Sitting of 19 May 1882

Preamble
The House met at Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—£2,137,750, on account, CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS—CIVIL SERVICES, Class I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILD-

1087
INGS; Class II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS; Class III.—LAW AND JUSTICE; Class IV.—EDUCATION. SCIENCE, AND ART; Class V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES; Class VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES; Class VII.—MISCELLANEOUS; REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Second Reading—North British and Mercantile Insurance Company*.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 3)* [172].
Second Reading—Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (Ballymena, &c.)* [155]; Prevention of Crime (Ireland) [157].
Considered as amended—Metropolis Management and Building Acts Amendment* [107].
Third Reading—Local Government Provisional Orders (Poor Law)* [130], discharged.
Withdrawn—Fisheries (Ireland)* [17].

QUESTIONS.

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACTS (EMIGRANT SHIPS)—DETENTION MONEY.
  MR. MOOREasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether his attention has been called to the large amount of overbooking which takes place, especially in the case of one of the principal Transatlantic lines, owing to which emigrants are brought to Queenstown in large numbers, and kept waiting many days for a steamer; whether it is a fact that the other lines touching at this port generally hand over surplus passengers to the next departing steamer, no matter what line it belongs to; whether he has considered how far the present amount of detention money is adequate, considering the expense and inconvenience emigrants are put to, in cost of keep, in the breaking up of parties composed of relatives, and the impossibility of keeping engagements made with friends who have promised to meet them on their arrival in America; and, whether he will remonstrate with this Company on the course they are pursuing?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Sir, my attention has been called to the unusually large number of emigrants this year. It is the practice of the various lines touching at Queenstown to hand over their surplus passengers to the next departing steamer, no matter to what line it belonged; and I am authorized to state that this practice is followed, as far as it can be, by the particular line referred to by the hon. Member. In
  1088
  many cases, however, emigrants insist upon travelling by the line by which they have been booked; and, pending the arrival of the next steamer of that line, the owners have to pay detention money. This payment is fixed by Statute at 1s. 6d. per adult per day for the first 10 days, and after that period at 3s. per day. From inquiry I have made I learn that the particular line in question allows 2s. instead of 1s. 6d. apiece per day to emigrants detained; and it is further stated that this detention has in no case lasted longer than from one week to the next.

  CRIMINAL LAW (SCOTLAND)— THREATENING LETTERS.
  MR. BIGGARasked the Lord Advocate, If his attention has been drawn to a case tried at Tain a few days ago, in which two persons were put on their trial for sending a threatening letter, when one of them pleaded guilty and was sentenced, while the case against the other, who pleaded not guilty, has been postponed; whether he is aware that the person who pleaded not guilty cannot either read or write; and, whether, under the circumstances, proceedings against him will be withdrawn?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR): Sir, the charge referred to by the hon. Member was made against two persons, named Munroe and Mackenzie, for writing or causing to be written, and sending or causing to be sent, a threatening letter of a very gross description to the Inspector of the Poor at Tain. Munroe pleaded guilty, and Mackenzie not guilty. I believe it is true that Mackenzie cannot write, and that he can only read print; but from the evidence in possession of the authorities it appears that the letter was written by Munroe at the dictation of Mackenzie, and, if this is so, Mackenzie is the more guilty of the two. Consequently, his trial will be proceeded with.

  INLAND REVENUE—SUCCESSION DUTY (IRELAND).
  MR. BERESFORDasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If it is true that Succession Duty on real estate in Ireland has hitherto been charged at the rate of 33 per cent. over Government valuation; whether, having regard to the reductions of rent now being made

  1089
  by the Land Courts, he will cause a revision of this scale to be made, with a view to bringing the Duty more in accordance with the altered circumstances of the landowners; and, whether, in the case of holdings in respect of which originating notices have been served, