumph, inasmuch as they had not feared to do right even at the cost of much apparent inconsistency. At last the fact had been brought home that the coercion policy in Ireland was a mistake. The Prime Minister would betray, in the gravest manner, the interests of his Sovereign, whilst acting dishonourably to himself, if he delayed for a single moment that different system which he thought ought to be applied. If the Government acted zealously and straightforwardly in the spirit of their
    170
    personal declarations, they would have the honest, but none the less independent, support of every Liberal from Ireland; and he appealed to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) to urge upon the Government rapidity in the introduction of remedial legislation. He had heard appeals to the Government from hon. Members on the other side of the House to lay on the Table a measure to diminish the severity of the Criminal Law. There were thousands of families threatened with ruin through eviction, and their defenders and sympathizers were the persons who recruited the ranks of insurrection. The degree and extent of amendment of the Criminal Law must depend upon the amount of crime with which they had to deal and the probability of the extension of crime. If the Government would first do their best to remove the evils the Irish tenantry were suffering from eviction at the hands of landlords who had no mercy, then such measures of repression as might be found necessary would deserve a fair hearing; but all who loved Ireland should resist the introduction of measures of further coercion unaccompanied by remedial legislation. If the Government brought in without delay a measure dealing with arrears, and also facilitating the purchase of holdings by the tenants, there would be such a miserable residuum of outrage to deal with that it would be unnecessary to introduce an exceptional measure of coercion. While the Liberal Party and the Irish Party were endeavouring to bring back peace and contentment to Ireland, the only contribution offered towards this end by the Conservative Party had that evening been withdrawn by the late First Lord of the Admiralty. He warned the Conservatives that they would not be backed up by the country in a policy of mere nagging and twitting the Government with its inconsistencies. He trusted there would be no disposition in any section of the Liberal Party to form a little head and centre of opposition to remedial legislation for Ireland. If there were any disposition on their part to mar the good relations which now seemed to predominate in the ranks of the Liberal Party, he warned them that they would fail to achieve anything but their own discomfiture. The step which had been taken in Ire-

    171
    land was irrevocable, and all their future policy must be built up on the basis of that irrevocable fact. Therefore, he appealed to every man of statesmanlike instinct and honest heart to accept the advance of the Irish National Party. Their desire was to erect on broad bases the edifice of Irish national prosperity, and also to form a lasting chain of goodwill, friendship, and affection with the people of England. But, whether they had to deal with ill-will or good-will, what had been done could not be undone; and, therefore, he asked all hon. Members to recognize the fact that the Irish situation could only be dealt with on the basis of justice to the tenants, on the basis of a statesmanlike and generous treatment of the question of arrears, and of the amendment of the Land Act; and in the near future the question must be faced of conferring the government of Ireland on the responsible leaders of the Irish people. He did not venture to use anything that might seem minatory in his language to Her Majesty's Government. He was prepared to accept the engagements they had made; but he hoped they would be rapid in the application of their remedies. If they proceeded fearlessly and unhesitatingly in the good path upon which they had entered, he was certain that long before this time next year the troubled condition of Ireland would be only a memory of the past; and that the vast majority of English and Irish Representatives would be able to transact together the Business which was required for the welfare both of England and of Ireland.
    MR. GIVANcongratulated the Government on the course they had so magnanimously taken in releasing the three hon. Members. He could not understand the course adopted by the Conservative Party on this occasion. The Londonderry Election was a recent event; and he recollected that during the contest the hon. Member for the City of Londonderry (Mr. Lewis), who sneered so much at the Prime Minister during his speech to-night, gave his support to a candidate who stated that coercion was a policy which would not be resorted to by the Conservative Party, and that the Land Act did not go far enough. He (Mr. Givan), as one who never believed in the policy of coercion, and who had opposed the Coercion Act from its introduction, stood up now
    172
    to say that the course which Her Majesty's Government had adopted was the only course likely, at the present time, to restore peace to his distracted country. The true remedy for the present condition of Ireland was an amendment of the Land Act. He believed that no man ever desired to discharge his duty more conscientiously and generously than the late Chief Secretary; but he could not conceal the fact that he believed the right hon. Gentleman was often influenced, when Chief Secretary, by the police system and the Castle officialism which were so detrimental to government in Ireland. They all knew the business qualifications of the noble Lord who had been appointed Chief Secretary; and he hoped the noble Lord's first act would be to divest himself of those humiliating Castle influences. The fate of Ireland was at that moment trembling in the balance. He believed that the new departure was a departure in the right direction; and he hoped it would be followed by some legislation to assist the tenants in their difficulties with arrears; to extend the Purchase Clauses, so as to enable the tenants to purchase, which they would not do under the provisions of the Land Act; and to extend the benefits of that Act to leaseholders. Then he believed peace would be restored to Ireland, and that the new coercive or protection measures, which hon. Members were so anxious to have adopted at once, would be found to be of a very mild kind indeed. The hon. Member, in conclusion, again expressed his satisfaction at the course taken by the Government in releasing the "suspects," and also releasing Mr. Michael Davitt.
    MR. GIBSON: When on Tuesday the Prime Minister made his statement to the House I think everyone followed it with the deepest interest; and I think it must have been present to the mind of that great statesman himself that each word that he uttered developed and increased to an acute degree the interest of the House. It was obvious that a great and serious decision had been arrived at, and equally obvious that that grave and momentous decision was made known to the House casually, suddenly, without Notice, and without any sign which could indicate that it had received the deliberation which its importance required. No reasons were

    173
    offered, and no explanations were tendered. I do not intend, in connection with a great question like this, to indulge in mere personal charges. The matter is far too important for that. But I think it is to be regretted that on an occasion of such gravity the Prime Minister should not have thought it his duty to make a statement of a more complete character. When that regret was very temperately indicated by my right hon. Friend near me (Sir Stafford Northcote), we were met in a way that was simply unworthy. We were told—"We give you no grounds; but if you are dissatisfied, say so, and we will vote you down." That was hardly the way to deal with a fair, reasonable, and thoroughly justifiable question on an occasion so important. I think, also, that it was hardly necessary for a statesman holding the high position of the Prime Minister to say that it was no new policy which was being introduced, and that it was in harmony with the old lines. Such expressions as those are simply nonsense. When the Government cannot get their Lord Lieutenant to stay in Office, and cannot induce their Chief Secretary to be responsible for their actions, surely it is rather idle to say that they are proceeding in harmony with their preceding conduct. We have more knowledge tonight; but I am not sure that the increase of knowledge which we have received will lead to an increase of confidence. Speaking for myself, I am bound to say that a discussion more calculated to intensify the interest and increase the anxiety of the country has never been heard in Parliament. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), as I must now call him, speaking with the greatest moderation, and with all the weight of a great character and a long political life, made use of words which, if they do not bring conviction to men's minds, must surely cause every man in this House, who is not heedless or thoughtless, to reflect gravely on the state of affairs. When I heard the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and when I heard the three alternative propositions which he submitted to his Colleagues, with whom he had obviously desired to remain—when he formulated those three propositions, by the acceptance of any one of which he would have been induced to remain in the Cabinet
    174
    —my feeling was one of immense astonishment that, in a crisis so grave, the Ministry could not see their way to the acceptance of any one of them. It looked as if the Government, coûte que coûte, were determined to embark with their eyes shut on a new policy, which might lead they knew not where, and for which they had no reason to offer either to their Colleague or to the country. The main proposal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford was that the present Coercion Act might well be allowed to come to an end; but that the period that would elapse before its expiration should be utilized in the enactment of other provisions which would so strengthen the general law of the country as to enable the change to take place safely and reasonably. That is a suggestion so temperate and fair that it is inexplicable to me that it was not considered worthy of acceptance by the Government. Now, I ask on what information has the Government proceeded? That is a question to which we ought to have an answer. It was not upon the information of the Lord Lieutenant, for he had given notice to quit. It was not on the information of the late Chief Secretary; it was, in fact, in opposition to his opinion. His successor, whose appointment I do not criticize, knows necessarily nothing about the subject. If, then, the Prime Minister is unable to vouch his late Lord Lieutenant; if he has acted against the advice of his Chief Secretary; if he is unable to say that his Law Officers agree with him; if he is unable to state that the Lord Chancellor of Ireland gives his sanction to this change; if he is unable to cite a single report or suggestion in support of his action from anyone who has the means of obtaining the necessary knowledge, am I not entitled to demand upon what information have the Government proceeded in making this momentous change? I think it is to be regretted that in the speech of the Prime Minister on Tuesday he did not make himself understood more completely. He protested, I now think, a little too much in saying that there was no negotiation, or contract, or anything of the kind. I will not say there was a contract or a covenant—to use the right hon. Gentleman's words—but if there was not an understanding I am at a loss to know

    175
    what is the meaning of an understanding. The right hon. Gentleman knew that the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) was going to Kilmainham with the knowledge of the views and intentions of the Government. [Mr. GLADSTONE: No.] Perhaps I may be allowed to state my own proposition. I will take the words of the right hon. Gentleman, and then I must demand leave to draw my own inference. I must, for the purposes of argument, draw inferences from the words which will be before the country to-morrow in the three forms in which the Prime Minister gave them; because I notice that there is a most extraordinary development in the frankness of the right hon. Gentleman. In the first place, he stated—
    "The information which led us to the conviction to which we recently gave effect."
    Nothing can be more interesting or bald than that. Then the right hon. Gentleman proceeds to the second development and says—
    "Then we were forced to the rational conviction"
    —the previous one was not characterized—
    "That the three Gentlemen in Kilmainham would find themselves in a condition to place themselves on the side of law, order, and individual freedom."
    Now, Sir, there we have a further development. The right hon. Gentleman, if I may be permitted to say so, was, I think, hardly as happy as usual in his speech to-night, because having made that second statement, there appeared a third branch of the Upas tree. This further development threw further light on the question. The right hon. Gentleman says—
    "They had information that, were the Government suggestions of Wednesday as to arrears carried out, these Members would be willing to act as I have stated."
    MR. GLADSTONE: I did not say that.
    MR. GIBSON: The meaning is as clear as crystal. I took down the words which I have read; and it appears that the information was conveyed by the hon. and gallant Emissary from this House to Kilmainham that the Government undertook the settlement of the arrears question on the basis of gift and compulsion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the kind. [Cheers, counter-cheers, and cries of "Withdraw!" from the Ministerial Benches."]
    MR. GIBSON: I have said nothing personally offensive. I am dealing with statements which appeared to me to culminate in the particular statement to which I have referred. Of course, I am in the wrong. But now let us see the real meaning of this transaction. The Government have, by an emissary, recognized that they were willing to settle the arrears question on the basis of gift and compulsion.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Nothing of the sort.
    MR. GIBSON: And, on the other hand, the hon. Gentlemen in Kilmainham seem to have conveyed—or it was understood, or hoped, that they conveyed—in a manner, that they thought that if some such thing were done there would be a better chance of law and order. The meaning of all this is that the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Colleagues—I will not say made a contract, for everybody knows that was not precisely the case—made it to be understood that if the proposals indicated were adopted it would lead to the lessening of outrage and to the smoothing of the course of law and order. I have now put my meaning on this transaction. It has already obviously landed the Government in a series of misunderstandings. All I can say is that if the hon. Members lately in Kilmainham are able to put a clearer meaning on the matter than I have given they are a great deal cleverer than me. As far as I can gather, the lucidity and clearness of the Prime Minister's statement is such that we are unable to assign to it any more definite meaning. I venture to think that this action of the Government, which has led to this series of understandings or misunderstandings, bears a strong similarity to an arrangement which binds the Government and leaves the other parties free. I should like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman the late Chief Secretary for Ireland was cognizant of the proceedings. I should say, probably he was not. But, in any event, the Government seem throughout the whole business to have preferred acting on the casual and uncertain belief expressed by the hon. Member for the

    177
    City of Cork as to what might happen if something were done in the matter of the Arrears Clauses rather than on the deliberate opinion of their own Colleague, the then Chief Secretary for Ireland. Now, Sir, everyone in the House must be glad that the Government can see their way to the release of any people subjected to the great irk-someness of such confinement. I am sure there is not a single man in the country that would not be pleased to see every person in confinement released if the Government, on their own responsibility, and for sufficient reasons, could feel that it might be safely done. There is no difference of opinion as to that. I can only say, notwithstanding the unworthy and petty charges made to-night—I have never made such imputations—that the Conservatives hate coercion as everyone else does. But the way the Government have acted in this measure—the methods they have pursued—have been such as to excite the gravest alarm, the maximum of anxiety, and to lead us to believe, who have listened to every word and watched every step of the transaction closely, that the Government have no policy, no purpose, and no courage. If the Protection Act was necessary last year; if it was necessary to confine three Members of Parliament during the clôture debate; if the right hon. Gentleman now says, as he said on Tuesday, that up to the very moment they changed their minds they were right, I should like to know when and where did it become wrong to proceed on their previous methods? The right hon. Gentleman, whom I will not quote at length, on the 18th of August last year, in a discussion on the administration of the Coercion Acts, introduced by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, used these remarkable and clear words—
    "Our course is clear; we must under no circumstances compromise the peace of the country……We must do our hest to confront danger, and to compress it, and we must make no terms of accommodation with those who defy or endeavour to frustrate the law."—[3 Hansard, cclxv. 297–8.]
    Sir, that is an interesting sentence, read by the light of subsequent events; and though I would be the last in the world to suggest any moral inconsistency in these words, it is obvious that it requires acuteness not to see that the present
    178
    persons and the occasion hardly fit in. Sir, I have listened with attention to everything that has been said. The right hon. Gentleman's speeches, I am bound to say, have been characterized by a want of amplitude and detail that is almost unique in the right hon. Gentleman's oratory. He has certainly not given any lavish statement of the causes which have led to this change, and he has given no statement of his reasons. The past administration of the Government must have been either right or wrong. If wrong, they must been blundering foolishly and wickedly for months. If right, did it become by a miracle wrong in a night? The right hon. Gentleman alleged three reasons. I do not want, in the slightest degree, to distort any words that he has said. He gave three reasons. He called them reasons. He said that it would be conducive to the interests of law and order, and of the security of property. But that is a perversion of language. They are not reasons. They only amount to a prophecy. And, bearing in mind what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has said, one can hardly feel any great confidence in this particular prophecy of Her Majesty's Government, and there is nothing in their past career of prophets to make us accept their statement with absolute faith. Taking that as their reason, have the Government stated, or suggested, how long this reason has been in operation? Do they expect what?—a short lull, or more than a short lull?—it may be they will get it. [Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT: Hear, hear!] The Home Secretary is easily pleased. Well, I have to remind the right hon. Gentleman that he has a chance of a short lull. But what is the certain price to be paid for it? What are the weighty words of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford? Why, that the transaction is likely to lead to the weakening of the respect for law, and to the enfeebling of its power. The Home Secretary said, using a grand word, of this transaction that it was an effort of the highest policy. It may be attended by immense and stupendous results. In that sense he may call it the highest policy. But when the right hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say, not thinking, I imagine, at the moment what was the effect of his words—if I may pre-

    179
    sume to say so—that it was done with a knowledge of the circumstances, and having regard to the relation of the persons released to the real state of the country. I ask him what circumstances? We have been told none. They have no apology to give us—not a name, or a report, or a suggestion. I ask again, what circumstances have you stated? You are unable to suggest one solitary circumstance or fact, except this—that you have determined, for some inscrutable reason of your own, to throw over your Chief Secretary, for what reason you have not stated to the House. It appears to me that the Government have suddenly turned over a new leaf, and that that new leaf is to be the first page of the chapter of accidents. It appears to me that they went one side for a time and then went to the other, and the only analogy I can find for the Government policy is the modest and humble one of a ferry-boat. Were we not entitled to a clear statement of their principles, and to a clear statement of their guarantees for the peace of the country? As far as I can see, the Government proceeded on a sudden inspiration that it would be wrong to keep the "suspects" in prison without trial. That might be a reason for organizing some mode of trial; but not for letting them out and postponing their trial sine die. Can you draw any distinction at all between the Gentlemen who have been released and the remainder of the prisoners? If the reason for their release was that you cannot keep them in prison without trial, are you not bound to release the rest? I do not see, in the face of what the right hon. Gentleman has said, how any logical distinction can be drawn. The Prime Minister spoke of "the demands of necessity with regard to future legal provisions for securing peace and tranquillity;" the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) went further, and said the existing law was not sufficient "to afford the police all the power they ought to possess for the suppression of crime." In the face of these admissions, I ask what is the reason for the delay in stating to the House these measures, and to an early indication of them? The Government, in postponing that statement, lays itself open to the charge of making a promise to the loyal, and postponing its realization to satisfy the disloyal. There are measures which
    180
    have been referred to as of extreme importance; the question of arrears has been described as one of the utmost moment, as well as the Bright Clauses of the Act. Surely the sooner some proposals are made the better. The Government may take either of two courses; they may say—"We cannot at present pass these measures;" but they should not say—"We will postpone a statement, or even indication of their provisions." At all events, I am entitled to assert this—that if they do so they will weaken the Administration, and paralyze the arm of authority in maintaining the law. But I ask the House whether, in speaking of these matters, the Prime Minister has ever said one word of sympathy to the loyal classes in Ireland, who have been placed in circumstances of such extreme difficulty, and who are struggling, some of them, to protect their lives, and all of them to protect their properties? The question of the day is—How are you going to rule Ireland at the present moment? The Government have laid down their arms, while they tell us, at the same time, that, at some indefinite period, we may have to manufacture new ones. I ask, how are outrages to be lessened? No answer. How is impunity for crime to be diminished? We are not told. How is the Queen's Government to be carried on? God only knows. Is terrorism lessening? The Prime Minister does not even suggest that. [Mr. GLADSTONE here pointed to Mr. W. E. FORSTER.] I am dealing with the Prime Minister now; and it is a strange commentary upon these proceedings that I should be referred to the late Chief Secretary. The Prime Minister himself does not venture to suggest that he rests his case upon a diminution of crime. The right hon. Gentleman said, on April 4 of this year—
    "There is, I am afraid, on the whole, an aggravation in some degree in the character of the outrages committed.… The gravest subject is the absence of evidence that the outrages in Ireland are not associated with some influence behind them higher than that which belongs to those who commit the outrages."—[3 Hansard, cclxviii. 694–5.]
    Has the right hon. Gentleman invoked the assistance of that "superior influence?" Sir, what is the character of this criminal agitation? It is disloyal to the backbone, and seeks for a separation between the two countries,

    181
    and struggles to secure a disruption of this Empire. ["No, no!" from the Irish Members.] There is no disguise upon this question. The right hon. Gentleman has made frequent concessions, and each concession is made the starting-point of a new one. I am thoroughly familiar with this question, and I know some of the writings of Mr. Devoy and Mr. Davitt—men of courage—who plainly express their views. I know what the hon. Member for the City of Cork—a man of power of speech and clearness as well as of courage of expression—said at Cincinnati on February 23, 1880. His words were—
    "When we have undermined English misgovernment, we have paved the way for Ireland to take her place among the nations of the earth. And let us not forget that that is the ultimate goal at which all we Irishmen aim. None of us—whether we he in America or in Ireland, or wherever we may he—will be satisfied until we have destroyed the last link which keeps Ireland bound to England."
    The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, my right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Law), in the course of his masterly statement at the State Trials in Dublin, indicated that the farmer in all that movement was but a cat's-paw in the hands of the agitators. The Home Secretary, in his powerful speeches last year on the Arms Act, demonstrated that this movement was Fenianism in a slightly varied form; and your new Lord Lieutenant, whom you have sent to govern Ireland in some new method, has pointed out in the House of Lords the intimate connection of this movement with rebellion and sedition. But the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, the Home Secretary, and even the new Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, fade into insignificance as compared with the greatest authority of all, that of the right hon. Gentleman opposite. The words of the right hon. Gentleman, used at Knowsley on the 27th of October last, were most remarkable. Speaking of the agitation he said—
    "They wished to march through rapine to disintegration and dismemberment of the Empire; and, I am sorry to say, even to the placing of different parts of the Empire in direct hostility one with another."
    These are grave words. The authorities that I have referred to have stated their opinions in a way as clear as crystal, showing that you are dealing with a disloyal agitation which cannot
    182
    be satisfied, which regards every concession only as an instalment; and that is the agitation which you have dealt with as you are dealing! And what is the crumb of comfort that the right hon. Gentleman says he has got from the speech of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond) the other day—able, lucid, and moderate in its tone? The closing words of that speech were a strong indication that the speaker and the Party for whom he spoke would not be satisfied without a separation. ["No!" from Irish Members. The hon. Member's words were that, if that Bill passed into law—the whole Bill and nothing but the Bill—it would do something towards bringing about that millenium "when Irish laws would be made by Irishmen on Irish soil." Moreover, at this moment, there are warrants in existence for detaining men in custody for treasonable practices. I read in The Times that two arrests were made yesterday in the county of Cork for treason-felony. This indicates that the conspiracy is as strongly disloyal now as at any time during the last few years. It is worthy of note, in regard to the Papers distributed yesterday morning, that the main strength and power of this agitation is not in Ireland at all. It draws its main force from a Press in America—["No!"]—from agents in America, and it is fostered and supported by gold from America. And, as I have said before, I say again, that I believe that if the Government of the day, assuming that they had courage, had only to deal with the disaffection of Irishmen in Ireland, unhelped from America, they would find it, if not a small matter, at all events one that could be more readily dealt with. This is a political movement, that acts by the social discontent which it stimulates, and governs by the outrages which it sanctions. Am I not entitled to ask how do the Government propose to suggest to the country that they are coping with this disloyal movement by their new departure? Any man of intelligence must see—I do not now speak of the release of the "suspects"—it is the indication of the Government policy, their mode and method of action, the way in which they have dealt with the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. W. E. Forster), and other matters—that they have strengthened the

    183
    cause of disloyalty and weakened the cause of loyalty. The Government say—"Our action hitherto has been a blunder, therefore we shall have no action in future; our present position is nearly hopeless, therefore we shall trust everything in future to a hope; all our prophecies in the past have been falsified, therefore we shall try one more on the chance of its proving true; we have tried in vain to work upon the fears of the lawless and disloyal, now we shall try the chance of appealing to their pity and their forbearance." The Government deny that this is a new departure. I admit that it is not a new departure, because a new departure would require courage, resolution, and nerve. It is merely a development of an old departure—of feeble concession, of weakness, and of vacillation. But the right hon. Gentleman, if he remains in power, will some time or other arrive at a period when there is nothing to concede. Church funds will not last for ever; there is a limit even to the property of Irish landlords; even the most prolific parent will at some time or other arrive at a period when he has no children to throw to the wolves. You must come to the end of this hand-to-mouth policy; and at last you will have, sooner or later, to face the question of the disintegration of the Empire. You are now, as far as I can see, without clearly considering what you are doing, deserting outworks, and trenches, and parallels. You thought you had bought a peace with part of the property of the landlords by your Land Act, and you have found that it was not a peace. Now, you think, by new concessions, and by more "becks and wreathed smiles," that you will win a truce. Be it so; you have not got your peace, and you may not get your truce; but, sooner or later, whoever is responsible for the government of Ireland will have to face the alternative of cowardice or courage. One of the gravest questions connected with this piteous policy of the Government is its effect in Ireland. Surely it is already known there that the Government intend, by a novel process, to encourage an Executive to suffer intentionally from creeping paralysis. The law in Ireland, God knows, is not strong enough for the constant tricks that are being played with it, nor is the Executive so potent that it can lightly run the risk of exposing
    184
    itself to the charge of impotency. What has been done has been done, and you have only to read the Press of Ireland to realize its effects. A discouragement which cannot be recalled has been the source of immense and painful anxiety to the loyal classes; but through evil and good report they have adhered to the cause of law and order, ever true to their motto—"Faithful, though not favoured." That class have never used the language of fear or cowardice, and they do not mean to use it in this crisis, trying as it is; but they appeal with confidence, as they are entitled, to the sense of freedom, justice, and courage in this great nation. Ministers have chosen in this transaction to play the pious but humble part of waiters upon Providence. The speech of the Prime Minister, exceptionally cautious, indicates no policy; but it clearly conveyed that he was ready to consider and reconsider everything, in the heaven above, in the earth beneath, or the water under the earth. The country is absolutely sick of uncertain promises and qualified refusals. This uncertainty of language feeds the criminal agitation that is sucking out the life-blood of the nation. There is, fortunately, thank God, in Ireland what the Government cannot take away at present—much material prosperity; there is a very considerable loyal class; and, besides that, all the great classes who have anything to lose are ready to support the Government in putting down terrorism—a circumstance entitled, at all events, to the consideration, if not the sympathy, of Parliament. They wish to support the Government; but no class, no matter how loyal—no class, no matter how much their material prosperity may depend upon it, can support the Government unless the Government give them something to support. Is the time come—will the time ever come—that the Government will take their stand upon anything? Say, if you like, what you will give while you have the power; but you are bound equally at once to make up your mind and boldly state what you will never grant in any conceivable circumstances. I do not think it is fair and legitimate to be always suggesting that you may give, that you will give, that you possibly will not give at present, that you may give hereafter. If by strong words and re-

    185
    solute action the Government conveyed to the Irish people that they could govern and would he obeyed—they have never yet tried that simple expedient—they would make a real advance to the maintenance of that law and order which are the first conditions of civilization, and the surest and strongest guarantees of freedom. I have never taken, and never shall take, gloomy views, or utter Cassandra expectations in reference to my country. I believe in the future of Ireland; but it is impossible, no matter how sanguine a man may be, not to regard that future with painful solicitude, when the First Minister of the Crown proclaims in his place in Parliament that he governs by fitful changes, by startling surprises; that his system is without method, and his policy is without stability. Ireland needs to be ruled with justice and with power; but I reluctantly say that the conduct of the Government has forced upon me the conviction that they have failed to impress the Irish people with the steadfastness of their justice or the invincibility of their power.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Notwithstanding the powerful and somewhat exciting invective embodied in the peroration of the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson)—a peroration which, as far as I can judge, lasted three-quarters of an hour—I shall, in the few remarks I have to make, maintain a tone of perfect calmness. It is the more easy to me to do this, because it appears to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's invective has been fully counterbalanced by the impotence of his conclusions. What was the result of his impeachment—for it was nothing if it was not an impeachment—of the conduct of the Government and of my right hon. Friend (Mr. Gladstone)? Why, Sir, the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Westminster (Mr. W. H. Smith) has been abandoned.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Postponed.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Abandoned, I thought.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: No; postponed.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Then postponed sine die.
    MR. W. H. SMITH: Postponed in the hope that the Government will produce their plan.
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: It has been postponed sine die, for no day has been fixed for it, and the Opposition still decline to formulate anything in a manner in which the House can take cognizance of the charges they bring against Her Majesty's Government. I am not going to depart from the position I took up the other day on this point. It is all very well for hon. Gentlemen to say that if we bring forward our scheme they will bring forward theirs; what I want to know is whether, besides abusing the policy of the Government in vague terms, they are prepared to condemn our action and to bring forward a scheme in a form in which they and their supporters are prepared to vote for it? We see no indication of any such intention; and, therefore, as long as the Opposition refrain from taking what, under the circumstances, I apprehend to be the legitimate and Constitutional course, I shall venture to continue to believe that they are actuated more by a desire to damage the Government in a Party point of view than by any sincere intention to benefit Ireland. I must congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) on the unwonted freedom he has acquired to-night. I congratulate him on having, if I may use so vulgar an expression, the muzzle taken off. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us he would put no gloss on the conduct of the Home Rule Members, and he certainly proceeded to describe it without any gloss, but in sufficiently vigorous language; but it was not the language held in regard to the Home Rule Members by the Leaders of the Party of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, so long as, what I suppose I must call, a fortuitous conjunction existed between them and the Party of Home Rule, and there was a union for the purpose of opposition between the Members of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's Party and the Home Rule Party. I feel tolerably certain that no course we could possibly have taken, either in respect of the release of the prisoners or in any other branch of the Irish Question, would have defended the Government from their reproaches. It has been my fate to watch closely the course of the Opposition during the present Session, during the Recess, and during part of last Session, and I cannot say that I

    187
    have ever seen, at any time, any symptom on the part of the Leaders of the Opposition, or of their followers, of an intention to support the Government in their Irish policy, no matter what that policy might be. ["Oh, oh!"] Why, Sir, I have heard the Land Act persistently assailed, not only while it was being discussed in the House, but since it has been passed; and I am at a loss to know how the Opposition could support the policy of the Government, and help in the pacification of Ireland, if the law of the land is persistently and bitterly assailed by those who have accepted it. And although it suits hon. Gentlemen now to be extremely complimentary to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and to hold him up as a model of all that an Irish administrator ought to be, according to my recollection, it was precious little support my right hon. Friend received from them as long as he sat on this Bench. [Mr. R. N. FOWLER: No, no!] The hon. Alderman says "No, no;" but I shall retain my opinion, and, in the way of effective support, I say it was precious little he could get from hon. Gentlemen opposite; and as for the arrest of the prisoners under the Coercion Act, I cannot say that even that policy—a change of which now causes such acute indignation to hon. Members—was often very cordially supported by hon. Members opposite. We have heard many bitter attacks made on the Government, and founded on the condition of Ireland; and the complaint which invariably accompanied every one of these descriptions of the present state of Ireland is that we have kept so many hundreds of men in prison, without any form of trial. That is the way in which the administration of the Coercion Act, up to the present time, has been received by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. It appears to me that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down and his Colleagues have been inclined to make the mistake which, I admit, all Oppositions are sometimes liable or apt to make—namely, that of somewhat too indiscriminate censure of their opponents. If we are so very wrong as we are now represented to be in having released a certain number of political prisoners, it strikes me as almost impossible that we can have been so very wrong, as we were often told we were,
    188
    in keeping them in prison. The right hon. and learned Gentleman tells us it is simply nonsense to say that there has been no change in our policy; and he has practically endorsed the assertion of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. A. J. Balfour) that the Coercion Acts are dead, and that we have abandoned all of our power and responsibility under them. Well, simple nonsense or not, I absolutely deny that assertion. The Coercion Acts are in existence, and our responsibility to Parliament for the due execution of those Acts remains now exactly what it was when those Acts were passed. I am not disposed now to enter into any lengthened defence of what has been done; but I hope still that the time may come when our policy will be formally challenged. If I were to attempt to put into a very few words my statement of the course we have pursued, it would be something to this effect—My right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) arrested, with the assent and entire concurrence of the Government, the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and certain other Members of this House and others, because we believed that they were the active leaders in an organization, the object of which was to intimidate persons in the discharge of their duties and in the exercise of their rights. We believed that the organization of which those hon. Members were the leaders was one so formidable that we could not be responsible for the peace of the country and the execution of the law if we did not, at that time, exercise in their regard the arbitrary powers conferred on us by the Coercion Act. Well, Sir, we therefore exercised those powers which Parliament had intrusted to us. I may call my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) to witness that we believed that, to a great extent, the action which we thus took has been successful, and that the organized resistance to the law, the organized refusal to pay rents, and the organized attempt to dictate what the amount of those rents should be, has, to a great extent, failed, owing to the action we took under the Coercion Act. We are asked, why do we think now that we are able to release the leaders of this agitation? It is because we have reasonable grounds for believing, as we had reasonable grounds

    189
    for believing in October the reverse, that those hon. Members and leaders will not now, or, if they wished, that they cannot, act in a manner to obstruct the execution of the law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has asked us on whose information we have acted? I think he rather said on whose advice we have acted? We have acted on the information supplied to us by the Lord Lieutenant and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, and we have drawn our own conclusions from it. [Laughter, and cries of "Oh!"] I observe that some hon. Gentlemen appear to be immensely amused. They also have fallen into the same mistake and misapprehension as that which it appears the right hon. and learned Member fell into. If I asserted that we had acted on the advice of the Lord Lieutenant and of my right hon. Friend the late Chief Secretary I could understand their amusement. Certainly, we have not acted upon their advice; but we have acted upon the information and the facts supplied to us by the Lord Lieutenant, and we drew conclusions which my right hon. Friend was unable to share. Well, the right hon. and learned Gentleman ventures to add that an understanding exists which is extremely likely to lead to a misunderstanding. I do not apprehend that there is any danger of a misunderstanding, because, as far as my knowledge extends, there is no understanding whatever. We are bound by the declarations we have made in this House, and we are bound by no other undertaking whatever; and the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the other Members who have been in prison, are bound by the statement made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork in this House to-night, and by no other undertaking whatever. There the matter rests, and I do not see where there is room for misunderstanding. We have reason to believe, and certainly nothing that has fallen from the hon. Members of the Irish Party to-night has led us to draw a different conclusion, that the conduct of the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends will not at present be hostile to the administration of the law or the peace of the country, but will rather tend in the opposite direction. If we are mistaken in that impression, no doubt we have incurred a very great responsibility. We have
    190
    never asserted, and we do not now assert, that the hon. Member is bound by an understanding to us. We have acted upon the knowledge we have acquired, in the House and out of the House, of the intention and disposition of the hon. Members who were lately in prison; and having acquired that information, acting for ourselves, it would not have been impolitic, but we should not have been justified in keeping them longer in prison under the Coercion Act. Hon. Members speak as if there has been some question about extending an amnesty for political offences. There is nothing of the sort. The hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Colleagues have been convicted of no offence. We were only intrusted by Parliament with the power of keeping them in prison on reasonable suspicion of being concerned in certain offences so long as we thought that it was imperatively required for the vindication of the law. That was the question we had to ask ourselves when the arrests were ordered. That is the question, day by day and week by week, we have had to ask ourselves since that time; and when the moment arrived when we could no longer say that their continued detention was required for the safety of the country, at that moment we were not absolutely only justified, but absolutely compelled, to agree to their release. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), and the hon. Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin), have appealed to the Government to place them quickly in possession of the intentions of the Government as to the measures required for the strengthening of the law. I can perfectly well understand that hon. Members opposite should desire that we should immediately, even if we do not bring in a Bill, proceed to explain our intentions. They think anything better than that we should be allowed to proceed with the proposals as to the Procedure of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), in making this appeal, has distinctly asserted, at the same time, that he entirely shares the opinion of the Government as to the paramount importance of making progress with the Rules. I put it to him, with his experience of this House, whether it is in accordance with practice or convenience, or the despatch of Public Business, that

    191
    we should throw down to the House for irregular discussion proposals which we intend to embody in the form of a Bill. These measures are in active preparation at the present time. I believe that the course we have announced—of taking Procedure first—will be most convenient and most expedient. It is all very well to ignore and decry the importance of these proposals. I have no doubt whatever in my own mind, looking at the question even from an Irish point of view, that it is one not second to any question connected with Ireland. I believe that one of the chief causes—indeed, the chief cause—of the disparagement of authority in Ireland has been the disparagement of the authority of this House. This House has, during a long period of years, absorbed into itself a great part of the power, functions, and responsibility of the Executive Government of this country. It has, in my opinion, absorbed into it almost greater powers than can be discharged by any Legislative Assembly; but, certainly, when the people of Ireland see this House reduced by the action of a few of its Members to a position of almost complete impotence and helplessness, we cannot be surprised to find that the Executive power should also feel the effect and see its power diminished. I believe that one of the first requirements for the re-establishment of law, order, and authority in Ireland is, that this House should proceed to place itself in a condition to discharge the duties devolving upon it. I believe it owes that duty not only to England and Scotland, but it owes it equally to Ireland; and I consider it is incumbent upon the Government to press forward, without delay, the Procedure Rules. In the meantime, Sir, as I have said, it is absolutely idle to say that the Coercion Act is dead. Exceptional powers have been taken. Those powers exist as long as the present Government or any Government remains in Office. The Government is bound to make use of them when the necessity arises, and until the period for which these powers have been granted expires no Government can divest itself of the responsibility which is placed upon it. Under these circumstances, I trust the House will not consider it necessary to prolong this protracted discussion, unless, indeed, hon. Members opposite take heart of grace, and nerve them-
    192
    selves to bring to the test of a formal Motion the charges they have so freely made against the Government.
    MR. GORSTsaid, he did not rise for the purpose of making a speech at that hour of the night; but he wished to make one observation upon the speech which had just been delivered by the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India. The noble Marquess seemed to be extremely solicitous that hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House should formulate some Vote which should criticize the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. But before that was done there was a little preliminary to be gone through, which the Government did not seem to be particularly anxious to perform, and that was that the Government should inform the House exactly what it was that they had done. He had listened attentively to the debate, and particularly to the declaration of the First Lord of the Treasury; and at present he was entirely unable to understand upon what particular information it was that the Government decided to release the three hon. Members from Kilmainham. Let the House consider the remarkable revelations which had been made in the course of the evening. The hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea), without communication with the Government, and acting entirely on his own motion, went last Saturday to Ireland with a return ticket, which he stated was not purchased out of the Secret Service money. It was not very strange that the hon. and gallant Member should have gone there; but when he reached Dublin he had a hasty interview with the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), in Kilmainham; and what did he do next? Why, he rushed back immediately to London. Surely that was a somewhat extraordinary thing to do, if the hon. and gallant Member had no mission to fulfil. The most remarkable thing of all, and of which no explanation whatever had yet been vouchsafed to the House, was, that when the hon. and gallant Member arrived in London he found, by a remarkable coincidence, a Cabinet Council sitting; and, somehow or other, the information he had obtained from the hon. Member for the City of Cork in Kilmainham on the Sunday was, by some mysterious process, communicated to the Cabinet Coun-

    193
    cil, sitting in Downing Street on the Monday. The House had a right to be informed, and ought to be informed, what that information was; because, when the Prime Minister first made his statement to the House that evening, he based the release of the "suspects" by the Government on the information they had received, and what the House had not yet heard, and what everybody who had listened to the debate was bewildered about, was, what that information was. It was said that no promise had been given by the hon. Member for the City of Cork, and that there was no promise from either of the other two hon. Members who had been released from Kilmainham Gaol. Then he was unable to understand how the release had been brought about; and before the House was asked to censure the conduct of the Government they ought to be informed what the information received by the Government actually was. He thought when the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India and his Colleagues had made up their minds, and had the courage to reveal to the House what this information was, then would be the time to invite a Vote of Censure upon the Government. But while Her Majesty's Ministers chose to shroud themselves in mystery, and to refuse all information to the House, and only to give information in a few enigmatical sentences that were immediately contra-dieted by the Irish Members—["No, no!"]—they must expect the House to be discontented. Hon. Members opposite challenged his assertion. Now, he did not think any single statement made by the Prime Minister had not been immediately and flatly contradicted. It was a remarkable thing that when the hon. and gallant Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) rose in his place for the purpose of making an explanation of his share in the matter his information stopped short precisely at the point at which it began to be interesting. The hon. and gallant Member told the House all about his journey to Ireland and all about his railway ticket; but he said nothing about the information he conveyed to the captives or to the Government on his return. Indeed, the hon. and gallant Member had not even stated that he saw the hon. Member for the City of Cork; and, therefore, the House was totally unable to judge what the importance of the in-
    194
    formation given to the Government was. He did not think the Conservative Party would be very speedy to propose a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government for what they had done until they were fully informed as to the ground on which the Government had acted. But the noble Marquess went a step further than this, and challenged a censure of the Government policy. That action, however, would seem to be rather premature. The noble Marquess was, in his opinion, too eager for a Vote of Censure on the policy of the Government to be moved on that side of the House, for before he could expect that course to be taken by hon. Members he ought to go through the formality of informing them what was the policy of the Government. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had been asked, over and over again during the last month, what he was going to do to preserve law and order in Ireland; and, notwithstanding that he had not ventured to deny the truth of the language used by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland, that the state of the country was a "disgrace to our civilization," no indication of his intentions had been forthcoming. If the Government did not condescend to state the details of their proposals, which hon. Members did not ask for, they might, at any rate, follow the example of the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), who had stated in a few sentences the outline of the measures which he advocated—namely, for securing the speedy punishment of offences he was in favour of replacing trial by jury, and of levying compensation for injury and loss of life upon the district in which the offences were committed. Would the right hon. Gentleman state to the House the nature of the measure he was about to propose? The Government could not say that the measure was one upon which they had not yet made up their minds, because the noble Marquess had stated that it was already in course of active preparation, and, therefore, they must know the nature of the measure. Why, then, did they not state their proposals to the House? It was because they knew that the very moment they revealed the nature of the measure the temporary truce with their present Irish allies would terminate; the peace which, they had patched up by the concessions

    195
    they had made would not endure for half-an-hour after they made the Irish Members acquainted with the measures they had in preparation. He would not detain the House longer than to observe that when the Government condescended to inform them what it was they had done—when they stated the policy they were going to pursue in Ireland, it would then be high time for the noble Marquess to challenge hon. Members on that side of the House to move a Vote of Censure; but until they had done so, he thought it would be more seemly on the part of the noble Marquess to withhold his taunts.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that he had never put so great a strain upon his conscience as when he voted for the Statute for the Protection of Person and Property in Ireland. In that case he voted for investing the Government with the power of issuing lettres de câchet. He confessed to hon. Members for Ireland that he regarded that arbitrary Act as a most unconstitutional measure, that could only be justified by the extremity of the case; but he had trusted that, while that Act was administered by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), from his knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman's character and his attachment to Constitutional principles, he would, before the termination of that most disgraceful Act, introduce some measure that would grant the Irish people the justice of a trial. The right hon. Gentleman's statement that night showed that he was right in so trusting to him; but that he was wrong in trusting such powers to Her Majesty's other Ministers. He was perfectly certain, from the statement, so highly honourable on his part, which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford had made that night, that the right hon. Gentleman had been labouring against difficulties, not from without, not created by the Land League or by the rebellion in Ireland; but that he had been labouring against a want of due support from his Colleagues in the Ministry. And this was proved by the fact that the right hon. Gentleman's career had terminated by a final refusal to restore Constitutional government and trial in Ireland. After this, he (Mr. Newdegate) hoped that no one would venture to taunt himself or any other Constitutional Conservative with
    196
    not having afforded due support to Her Majesty's Ministers in their difficulties; for, if Members on his side of the House felt as he felt as to the character of the so-called Protection of Person and Property Act, the result for it must make them ashamed of having vested such, powers in the hands of the Government, who had proved that such confidence was misplaced. He did not wish to detain the House, but he could not refrain from uttering these few words; and he would only add this. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had urged the House to proceed with the clôture, when by this extraordinary policy of concession he had restored to the House the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who was the originator of disorderly Obstruction in the House. [Cries of "Order!" from the Home Rule Benches.] He repeated that it had been proved before the Committee of 1878. The hon. Member for the City of Cork was the originator of Obstructive disturbance in that House. [Renewed cries of "Order!"] It was proved before the Select Committee which sat in 1878, and it was useless for anyone to deny it. Well, the right hon. Gentleman having restored to the House the man who was the promoter of disorder, which he had declared the incapacity of the House to deal with, unless additional Rules for preserving Order of Debate were adopted, what was the measure which the right hon. Gentleman urged upon the House? Why, the clôture, to which, only two years ago, he himself objected, on the ground that it would not punish the authors of disorder, but punish and incapacitate the House itself. And then the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India had the hardihood to taunt the Conservative Party with not being anxious to proceed with a measure which the Prime Minister himself, only two years since, declared would add to the incapacity of the House, which had originated in the disorderly conduct and the rebellious action of the hon. Member for the City of Cork, whom he had now liberated from prison.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVANappealed to the Chair whether the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) was in Order in speaking of an hon. Member of the House as rebellious?
    MR. SPEAKERruled that the words used by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire were not Parliamentary.
    MR. NEWDEGATEadmitted that, perhaps, he was wrong in using the word "rebellious," and would therefore withdraw it; but he had heard the evidence which Mr. Speaker had himself given before the Committee in 1878, and which was on record, and he maintained that he was entitled to say that it was then proved on evidence, in which the Speaker concurred, that the hon. Member for the City of Cork was the chief originator of the disorderly scenes which had led to the suspension of hon. Members, and necessitated the adoption of the Rules of Urgency on the part of this House to secure the freedom of its own action.
    MR. HENEAGEsaid, he could not help regretting that, after the earnest appeals made to them by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) and the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright), the Government would take into their early consideration the questions of arrears and leases in Ireland. The action of the Government had changed the state of affairs in Ireland very considerably, and it was now impossible for anyone who knew Ireland to hope that any rent would be paid until this question of arrears was settled. He therefore urged upon the Government not to allow any measure to stand between the House and the decision of that question. There was no one on that side of the House who was a stronger advocate of the clôture, as proposed by the Government, than himself; but, notwithstanding the pressing nature of that proposal, he was bound to confess that there were different degrees of urgency, and he maintained that the whole question of urgency in this matter had changed during the last week. If the Government persisted in going on with their 1st Resolution with regard to the Procedure of the House, he considered they would be doing nothing less than gambling with the time of the House; and, moreover, they would, so to speak, be gambling on the worst principle of "Heads—we shall not win; tails—we shall most certainly lose." He thought that anyone who was acquainted with the state of the Order Book of the House of Commons would know that it was impossible that the discussions on
    198
    the 1st Resolution could be concluded in less than three weeks; and, therefore, if not upon the suggestion of hon. Members opposite, he hoped the Government would reconsider their position with reference to the Resolution in question, upon the appeals of their constant supporters. There was, he ventured to point out, a strong feeling amongst the Liberal Party that the questions of arrears and leases should not be deferred to the end of the Session; and although the general opinion in the House was that a grave crisis had arisen, he believed that on all sides there would be a desire to assist the Government in proceeding with the remaining Resolutions, which were, more or less, agreed to, and which might well be got through within the next week or fortnight. Surely, by that time, the Government would have come to a conclusion as to the measures they intended to bring forward. He would impress upon them that if they proceeded with the clôture in the present grave crisis, they would be destroying any chance of dealing with the Irish Question this Session, as well as deferring their chance of dealing with English legislation in the next.
    MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for India had charged Members on that side of the House, and himself in particular, with not having supported the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when he occupied a seat on the Treasury Bench. He rose for the purpose of stating that, during the long-protracted debate of last Session, he had remained in his place during the whole of the first night and until 3 o'clock in the morning of the second, as did also many other hon. Members on that side, for the purpose of supporting the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavour to carry the measure brought in by him for the government of Ireland. Again, although the noble Marquess might not have been present on two occasions, once at the close of last Session, and once during the present Session, he had stated in that House that—
    "Much as he differed from the right hon. Gentleman, if there was one man sitting on the Treasury Bench who was actuated by a sincere and manly desire to do his duty to the country, that Gentleman was his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant."
    That language having been, used by him,

    199
    it was not right on the part of the noble Marquess to taunt him personally with not having supported the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, when he was a Minister of the Crown. Moreover, his hon. Friend the Member for Mid Lincolnshire (Mr. Chaplin) had, during the present Session, although he could not exactly recall his language, spoken in strong terms of his personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman. They were deeply opposed to the policy of the Government with which the right hon. Gentleman had been connected, and, for his own part, he was very glad that he was no longer in such bad company; but, so far as personal respect for the right hon. Gentleman was concerned, he believed that everyone on that side of the House had the greatest respect for his ability and devotion to the service of the Sovereign, as well as for his high character, and, therefore, he could not regard his withdrawal from his position on the Treasury Bench, in the present crisis, as anything short of a national calamity.
    MR. J. N. RICHARDSONsaid, this was the first time in his experience in Parliament that a Ministerial resignation had taken place, and he had neither the inclination nor the experience by which to enter into the political aspects of the subject; but he did not think he ought to allow this occasion to pass without expressing his sense of personal regret that a statesman who, in the thankless post he had occupied during the past two years, had shown all the dogged and patient qualities that had made England free, should now be under the necessity of severing himself from the Cabinet, of which he had been an ornament. He had no right to speak for the right hon. Gentleman; but he had it from others, who the right hon. Gentleman would acknowledge were dear to him, that one of the wishes of his life for many years had been to be able to do something to ameliorate the condition of the country he visited when he was young. Two years ago that opportunity came; and he gave an earnest of his intention, first by the Relief of Distress Bill, and. then by the Compensation for Disturbance Bill, which was thrown out by the other branch of the Legislature. It might have been better for his reputation, in regard to Ireland, if he had resigned even at that time,
    200
    when he found himself obliged in stern irony to carry out laws which he himself had said were oppressive; but, instead of that, he stuck to his post and to his Colleagues—and his post had not been a bed of roses. It had been his (Mr. Richardson's) lot on one or two occasions to call upon the right hon. Gentleman shortly after the receipt of telegrams from Ireland informing the right hon. Gentleman of the shedding of innocent blood in Ireland—on one occasion the blood of a woman—and when he saw how the right hon. Gentleman felt it, and how he felt that he was being blamed for these occurrences, he said to himself that he would rather have been a prisoner in gaol than in the position of the right hon. Gentleman. And he would go further, and say he believed that when the occurrences of these days became history, and when the correspondence of the leading statesmen was published, as was the correspondence of Pitt and Peel and Palmerston, then, and not till then, even some of the hon. Members opposite, or their descendants, would acknowledge that the ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, who had been denounced as the enemy of Ireland, had in many cases been her truest friend.
    SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I beg to withdraw the Motion.
    Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]
  (Mr. Hibbert, Secretary Sir William Harcourt.)
  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (re-committed) BILL.— [BILL 113.]

    COMMITTEE. [Progress 2nd May.]
    Bill considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)

  PART II.

    CONSTITUTION AND GOVERNMENT OF BOROUGH BURGESSES.
    Clause 9 (Qualification of burgees).
    MR. BIGGARproposed to leave out lines 18 and 19, with the object of doing away with a provision which was constantly evaded, and which had no practical effect—namely, the provision which required ratepayers in a borough not only to be ratepayers of premises, but to have residences in such borough before

    201
    they could vote as electors. No matter how large a ratepayer might be in a borough, if he had not rated premises which he could call his own domicile he could not vote as a burgess in the borough. That provision was constantly evaded, and he had evaded it himself. For a number of years he was a ratepayer to a considerable amount in Belfast; but he had no vote for municipal purposes. After a time he felt disposed to become a member of the Town Council, and, in order to qualify himself for that position, he fitted up a bed-room in the premises for which he had been rated, and by sleeping there a few times he was able to declare himself a bonâ fide resident within the borough—when, in reality, he was living with his father, as he was before he manufactured his franchise. In that way this principle was evaded, and it was unreasonable to impose conditions which were really never acted upon in practice. Another case in illustration occurred this year. The Lord Mayor of Dublin had to manufacture a qualification exactly as he had done. The Lord Mayor actually resided seven miles beyond the City of Dublin; but, although a large ratepayer in the City, he had no vote, and, in order to qualify and to make certain that he would not be disqualified as Lord Mayor, he slept a few times in a room in his business premises, and so obtained the qualification.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, leave out lines 18 and. 19.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTadmitted that the law was very often evaded; but, at the same time, he could not agree to the Amendment. The law, as stated in these two lines, was drawn in exactly the same way with respect to municipal elections as in regard to Parliamentary elections, and the qualification as to residence was put on exactly the same footing. For that reason he thought it would be undesirable to accept the Amendment. Since the passing of the Act of 1835, it had always been the custom to require 12 months' residence in a town as a qualification, and he could not agree to such a change as that now suggested. The Bill, moreover, was rather a Con-
    202
    solidating Bill than a measure to amend the law.
    MR. BIGGARdoubted whether the hon. Gentleman had correctly stated the law. He had never heard that a ratepayer had to prove residence as well as occupation in order to qualify for a vote at a Parliamentary election. It was not so in Ireland, and he had voted in respect of premises in which he had never lived. He had never had a residence in his life, and he was convinced that a ratepayer in Ireland was qualified to vote, whether he had any residence or not. The real practical effect of this provision was simply to disqualify a comparatively small number of people who might have weight and influence. Many unmarried sons lived with their fathers as he did; but he was registered on the Register as a Parliamentary voter, although he could not vote for a Town Councillor. He thought the hon. Gentleman was incorrect, and this was one of those absurd provisions which could always be evaded if people chose to take a little trouble to do so. More than that, it set up a system of colourable qualification; and he could not agree that, because this was a Consolidating Bill, therefore the law, which seemed absurd in some respects, should not be amended now that there was an opportunity such as might not occur again for a long time.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that what he had stated was the law in England. He was not aware what the law in Ireland was, and this Bill only applied to England. That had been the law since 1835, and he did not consider it wise to make any difference between the qualification for Parliamentary and for municipal elections.
    MR. R. N. FOWLER: Does this Bill apply to Parliamentary elections?
    MR. HIBBERT: No.
    MR. GILL: Are we to understand that this Bill does not extend to Ireland?
    MR. HIBBERT: Certainly; it is merely a Bill to consolidate ail Acts relating to England.
    MR. WARTONinquired whether the hon. Gentleman had considered the propriety of extending the seven miles' limit somewhat?
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should be sorry to alter the number of miles, because that was the same limit as for

    203
    Parliamentary elections; and, unless it was intended to alter the limit in those cases, it would be unwise to alter it here, more especially as the Register was the same for both purposes.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment. The point raised by the hon. Gentleman as to the inconvenience of making a distinction between Parliamentary and municipal elections was an important point.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    On Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill?"
    MR. BIGGARmoved to leave out lines 23 to 26, inclusive, and he explained that the objection to those lines was that, if the governing Party in a borough were disposed to encourage a rate collector, he could exact only the smallest amount of rates; and so a great many ratepayers opposed to the dominant Party would be disqualified. One of the great difficulties in regard to Parliamentary elections was to get people to pay their rates in time; and this provision would be a premium to dishonest rate collectors to abstain from asking ratepayers belonging to an opposite Party to pay their rates. He himself had had a painful experience of this kind in Belfast, because, when the Conservative Party in that borough were very much in the ascendant, their rate collectors intentionally neglected to collect the rates from a large portion of the Liberal electors. The result was that the representation got entirely into the hands of the Conservatives; and that was very injurious, because, thinking they had perfect immunity, they greatly exceeded their borrowing powers. He thought a sufficient qualification would be the payment of one tax or rate, and it was very objectionable to leave a number of collectors to abstain from asking for the rates from a certain section of the electors, with the practical effect of throwing political power into the hands of one Party. For these reasons he proposed this Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 4, to leave out lines 23 to 26, inclusive.
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could not accept the Amendment of the hon.
    204
    Member, and he could not agree with, him at all that these objections would arise to the extent that had been suggested. He did not say it was invariably the case; but, as a general rule, borough rates were collected well up to time by the collectors. As the hon. Member had said, inconveniences might have arisen at Belfast. Nevertheless, he did not think it would be wise to alter the law as to borough rates. So far as he (Mr. Hibbert) was concerned, there had been no application to him on the part of any ratepayers of any borough in England; therefore he could not accept the Amendment.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he could not support the Amendment.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that, as the hon. Member for Liverpool did not approve of the Amendment, he would ask leave to withdraw it. He must say, at the same time, that he was not convinced by the arguments he had heard. He was acquainted with a case where the office of the rate collector was so small that it was impossible, when the last days for paying the rates arrived, for all the people who made a rush to be in time to find standing room within it, and the result was that many people who were anxious to pay could not do so. When travelling through different parts of England, and communicating with Parties, there was no more common complaint made than that a certain class of electors neglected to pay their rates. This would cause a great reduction in the number of electors on the list, and very materially interfere with the elective power of the constituencies. He, however, begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Council; Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors.
    Clause 10 (Constitution of council) agreed to.
    Clause 11 (Qualification of councillor).
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would move to leave out from "beyond," in line 5, to "and," in line 7, and insert "within seven miles of the borough." He did not know on what principle a person who was not qualified to vote in a borough should be qualified to act as a

    205
    member of a Town Council in a borough. To allow such, a thing to take place appeared to him to be giving an unreasonable preference to a class of people whom it was not desirable to elect as Town Councillors. Men would be likely to be elected simply on social grounds because they held high positions—and in spite of their being unable to devote continuous attention to municipal business. Any person entitled to vote should be eligible for election on the Council; but, at the same time, no person not qualified to vote should be considered qualified to sit as a member of the Corporation or Board.
    Amendment proposed,
    In page 5, leave out from "beyond," in line 5, to "and," in line 7, and insert "within seven miles of the borough."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. WARTONrose to Order. The words, as they would be left by the hon. Member's Amendment, would be peculiar, if not absolutely absurd. They would have "resident beyond"—beyond nothing at all. The person would be left, "is resident and not resident," by the Amendment.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he should like to explain to the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) the object of these words he wished to strike out. They were the present law, and were passed in an Act of 1868. They applied only to Aldermen. The Act passed in 1868—which was incorporated in the present measure—enabled Aldermen to live beyond seven miles and up to 15 miles away, and this provision was inserted on the application of a large number of the populous Municipalities of the country. The application was made on the ground that a number of very desirable persons lived more than seven but less than 15 miles away, and that means should be taken to enable those gentlemen to be elected Aldermen. He remembered when leave was given for the introduction of the Bill in 1868, and recollected that what he had stated was the only object of these words. He could not, therefore, agree to the proposal to strike them out. The provision applied only to a very few cases in the country; and as it was thought desirable only a short time ago to enact it, he did not think it would
    206
    be desirable for Parliament to strike it out.
    Amendment negatived.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the next Amendment on the Paper in his name raised the same question; therefore, he did not propose to move it. However, the Amendment which followed was one which seemed to him to be very important, and one upon which he felt inclined to divide the Committee. The object of the sub-section, as he understood it, was to give power to a member of the Town Council to lease or purchase land from, or sell land to, the Corporation of which he was a member. He could not imagine anything more objectionable and anything more open to abuse than this.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 12 (Disqualifications for being councillor).
    Amendment proposed, in page 5, leave out lines 39 and. 40.—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he could not agree to the Amendment; and when the hon. Member reflected upon what it meant, he doubted whether he would divide the Committee on it. No doubt, it did open the door to corruption of some kind; but, at the same time, many cases arose in which members of Corporations owned land which it was most desirable that those Corporations should purchase; and to accept the proposed Amendment would be to throw a great impediment in the way of making such satisfactory arrangements in regard to land. He did not know whether many cases of corruption had occurred; but perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, who was very well informed on these matters, would be able to give them a better idea as to the exact state of the case. So far as he (Mr. Hibbert) was concerned, he had not heard of any cases of the kind.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that in some towns the Corporation owned a large quantity of leasehold property, a deal of which was held by members of the Town Council There were many occupiers who held their leases from the Corporation, and who, from time

    207
    to time, became members of that Corporation. In Liverpool a third or a quarter of the town consisted of Corporation leaseholds; and if they were to enact that no holder of a Corporation leasehold should be a member of a Town Council, they would be depriving the Corporation of that town of some of its most important members.
    MR. LEAMYagreed with the hon. Member who had just sat down that it would be a decided mistake to prevent members of a Town Council from holding Corporation leases.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, that in all transactions to which the hon. Member (Mr. Biggar) had referred, the consent of the Treasury would have to be obtained, and that consent would not be given without inquiry. It would be seen, therefore, that there was a pretty strong safeguard against corruption.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that perhaps he misunderstood the purport of the provision. His contention was not that a member of a Town Council should not hold a Corporation lease, but that he should not bargain for one whilst he was a member of a Corporation. Of course, it should be open to a man, after his lease had been granted, to become a member of a Corporation; but, as in the case of a Trustee, who was unable to take any personal interest in property of which he was Trustee, without going to the Court of Chancery, so a member of a Corporation ought not to be allowed to make any bargain for taking over Corporation property whilst a member of the Corporation. Perhaps the Attorney General for Ireland would remember a case which had occurred in Belfast, within the past two or three years, where a person, on behalf of some minors, took proceedings to set aside the sale of some property to members of a Corporation. It was alleged at the time that the transaction had been of a very questionable character, certain Town Commissioners having given a lease to their own Chairman. It seemed to him that bargains like this could not be defended, and as the matter was an important one, unless a more satisfactory answer were given to him he should divide the Committee on the question. He would propose to amend his Motion, and simply move to leave out all the words after the word "lease" to the word "or" in the next line, as suggested by his
    208
    hon. Friend (Mr. Leamy). If a person wished to make a bargain with, a Corporation, let him cease to be a member of that Corporation, and let his solicitor act for him in the ordinary way. Whilst he was a member of the Corporation he would be in a position to know whether the lowest or what tender would be accepted, and could regulate his proceedings accordingly. Under such circumstances as these it could not be said that property was in the open market.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, that in Liverpool Corporation property was sold by auction. Where improvements were being effected, and it was found that some of the land which it was desirable to take belonged to a member of the Council, it would be very hard to compel that member to resign his seat in the Corporation before the land could be bought. If such a provision were enacted, it would lead to the retirement of a third of the Town Council of Liverpool. As he had said, in that town all the property of the Corporation was sold by public auction, so that it was impossible for a buyer, who was a member of the Corporation, to have an advantage over anyone else. He had been a member of the Corporation for nearly 20 years, and he had never known of a single instance of corruption, or of anything in the nature of a job.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he must again, call attention to the fact that in all cases the consent of the Treasury was required before any sale or any lease could be made. It seemed to him that if they adopted the plan suggested by the hon. Member for Cavan, they would provide a very roundabout mode of procedure. It would be a very strange thing if a Councillor or Alderman were obliged to retire from the Corporation before he could sell or lease to the Corporation any property which he might own, and which, for public purposes, might be required. He hoped the hon. Gentleman would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing upon the question.
    MR. BIGGAR, said, this was a matter upon which he had formed a very strong opinion; and, therefore, he was afraid he should have to ask the Committee to divide. Despite what the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Whitley) said, it was a well-known fact that in towns where there was not much difference of politi-

    209
    cal opinions, members of the Corporations did many things out of pure friendship towards one another, although those very things might be opposed to the interests of the whole community. There was no reason why a man should not buy from or sell to the Corporation, of which he might be a member, £100,000 worth of property in which he was pecuniarily interested. The clause did not provide that the consent of the Court of Chancery or the Treasury should be obtained to the transaction.
    MR. HIBBERTpointed out that in another part of the Bill it was provided that the Treasury was to be consulted in all cases.
    MR. BIGGARasked what part of the Bill the hon. Gentleman referred to? The matter was so important that he did not like to pass it over without ascertaining the sense of the Committee.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, it was the 109th clause.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the 109th clause provided that—
    "The Council shall not, unless authorized by Act of Parliament, sell, mortgage, or alienate any corporate land without the approval of the Treasury."
    And then it went on—
    "The Council shall not, unless authorized by Act of Parliament, lease, or agree to lease, any corporate land without the approval of the Treasury, except as follows:—They may make a lease, or agreement for a lease, for a term not exceeding thirty-one years……; they may make a lease, or agreement for a lease, for a term not exceeding seventy-five years from the date of the lease or agreement, and either at a reserved rent or on a fine, or both, as the Council think fit."
    He had, however, formed a decided opinion upon the subject, and, therefore, must ask the Committee to divide.
    Question put.
    The Committee divided:—Ayes 79; Noes 11: Majority 68.—(Div. List, No. 76.)
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 13 to 23, inclusive, agreed to.
    Byelaws.
    Clause 24 (Power of council to make byelaws).
    MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 10, line 4, after "council," to insert "confirms said byelaw or." As the clause
    210
    now stood a copy of the bye-laws were to be sent to the Privy Council; but no provision was made that the Privy Council must formally declare its approval of them. The clause was wanting in this respect, for it might so happen that bye-laws might be overlooked by the Privy Council. Objectionable bye-laws might thus come into force, and he thought it was desirable to guard against such a possibility by the insertion of the words he proposed.
    Amendment proposed, in page 10, line 4, after "council," insert "confirms said byelaw or."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was informed it was quite unnecessary to insert the words suggested. Bye-laws would come in force if they were not disallowed of by the Privy Council; and he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Amendment
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he quite understood that bye-laws would come into force if they were not disallowed, and that was what he wanted to provide against. All he desired was that the Privy Council should formally express their approval or disapproval, so that it should not be possible for bye-laws to come into force unless they had first of all been examined.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, no difficulty arose at the present time. Bye-laws were always returned from the Privy Council, and they came in force at the very time they were allowed.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had no wish to go to a division, and asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 25 to 35, inclusive, agreed to.
    Supplemental and Exceptional Provisions.
    Clause 36 (Declaration or acceptance of office).
    MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 15, to leave out sub-section 2, namely—
    "Every Alderman who has made and subscribed the declaration in respect of estate shall once in every three years, if required in writing by two members of the Council, make and subscribe a declaration that he is qualified to the value or amount mentioned in the declaration originally made by him."
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was happy to say he could agree to the Amendment.
    Question put, and negatived.
    Clause, as amended, agreed to.
    Clauses 37 to 44, inclusive, agreed to.

  PART III.

    PREPARATIONS FOR AND PROCEDURE AT ELECTIONS.
    Parish Burgess Lists; Burgess Rolls; Ward Rolls.
    Clause 45 (Preparation and revision of parish burgess lists) agreed to.
    Clause 46 (The burgess roll and ward rolls).
    MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 18, lines 13 and 14, to leave out "twenty-second," and insert "fifteenth." It was found that in the case of a contested municipal election too short a time was allowed to elapse between the completion of the burgess roll and the election. At present only eight days were allowed for preparation; he thought 15 days were quite few enough, and he proposed this Amendment with the object of granting more time in case of municipal contests.
    Amendment proposed, in page 18, lines 13 and 14, to leave out "twenty-second," and insert "fifteenth."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That 'twenty-second' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was sorry he could not assent to the Amendment. It was found quite impossible to have the Register completed by the 15th of October. He was aware that inconvenience arose; but he was afraid it could not be avoided.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he was glad the hon. Gentleman recognized the disadvantage of the present system. Perhaps by the next Sitting of the Committee the hon. Gentleman would be able to suggest a compromise by the adoption of a date between the 15th and 22nd. If the hon. Gentleman could consent to change the 22nd into the 18th, and thus allow a few days extra, it
    212
    would be of immense advantage in case of a contested election.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would reconsider the matter, and, if it was possible, suggest a change of date. He could not, however, make any definite promise in the matter.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, his next Amendment had reference to the point raised by his hon. Friend the Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). He proposed, in page 18, to leave out sub-section 3, namely—
    "The names in the burgess roll shall be numbered consecutively, without reference to wards or to polling districts, unless in any case the Council direct that the same be numbered by wards or by polling districts."
    In his opinion the burgess roll should be made out in wards or polling districts, because in the case of a contested election nothing was more annoying than to find the streets of the borough arranged alphabetically. He knew there was a provision that the names of voters in each street should be arranged in the order in which they appeared in the Rate Book; but it seemed to him that sub-section 3 of this clause was one which, if adopted, would cause great inconvenience without ensuring any corresponding advantage.
    Amendment proposed in page 18, leave out sub-section (3).—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the subsection stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, at the present time the law required that the names in the burgess roll should be numbered consecutively without reference to the polling district; but as some Municipalities desired to have the names numbered by wards or polling districts the words had been inserted in the sub-section—
    "Unless in any case the Council direct that the same be numbered by wards or by polling districts."
    Those words had been put in on purpose to allow those Municipalities who wished it to have the names numbered by wards or polling districts, and, on the other hand, to allow the old system to be retained wherever it was desired. The sub-section was very elastic, and he thought it was well it should be so. He did not think it wise to lay down any definite principle.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, that in another part of the Bill provision was made that the lists should be made in a certain way; this sub-section, therefore, conflicted with a succeeding portion of the Bill. He did not see why the hon. Gentleman could not agree to a substantial Amendment, and thus guard against many difficulties which now presented themselves during a municipal election.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, if the hon. Member would allow the matter to stand over, he (Mr. Hibbert) would see whether the words could not be transposed, in order to bring the latter part of the sub-section into greater prominence.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he was disposed to let the sub-section stand unaltered.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would not ask the Committee to divide; but he would appeal to the hon. Gentleman to amend the clause, if he could possibly see his way. He (Mr. Biggar) knew that a Corporation was generally the dominant party in a borough, and wished to keep matters as they were. He was convinced the Amendment was desirable in the interest of minorities.
    MR. WHITLEYsaid, he hoped the clause would be retained as at present framed. In the borough of Liverpool, for instance, there were 120 polling districts; and, therefore, it was very important that the Council should have the power to divide the burgess list into districts. It would be almost impracticable to make a consecutive list.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitley) had strongly supported the view which he (Mr. Biggar) took of the matter—namely, that it should be imperative that the burgess list should be divided into wards or polling districts. He did not think it should be within the power of the dominant Party to decide whether the list should be arranged in alphabetical order or not.
    MR. HIBBERTpromised to look into the question.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause agreed to.
    Clause 47 (Arrangement of lists and rolls).
    MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 19, to leave out lines 4, 5, and 6—namely—
    "(2.) Subject to any such direction, and to the provisions of this Act as to polling districts,
    214
    the arrangement of the lists and rolls shall be alphabetical."
    He held that these words were in entire opposition to another part of the Bill, and one which the hon. Gentleman had assented to.
    Amendment proposed, in page 19, leave out lines 4, 5, and 6.—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the object of the words proposed to be left out was to allow Municipalities to act as they considered best. He did not think it desirable to lay down a hard-and-fast line as to the way in which the various municipal lists should be made out.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, the arrangement of the list alphabetically entailed considerable inconvenience upon collectors and other officials, as well as upon candidates for municipal honours. He really could not see on what ground the hon. Gentleman should insist upon the retention of the lines; and, therefore, he moved their omission.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he would consider the matter with the other postponed clauses, if the hon. Member would bring it up on Report.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause agreed to.
    Clause 48 (Correction of burgess roll) agreed to.
    Clause 49 (Printing and sale of burgess roll and other documents) agreed to.
    Clause 50 (Separate list of persons qualified to be councillors but not to be burgesses).
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he had given Notice of his intention to move the omission of this clause. Inasmuch as the clause raised the question of the alphabetical arrangement of the burgess lists and other matters, which had been already decided, he would not press his Amendment. Perhaps, however, the hon. Gentleman, when he was considering the general question of the alphabetical lists, would consider whether he could not consent to the omission of the 3rd sub-section of this clause—namely—
    "The town clerk shall arrange the names entered in these lists, when revised, in alphabetical order as a separate list (in this Act

    215
    called the separate non-resident list), with an appropriate heading, at the end of the burgess roll."
    Clause agreed to.
    Clauses 51 to 58, inclusive, agreed to.
    Clause 59 (Mode of conducting poll at contested election).
    MR. BIGGARmoved, in page 21, line 18, to leave out "four" and. insert "six." His object in proposing this Amendment was to give the working people a greater opportunity of recording their votes. The question had been much discussed, and he believed there was a strong opinion held by many people that the hours of polling should be extended. He need not offer any arguments in favour of the Amendment.
    Amendment proposed, in page 21, line 18, leave out "four" and insert "six."—(Mr. Biggar.)
    Question proposed, "That 'four' stand part of the Clause."
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, the Ballot Act Continuance Bill, which was now before the House, provided that Municipalities should limit the hour of polling to 8 o'clock. Seeing that that Bill dealt with both Parliamentary and municipal elections, he did not think it desirable to assent to the present Amendment.
    MR. LEAMYsaid, he hoped his hon. Friend (Mr. Biggar) would not press the Amendment. To extend the hours of polling to 6 o'clock would be of little advantage, because the majority of working men did not cease work until 6 o'clock.
    MR. BIGGARcould foresee great difficulty and inconvenience if they were to have one Act laying down one principle and another Act laying down another principle. The result would be confusion, and one set of Judges would decide one way and another set of Judges another.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he did not think the difficulty would arise which the hon. Gentleman imagined. The Ballot Act Continuance Bill provided that a Town Council should decide whether they would keep a poll open until 4 o'clock or until 8 o'clock. If they decided in favour of the later hour they would pass a resolution accordingly, and the poll would be open until that hour for all time to come. It was wise to wait
    216
    and see what decision was arrived at in respect to the Ballot Bill.
    MR. HEALTasked why the hon. Gentleman should be so nice? The Ballot Act Continuance Bill, to all appearances, was not likely to pass this Session. There was a very strong feeling with regard to the hours of polling, and he knew that in some boroughs the working men complained very greatly about the insufficient opportunity afforded them to vote. He thought the hon. Gentleman might very wisely consent to 4 o'clock being struck out and some later hour being inserted.
    MR. BIGGARasked leave to withdraw his Amendment, in order to adopt the word "eight" instead of "six." If the Government thought it desirable that the hours of polling should be extended to 8 o'clock, they had now an opportunity of adopting that hour. If the point were raised on the Ballot Bill, a lengthy discussion would, no doubt, be carried on by the Conservative Members; but now the Government had the chance of extending the hours of polling without any opposition. They heard a great deal about the waste of time and about Obstruction; but he believed that more time was wasted by the want of judicious management on the part of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who had charge of Bills than by all the Obstruction that could possibly be carried on in the House. He begged leave to move that the word "four" be struck out and the word "eight" inserted. The Government would thus have an opportunity of voting for their own principle.
    THE CHAIRMAN: If the Committee strike out the word "four," which is the word before the Committee, and if the Committee also refuse to insert the word "six," then the hon. Gentleman may move that the word "eight" be inserted.
    MR. HEALYsaid, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hibbert) would not put his foot upon the suggestion, but that he would at least promise to give some consideration to the matter. He (Mr. Healy) did not think the Ballot Act Continuance Bill had the smallest chance of passing this year; but the hon. Gentleman had now, nevertheless, an excellent opportunity of enabling working men to vote.
    MR. HIBBERTsaid, he was quite willing to reconsider the subject; but

    217
    what he really wanted to impress on the Committee was that it would be quite impossible to alter this Bill in order to extend the hours of polling from 4 to 8 o'clock. What should be done, if anything at all was done, would be to give power to the Town Council to make the alteration if thought desirable. It was well known that most Municipalities were not populous, and that there was no necessity to have polls open after 4 o'clock. There were, however, many other places where it would be a convenience to have polls open until 8 o'clock; under the Ballot Act Continuance Bill, the polls in those places could be kept open until that hour. He was not quite so hopeless about the Ballot Bill as the hon. Member (Mr. Healy); on the contrary, he believed it had every chance of becoming law this Session.
    MR. BIGGARsaid, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of dividing; but would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause agreed, to.
    Clauses 60 to 109, inclusive, agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar).
    Motion agreed to.
    Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  (Mr. Findlater, Mr. Givan, Mr. Patrick Smyth, Mr. Thomas Dickson.)
  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.

    [BILL 18.] SECOND READING.
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [15th March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, he had withdrawn the clauses of this Bill which related to Equity appeals; and as the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had consented to the remaining clauses upon that understanding, he hoped the House
    218
    would agree to the second reading of the Bill.
    Question put, and agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Monday 15th May.
    MR. FINDLATERsaid, if he were in Order, he would then move Instructions to the Committee to consider certain clauses extending the Equity jurisdiction, of which he had given Notice to the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member will have to give Notice of the Instructions to the Committee which he desires to move.

    MILITARY MANŒUVBES [COMPENSATION].
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    .Resolved, That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys to be provided by Parliament, of Compensation to persons whose lands may be damaged by the passage of Troops, and of persons accompanying them; and of Compensation to the Members of the Court of Arbitration to be appointed in pursuance of any Act of the present Session for making provision for facilitating the Manœuvres of Troops to be assembled during the present summer.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

    WAYS AND MEANS.
    Considered in Committee.
    (In the Committee.)
    Resolved, That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty for the service of the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, the sum of £9,282,435 be granted out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom. Resolution to be reported To-morrow.

MOTION.

  TRAMWAYS PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ASHLEY, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders made by the Board of Trade under "The Tramways Act, 1870," relating to Birmingham and Aston Tramways, Birmingham and Suburban Tramways, Birmingham and "Western District Tramways, London South District Tramways, Manchester, Bury, and Rochdale Tramways (Extensions), Sea View and Brading Harbour Tramways, and Walsall and District Tramways, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ASHLEY and Mr. CHAMBERLAIN.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Marriage with a Deceased Wife's Sister* (75); Militia Storehouses* (76); Places of Worship Sites Amendment* (77); Roads Provisional Order (Edinburgh)* (78); Municipal Corporations (Unreformed)* (79).
Third Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)* (57), and passed.

EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—ELEMENTARY EDUCATION, ENGLAND.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL SPENCER: As I see my noble Friend (Lord Norton) opposite, I wish to ask him a Question, of which I have given him private Notice. My noble Friend has given Notice of a very important Motion connected with Education, which he proposes to introduce to your Lordships to-morrow night. It is a subject of the deepest possible importance, not only as being connected with the New Code, which has been discussed in "another place" and in the country generally, but also as relating to the whole system of Government grants towards Elementary Education in this country. Consequently, whoever holds the responsible position which I do, as the Head of Her Majesty's Privy Council, ought to deal with the subject with great care and deliberation. My Lords, I had, consequently, looked forward to taking part in the discussion which must arise on the Motion of my noble Friend; but your Lordships will understand that circumstances have occurred during the last few days which have rendered it impossible for me to bestow that care, time, and attention to the subject which its importance deserves. I should regret to have to deal cursorily, and in a slight manner, with so important a subject; and, therefore, I must ask my noble Friend whether he will kindly postpone the Motion which he has on the Paper for a few days, so as to enable my noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) to make himself acquainted with all the circumstances of the case? I should also like to take this opportunity of saying one or two words upon the general question, with-
  64
  out going into the merits of the case, which are not wholly personal to myself, but are due to certain others connected with the Education Department. This subject of the revision of the Code was really entered upon in the Session before last in your Lordships' House. It was in response, I believe, to a request made by my noble Friend that I undertook that the Education Department should look into the subject. I am, therefore, personally connected with the deliberations on this subject; and I need hardly say that during the last year and a-half my constant attention has been given to the best method of carrying out the important pledge which I gave to your Lordships. I feel the deepest interest in the Code, which will be more fully discussed in this House on some future occasion. As the Head of the Education Department, I am directly responsible for it; and I therefore regret the circumstances which will prevent my taking part in the debate. At the same time, I feel I owe to others some recognition of the great services which they have rendered to the cause of the education of the country, and of the manner in which they have dealt with the subject. Your Lordships are aware that, at the present time, the Government have the advantage of the services of a distinguished Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), who has had a long and continuous experience in education, as Vice President of the Committee of Council. He has given, I need hardly state, the greatest possible time and attention to the consideration of the subject. I am quite sure everybody will give to him what credit is due for the excellence of the New Code. There are others connected with the Education Department who have done eminent service in this matter. I allude to those who are in the Education Office, particularly to Sir Francis Sandford and several members of the Department. From their knowledge of the Old Code, which has really grown up under their supervision, they were able to bring an amount of knowledge and experience to bear upon the work without which our labours would have been entirely futile, and the Code would not have been brought to its present state. We have also had the assistance of some of the most distinguished Inspectors of the Department, and I wish to give to them and all those who have taken a

  65
  part in this work of no ordinary labour my best thanks for the valuable assistance which they have rendered us. I thought I might take this opportunity to render my own personal thanks to all those gentlemen for what they have done with regard to the Code.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he was extremely sorry a second time to be obliged to postpone his Motion, especially as the New Code had received scant attention in the other House of Parliament, owing to the overwhelming pressure of other matters, and none in that House, although the country took the greatest interest in the question, as he knew from the enormous number of communications he received from all parts of England. He had intended to make no attack upon the Lord President of the Council. It was rather to acknowledge a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord and his Colleague the Vice President for the great attention they had given to the question, and to call the attention of their Lordships to the general merits of the Education Code. It was impossible for him, in the present circumstances, to resist the appeal of the noble Lord; he could only hope that the arrangements of the Government would be such that the postponement would be as short as possible. In these circumstances, he would postpone the Motion of which he had given Notice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, he wished to know whether the postponement was to be till the noble Earl's return from Ireland? He should also like to know when that event was likely to take place?
  EARL SPENCERsaid, that one reason for asking for delay was that his noble Friend the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) would undertake his duties during his absence, and would require some few days before he could deal with the matter. His noble Friend would be ready to accede to the proposal of his noble Friend opposite in a week or 10 days.

ARMY—THE COMMITTEE ON MUSKETRY INSTRUCTION—THE EVIDENCE.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  VISCOUNT HARDINGErose to ask the Under Secretary for War, Whether any portions of the Evidence taken before the War Office Committee on Musketry
  66
  could be laid on the Table of the House? The noble Lord said, he could quite understand why the Report and Evidence in extenso should not be laid on the Table; but, he thought it desirable that portions of the Report should be made available to the public. Great interest was taken in the subject in military circles. It was particularly desirable in the case of the Cavalry. He wished to make one or two suggestions on the subject. The first was that the number of rounds fired by the soldiers should be increased. As to the Volunteers, a man became efficient if he merely fired 60 rounds; but, in his opinion, some higher test should be exacted, and more encouragement should be given to the Volunteers to induce them to shoot better. He hoped his noble Friend would see his way to making that increase. Secondly, that the Government should grant sums in aid of regimental rifle clubs. Those clubs were of great use, and in some regiments were largely assisted by the officers. He thought it desirable, too, that steps should be taken to improve musketry instruction in the Militia and the Militia Reserve, particularly the latter, which he regarded as a most valuable arm of the Service. Musketry practice underwent a revolution every year in consequence of the successive improvements in the manufacture of fire-arms, and it was of the most vital importance that precision and skill in firing practice should keep pace with those improvements.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was not surprised at the anxiety of the noble Lord to obtain information on this important subject. There was no point of the noble Viscount's speech with which he was unable to express his concurrence. The Report of the Committee could not be presented in its entirety. The fact was that the Report was of a very confidential character, and so was the evidence. The Secretary of State for War was, however, now considering what parts, if any, of that Report and Evidence could be laid on the Table of the House, and his decision, no doubt, would be arrived at at no distant time. With regard to the various suggestions of his noble Friend, he could make one observation which he believed would be extremely satisfactory to him. It was proposed at once, if, indeed, it had not been done already, to issue a considerably

  67
  increased quantity of ammunition to the Army generally. For the future, the men would be supplied with 150 rounds per annum, and the amount served out to the recruits would be increased from 90 to 150 rounds, while that issued to the Militia would be very much increased. As regarded the question of musketry instruction for the Militia, he could not then go into the subject at length; but there could be no doubt that the time which was available for men of the Militia to go through that course was very short indeed. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble Lord with reference to the Volunteers. He thought it extremely desirable that more encouragement should be given to induce them to improve their shooting, and it was the intention of the Secretary of State to deal with that matter this year. The other questions to which the noble Lord referred affecting the musketry instruction of the Army were under the consideration of the Secretary of State, or of his Royal Highness the Field Marshal Commanding-in-Chief. That consideration had reached an advanced state, and he hoped before long regulations would be issued regarding them.

ARMY—ROYAL MILITARY COLLEGE, WOOLWICH—PROFESSOR BLOXAM.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD TRUROrose to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether their attention has been called to a pamphlet written and circulated by the late Professor of Chemistry and Physics at the Royal Military Academy at Woolwich; whether the statements therein contained are undisputed; and if so, what steps, if any, are to be taken to protect professors from the treatment to which Professor Bloxam has been subjected by the military governor and the gentlemen cadets; and, further, to ask with, whom rests the selection of the officer for the appointment of governor, the names of the governors who have successively held that post since 1870, and the period during which they have respectively enjoyed it? The noble Lord said, he wished he could have put these Questions without remark. The subject to which he should refer was of a very painful character, but was one to which he was sure those among their Lordships who had read the pamphlet issued
  68
  by Professor Bloxam would be ready to give their attention and consideration. That pamphlet presented a state of things in the Royal Military Academy which was deeply to be deplored, and which must interfere materially with the advantages of that Academy, both to the Military Profession and the public generally. Professor Bloxam entered on his duties as Professor of Chemistry at the Academy in 1856, and continued to hold that appointment down to February 1882. When he first entered on his duties, there were at the Academy an Inspector of Studies, an Assistant Inspector, and a lieutenant, who were specially detailed to parade the gentlemen cadets, and maintain silence and attention during the lectures. In 1870 those three officials were removed and a Board substituted, before which the Professor was to attend and lay any complaint he had to make. The withdrawal of those three officers had been disastrous. On two occasions, and on two only, did Professor Bloxam attend the Board to make suggestions of improvement. Upon the second occasion he represented to the Board that the pupils ought not to be allowed to obtain permission from the Governor to absent themselves from the lectures, in order to indulge in games of football and cricket. The result of that complaint was satisfactory, both to the Professor and to the pupils. But, strange to say, from that day the Professor was never called before the Board again, although he had the gravest possible charges to make. One was that the tone of the cadets was so degrading as to be utterly abominable and unendurable. And another was that on one occasion no less than 12 gas-jets were turned on in the neighbourhood of the laboratory at the risk of the fumes passing into the laboratory. Had an explosion occurred the whole of the east wing of the building must have been blown to atoms. There could be no doubt that on the withdrawal of the three officials, insubordination began; and, although the Professor showed the utmost tact and temper, the state of things became completely intolerable. He therefore wrote to the Governor, stating that his health had been suffering from the great anxiety which he experienced in carrying on his lectures in the midst of so much insubordination among the pupils, whose behaviour distracted his attention. The

  69
  truth of that statement was soon proved, for, at the end of 1879, the Professor was taken ill, and, notwithstanding, he was called upon to continue his lectures to the end of the term. In the early part of 1880 he returned to his duty, by which time a new Governor had been appointed. On July 5, Professor Bloxam wrote to the Governor of the Academy that the teaching of a great number of subjects had been laid upon him beyond those which he had originally undertaken to teach, and that the salary of £600, which he was to receive, had not been paid. He also complained that the conduct of the majority of the boys who came to him for instruction was that of boys in an ordinary boarding school, with a very low standard of moral and religious instruction. To that letter the Professor received no reply whatever; but, having been compelled on one occasion to dismiss the class at a moment's notice in consequence of unseemly conduct on the part of the cadets, he received a message from the Governor through the secretary to the effect that he had adopted an extreme measure in dismissing the class. Having directed, with the view to preserve order, that the outer doors should be locked after the second bell had rung, the Professor received a memorandum from the Governor, commencing "Mr. Bloxam," without any of the usual terms of courtesy, and directing him not to lock the doors. The Professor having explained the reason that had induced him to order the doors to be locked, he received another abrupt communication, in which he, a Professor of 30 years' standing, was ordered to obey the directions of a Governor of 12 months' standing, such communication not even being enclosed in an envelope, and being partly written by a clerk. Professor Bloxam was next written to by the secretary, that an orderly officer would be sent to the class-room to attend the lecture, and that the door was not to be locked, as that it was an indignity to the class. Professor Bloxam replied that the class did not regard it as an indignity. Such was the gist of the correspondence which had taken place, as shown in the pamphlet from which he was quoting. The remainder of the pamphlet related to Professor Bloxam's retirement. The Professor received a civil communication from the Governor,
  70
  through the secretary, stating that he had made some proposal to the War Department, with the view of continuing for another year his instruction at the Academy, in order to complete the seven years; and he wrote a letter respectfully but distinctly declining that proposal, observing that for several years he had represented to the Governor of the Academy the necessity of certain alterations in the discipline of the classes, to enable him to continue to give instruction without undergoing so much suffering and degradation from the riot and obscene conduct of the students. The condition of the Royal Military Academy was not one which, the country had a right to expect, and could not be one which gave satisfaction to the military authorities. Was the position of the Governer of the Royal Military Academy that of a sinecure for superannuated merit? Was it a grateful retreat for pompous imbecility? Was it a resting-place in a land of promise for high ability and legitimate ambition? He said it was not one of those things, and he wanted to know what it was. Was the post of Governor one of strict supervision or not? Was it one under which such atrocities could be committed as that the lecture-room, the lobby, and the passages could be covered with obscene and filthy drawings of every description without their being removed? [Murmurs.] He was only quoting that pamphlet. Were there any duties attaching to the position of Governor, and was it conceivable that they were adequately fulfilled on behalf of the public? He believed that, however able the distinguished officers selected for that post might be, however high their scientific attainments, however well fitted for command in the field, for a period of 10 years they had not shown themselves qualified for the position of Governor of that Institution if the statements in that pamphlet were correct. What would be said of the Head Masters of our public schools if such a state of things existed in them? The schools would be ruined. He could not receive a pamphlet like that without feeling it his duty to call their Lordships' attention to it; and he concluded by asking the Under Secretary of State for War whether that Institution was to be continued in its present condition, or what steps the Government thought it advisable to adopt in future, with a view

  71
  either of remedying its defects or of entirely abolishing it?
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that the noble Lord at the beginning of his speech had told them with very great frankness that he would reverse the usual course in regard to putting Questions in that House, by giving information instead of asking for it. He thought, however, that, for the sake of Professor Bloxam, the noble Lord would have acted more wisely if he had exercised a little more discretion in respect to the information he afforded to the House. It would have been still more prudent if the noble Lord, after asking him whether certain statements were undisputed, had waited to hear the answer to his Question, instead of hastily accepting the injurious statements contained in a pamphlet, affecting most distinguished officers. He (the Earl of Morley) protested in the strongest way against the sweeping assertions made by the noble Lord upon the evidence of a pamphlet written by Professor Bloxam under feelings of strong personal irritation, and without hearing anything by way of counter-statement. He would answer the first Question of the noble Lord by saying that the selection of the Governor of the Royal Military Academy—and the appointment was one of great importance—was made upon the recommendation of his Royal Highness who occupied a seat upon the Cross Benches, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State in the same manner as all other appointments to military commands. He would also give the names of the gentlemen who had held that appointment since 1870. In that year Sir Lintorn Simmons was selected, an officer so distinguished that it was unnecesary for him to say anything further respecting him—he was one of the most distinguished and most practical officers who had ever held the post at Woolwich, and the changes of which the noble Lord complained were introduced by him in accordance with the recommendation of a Royal Commission. Sir Lintorn Simmons was followed by Sir John Adye, and Sir John Adye by General Browne, the present Commandant; and he asked their Lordships whether these distinguished officers were examples of "superannuated merit or pompous imbecility?" They were officers whose reputation was
  72
  known throughout England. Indeed, the case of Professor Bloxam had been put before their Lordships in such a way that it was hardly necessary for him to say much in reply, except as a matter of courtesy to his noble Friend. The gravamen of the noble Lord's first charge was that discipline had been seriously impaired in consequence of the changes made in 1870—changes for which no reason had ever been assigned. Now, if the noble Lord had read a few paragraphs of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1869 he would have seen that there was ample reason for them. Their object was to give to the Professor a better status. Before 1870 the condition of the Royal Military Academy was not at all satisfactory, and the Commission of 1869 issued a long Report on the subject. Among other changes, a Board of Visitors was established. It was also suggested that considerably wider powers should be given to the Professors, in order to enable them to maintain discipline themselves, instead of by the objectionable and degrading practice of having an officer or a corporal present for that purpose. Professor Bloxam, however, though doubtless an eminent chemist, did not appear to have been very happy in his management of young men, and one sentence in a letter he had written was a sufficient condemnation of his attitude, and ought to have restrained him from uttering charges which for the most part were groundless. The Professor wrote—
  "I must either at once discontinue my lectures or disobey the Governor, and I choose the latter course."
  Professor Bloxam, he thought, should first learn discipline himself before complaining of the want of it in others. His position with respect to the renewal of his appointment was exactly the same as that of any other Professor. He had applied in 1870 for a renewal of the Professorship and had obtained it, though he had not obtained an increase of salary for which he had applied. It was quite a mistake to suppose that a hearing—an indulgent hearing—was not granted to any Professor who desired to address the Board of Visitors, and unless he had much better evidence he should decline to give credit to any allegation to the contrary. He did not think it necessary to reply at length to the statement which had been made

  73
  about the correspondence; but he was informed that it was the custom to minimize the amount of correspondence as much as possible, and complaints and suggestions were received at a monthly conference of the Professors with the Commandant held for that purpose. The question also of the repairs was so slight that it was unnecessary to trouble the House with it. With regard, however, to the statement respecting the increase of salaries, the noble Lord was in error. The salary of the Governor and of the secretary and treasurer had not been increased, but was precisely the same as it always had been, except in the case of the treasurer, whose salary had been diminished. The increase alleged by Professor Bloxam resulted from the fact that whereas now the pay of the Governor and secretary was consolidated, formerly it consisted of special pay and half-pay, and, consequently, appeared in two different Votes of the Annual Estimates. Professor Bloxom could easily have ascertained this before making this allegation. He thought, therefore, that the charges against the Academy had not been made out The fact was the statements in the pamphlet were exaggerated. It was most unfair to the gentleman cadets and all who were connected with the Royal Military Academy that such charges should be brought against them as were brought by the noble Lord on the ex parte evidence of such a pamphlet as that from which the noble Lord quoted. At the same time, the Secretary of State did consider that he ought to call for a Report, and until that Report came he did not propose to enter more fully into the question.
  LORD TRUROsaid, that he disclaimed all idea of giving offence to the distinguished officers who had filled the post of Governor. His object was simply to show that there were grounds for an inquiry into the mode in which discipline was maintained in the Institution.
  THE DUKE OF CAMBRIDGEsaid, he was bound to protest against the statement which had been made by the noble Lord on this subject. It was true that he had tried to explain away the charges which he had made against the distinguished officer who filled the important position of Military Governor of the Academy; but he had made charges not only
  74
  against the present Governor, but his predecessor, and his whole argument went to show that from 1870 the condition and discipline of the Academy had not been what they ought to be. It was his (the Duke of Cambridge's) duty to make the appointments to the post of Governor, subject to the approval of the Secretary of State, and he defied the noble Lord to prove that he could have appointed two more efficient or distinguished officers to fill this post than he had. The arrangements now in force at the Academy were simply those which had been proposed by the Royal Commission for the altered state of circumstances. Cadets were entered at a more advanced age, and it was found that the arrangements for the discipline of youths were unsuited to men. Whatever Professor Bloxam's ability as a lecturer might be, from what he had heard he believed he had not the tact to properly manage a class, and this was corroborated by the fact that none of the other Professors had made complaints as to their classes. In these circumstances, he could not but think that the Professor was more to blame than the students. Where was Professor Bloxam's discipline? He went against the rules of the College, and locked up the door of his class-room, that in itself being enough to produce disorder. He thought the Professors should understand that to carry on a controversy or even a correspondence with the Governors was clearly a most objectionable course to take, and he thought it a great pity that Professor Bloxam had ever written at all. He did not hesitate to say that if he had been the Governor he should not have taken the slightest notice of the letters. The noble Lord had thrown out insinuations to the effect that the cadets were subject to very little discipline and received little or no instruction. Such insinuations were altogether unworthy and contrary to the fact, for he could himself say that, with a very few exceptions, the discipline had been extremely creditable, and the exceptions he referred to arose from their being short of officers. The officer who had made the last inspection said that the cadets were the best set of young men he had inspected. Many of their Lordships had gone through the Academy, and could bear witness to its general condition of efficiency. He considered that many

  75
  statements in the pamphlet were ridiculous and not worth answering; but he could not in justice to the distinguished officers who had filled the post of Governor refrain from justifying the appointment, and even in justice to himself, who had made it.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he thought that it was quite right to discourage bringing forward complaints of this character in their Lordships' House; and, in his opinion, the speech of the illustrious Duke and the noble Earl had totally disposed of the matter. He thought, too, the extracts which had been read by the noble Lord behind him were conclusive against the Professor. His only wonder was why, if the learned Professor who made these complaints was so dissatisfied with the changes that were made in the conduct of the business and the discipline of the Academy in 1870, he had continued in his position of Professor so long.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOKsaid, it seemed to him that this tribunal, which was a proper one to appeal to on ascertained facts, was not a proper one to appeal to until the facts had been ascertained. There was a way in which this Professor would have been entitled and able always to bring his grievances before independent persons, for the members of the Board which was appointed to go year by year to Woolwich were always selected with the greatest care in order that their judgments might be independent. The reports of the distinguished gentlemen who had filled that office would show the minuteness of their inquiries, and how ready they were to attend to any circumstances which might be brought before them. He did not say that if the facts had been ascertained this subject was not a proper one for Parliamentary consideration, for the Military Academy at Woolwich had turned out some of the best officers in the Service, and it was of the utmost importance that that Institution should be well conducted. He believed it was well conducted, and certainly, in his time, every grievance was carefully investigated. He hoped that in future, when matters of this kind were brought forward, insinuations would not be made like those made tonight by the noble Lord against officers who were wholly undeserving of them.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—THE IRISH LAND COMMISSION—"FAIR RENTS."

  PETITION PRESENTED.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORD, in rising to present a Petition from landowners and others in Ireland, praying that the principles adopted by the Land Commissioners in the assessment of "fair rents" might as soon as possible be made public, said, only a few days ago he presented a similar Petition from other landlords, and upon that occasion the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) made an official answer, but gave no satisfactory explanation on the subject, and gave the landlords no hope of any relief from the grievances under which they laboured. In consequence, another Petition had been prepared by other persons in Ireland, who considered they were hardly used, and the Petitioners had placed the Petition in his hands to present to their Lordships. He thoroughly endorsed the prayer of the Petition, and hoped that some explanation would be given by Her Majesty's Government on the present occasion. The Petitioners were fortified in their request by what was recommended in the 7th section of the Report of the Select Committee which their Lordships appointed to consider the working of the Land Act. They believed that they were asking for nothing that was unusual, and were only asking for what two noble and learned Lords and the other Members of the Committee considered would be of very great advantage in carrying out the Act—that the usual rule in judicial proceedings should be adhered to, so that the decisions of the Sub-Commissioners should be supported by reasons. The Government had not approved of the appointment of the Committee, and might not, therefore, be disposed to attach much importance to its recommendations; but he thought the prayer of the Petitioners was supported by the opinion of this independent tribunal, an authority that could not be entirely disregarded. Mr. Justice O'Hagan gave an account before the Committee of the manner in which the Commission was constituted; and his description of the occasion of the Assistant Commissioners going to the office of the Head Commission at Dublin to take out their instructions, although they never received any

  77
  instructions, was one of the most comical exhibitions that could be given of the inauguration of a great system that was to affect every corner of the country. It was almost as historical as the lapsus linguœ made by the Registrar at the first sitting, who announced that the Court of the "Land League" was open. The Petition did not relate to a question of a new Department, or a change in some of the Offices of the Government, or as to how many Offices were to be filled by the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal; but it was a question which greatly affected the landlords of Ireland. Their property was slipping away, and all sense of law and order was slipping away too, whilst the Government were considering how they should watch the operation of the Land Act. The Petitioners wished to facilitate the operations of the Act, and they considered that they had a right to call for some explanation of the rules under which the Court dealt with very large properties, how its decisions were arrived at, and what elements of value taken into consideration by the Assistant Commissioners, who had so large a power placed in their hands.
  Petition for a speedy declaration of the principles adopted in the assessment of fair rents under the Act by the Land Commissioners in Ireland; of Owners of land and others living in Ireland, or interested in its welfare; read.
  After a pause,
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Carlingford) does not rise to reply to the noble Earl behind me. I presume the Lord Privy Seal still represents Ireland in this House. Are we to receive a reply from the Government, or are they going to take refuge behind the impenetrable barrier of silence? The Question which has been asked by my noble Friend appears to me to be of the greatest importance, not the less since the Report of the Select Committee, which my noble Friend has referred to, has been published. As my noble Friend has reminded your Lordships, this is not a question merely affecting one political Party—it is a question as to the common administration of justice in Ireland, of justice to a class which has been grievously tried, and which, undoubtedly, is numerically weak, but which ought not
  78
  on that account to be treated entirely with contempt by Parliament and by the Government. As long as no principles are indicated on which the incomes of landlords are to be cut down, it is impossible that the operations of this law can be facilitated either by submission to the Courts of First Instance or by agreement between parties out of Court. It is impossible for landlords and tenants to know whether it is for their interest to come to mutual agreements as long as there is no knowledge of the principles on which the Sub-Commissioners divide between the landlord and tenants that which hitherto has belonged to the landlord only. What we want to know is the principle on which these reductions are made. We want to know this, so that the landlord may be able to judge whether he shall submit at once or go before the Commissioners. Unless he has some grounds, some standard to which he can apply the decision of the Commissioners, some idea of the calculations which induced them to give the verdicts which they have given, so long will he be unable to decide whether it is for his interest to submit to reduction at once, or submit himself to a Court of First Instance. The result of this state of uncertainty is that the final settlement and pacification of the country, which we have always been told it was the hope of the Government this Land Act would effect, is indefinitely delayed, and disturbances in Ireland, with all the fatal injury to the country which disturbance involves, are indefinitely prolonged. Another consideration why we should have some definite principles placed before us is that the Commissioners are only appointed for one year; no one can say who is to be appointed next, and no one can so forecast the political horoscope as to know who will have the appointment of them when the year has run out. If their decisions were based upon principles which were argued and distinctly laid down, and which were tested by having been submitted to the Court of Appeal, those principles, so argued and decided, would, according to the ordinary practice of the English law, become part and parcel of the law, and would become a guide to subsequent Judges. We should possess a body of well settled laws. But if the present Commissioners are guided by any principles at all, they are locked within the secrets of their own

  79
  breasts, and no one knows what they are. It is perfectly possible that new Judges may be appointed and new Courts may arise, who may substitute a policy diametrically opposed to that pursued by the present Sub-Commissioners. It seems to me it is for the supreme interest of Ireland, and necessary to produce some spirit of agreement between classes which otherwise will be hopelessly divided, that the principles upon which the Land Courts act should be laid down and declared—that it is a supreme necessity that they should be declared—so that landlords and tenants may come to agreements between themselves. It is in the interest of the landlords, but it is more in the interests of future tenants, to know that what principle is now laid down will be adhered to. On these grounds it seems to me that it is of the last importance that this Petition, which has now been twice presented to your Lordships' House, should be received by Her Majesty's Government in some more satisfactory way than with contemptuous silence.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: My Lords, I utterly deny that Her Majesty's Government, or at least so far as I am concerned, have received this Petition with contemptuous silence. I had certainly not intended to trouble the House with any observations upon it, not from any want of respect for my noble Friend the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Longford), but simply because only a few days ago the noble Earl presented a Petition in the very same words as the Petition he has presented to-day, and he supported it with almost identically the same observations he has just made. I then said what it appeared to me to be necessary to say on the part of the Government, and I thought it was not necessary for me to repeat again the statement after as short an interval as two or three days. I then said that Her Majesty's Government had no power to accede to the demands of those Petitioners by preparing any instructions to be addressed by them to the Land Commissioners, asking them to lay down and publish what are called the principles on which they fix fair rents. As I said the other day, I can see no way in which that can be done, and I very much doubt whether the Land Commissioners would consent to perform such a duty, which is distinctly not laid upon them by the Act
  80
  under which they are constituted, and which, as I gather from all that was said in both Houses of Parliament during the passage of the Bill, Parliament refrained from imposing upon them. The process of ascertaining how those rents are fixed is not such a great mystery, it appears to me, and I think that if the noble Earl or anyone else who will follow the proceedings of the Courts of the Sub-Commissioners and the Court of the Land Commission itself, they will not find any difficulty whatever. At least, I myself have not done so. So far as I am able to judge, in ascertaining for themselves the course which they took for the purpose of fixing a fair rent, the Commissioners ascertain by the ordinary means—the only means in their power—what rent would necessarily be fairly given by an outsider for the farm. They ascertain that by the evidence of valuers, by the ordinary means by which the value of a holding can be ascertained—namely, the rent that an outsider might fairly be expected to give for such a farm, leaving a fair and ordinary profit to the tenant. The rent which an outsider would give would, of course, be such a rent as would leave a fair and reasonable profit to the tenant, and the Commissioners deduct the value of the improvements that ought to be made, that is to say, the amount of the yearly value that is added to the farm by reason of those improvements as defined by law and by the decision of the Courts. They also, no doubt, take into consideration the deterioration of the farm that is caused by default—that is to say, they do not necessarily fix the rent according to the existing value of the farm, and the condition it happens to be in at the time the decision is given, but they take into account most of the improvements made by the tenant on the one hand, and the deterioration which he causes on the other, and so they come to the figure of a fair rent, not that which would be given by an outsider, but that which the man in occupation ought to pay. In doing so they comply with the conditions laid down by the Act of last year. They consider the interests of the landlord and tenant respectively, and all the circumstances of the district which bear upon it. I have never yet heard it explained, either by my noble Friend the noble Earl, or anyone else, what principles for arriving at a fair rent can be published which would more

  81
  clearly explain the process taken by the Courts than that at which I have arrived, and which other noble Lords have arrived at, from observing the proceedings of the Land Commissioners. I know nothing as yet of what evidence has been given before your Lordships' Committee, which has been referred to by my noble Friend the noble Earl, and therefore I speak in ignorance of whether they throw any special light on the subject. I can only say that the Executive Government have no power of addressing instructions to the Land Commission on this subject.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he thought the prayer of the Petition was a fair and reasonable one. He knew of his own knowledge many cases in which the landlords could not decide whether to arrange with their tenants out of Court for want of knowing the principles upon which the decisions of the Commissioners were founded. One of the reasons of the great difference between the rent which the landlord sought to get and the judicial rent—which was about 20 per cent—was due to the absence of competition for farms.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that the Lord Privy Seal had stated that it was impossible to expect the Commissioners to give their reasons as to the principles upon which they acted in fixing a rent, and that he then proceeded to tell their Lordships that nothing was easier than to ascertain the mode in which they arrived at their decisions. It seemed to him, however, that the noble Lord, in telling them how it was done, omitted a very important factor in his case, because he told them that the Commissioners took the ordinary course, and that they applied to valuers who were competent to give advice; and the other day the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal told them that the Commissioners personally visited the farms. That might or might not be an advantage; but as the Commissioners were not agriculturists, he did not see that it could do much good whether they went over the farms or not. Then the noble Lord said that, having fixed the rent that an outsider would pay for the farm, and which he would be able to give with a profit to himself, the rent was fixed after the improvements which had been made by the tenant were taken into consideration. It seemed to him that the landlords
  82
  had a right to demand what were those improvements which were taken into consideration. What he wished to know was what the Commissioners considered to be improvements, how many years back they were to go to ascertain the improvements made upon the farm, what description of improvements they were, and whether they were improvements at all? They could not estimate a fair rent unless they ascertained that the improvements that had been made were really bonâ fide improvements, and improvements which ought to be made on the farm. He said the landlords had a right to know what the Commissioners considered to be improvements which had been made on their farms, and for which they were to be mulcted.
  LORD CARLINGFORD: They are defined by the Act.
  THE DUCK OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, that might be so; but how far did the Commissioners go back? Another matter of importance was that of deterioration, and he should like to know what were considered deteriorations by the Commissioners, and the manner in which they were taken into account. He confessed that if he unfortunately stood in the position of the Irish landlord, he should not like to have his rents fixed without knowing the principles which guided the Commissioners. He should doubt very much the justice of having his property handed over to two Commissioners, and should require and expect to have some more accurate information as to the manner in which the rents were fixed than had been given on the present occasion.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he did not quite understand what the noble Duke and the noble Marquess were aiming at. Did they wish to amend the Act in order to define what noble Lords on either side of the House found so difficult to define last year, or did they wish that the Executive Government should give instructions to the Commissioners? But that was a matter which the Government were not empowered to do by the Act, and which it was not the least incumbent upon the Commissioners to receive.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, he thought it was incumbent on the Government to give their Lordships' House some more information than they had vouchsafed as to the method in which the Land Commissioners had arrived at the re-

  83
  ductions which they had made in rents. The system of administering the Land Act adopted by the Commissioners threw the greatest possible impediment in the way of amicable arrangements being entered into between landlords and tenants in Ireland. Landlords had suffered for the good which they had done in making improvements. Reductions had been made from nearly all existing rents, but the Commissioners had not put down what they were separately. They had lumped them altogether and given decisions which practically resulted in this, that no landlord or tenant could infer what his prospects would be if they brought another case into Court, and they could not proceed out of Court. This, it was true, was an important question for landlords, but not for them only. He thought that in common justice both landlords and tenants should be told for what length of time they took into consideration the improvements made by tenants, and all the other circumstances which had induced them to reduce existing rents. He was sorry to say the anticipation which he ventured to express when the Land Bill came first before their Lordship's House last year—namely, that this measure of confiscation would not be accepted as a measure of pacification in Ireland, had, unhappily, been fulfilled. He thought the Government should afford them more information than had been given by the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, it was impossible to discover the principles on which the Commissioners had proceeded. They were entirely in the dark. He had tried to settle with a number of his own tenants out of Court; but the only basis he could go upon was to take Griffith's valuation, with a certain percentage added—as much, he thought, as the Sub-Commissioners would sanction. Notwithstanding that his agent had taken a great deal of trouble, in the majority of instances the attempt to settle had failed. Of course, the Executive Government could not order any Court to do anything; but they might have expressed a strong opinion on the subject; and he very much regretted that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal (Lord Carlingford) was not able to give a more satisfactory answer to the Questions of the noble Lord.
  Petition ordered to lie on the Table.

IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—THE NEW CHIEF SECRETARY TO THE LORD LIEUTENANT.

  QUESTIONS.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have to ask the noble Earl opposite, if he will answer such a Question without Notice, Whether any Successor has yet been appointed to Mr. Forster in the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland?
  EARL GRANVILLE: The Question of the noble Marquess requires no Notice. It is a simple fact that Mr. Forster's Successor is Lord Frederick Cavendish.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Will Lord Frederick Cavendish, according to the new custom, also retain the Office of Secretary to the Treasury?
  EARL GRANVILLE: No; he will not.

  MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to alter and amend the law as to marriage with a deceased wife's sister—Was presented by The Lord RAMSAY; read la. (No. 75.)

  MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS (UNREFORMED) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to make provision respecting certain municipal corporations and other local authorities not subject to the Municipal Corporation Acts—Was presented by The Lord ROSEBERY; read 1a. (No. 79.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.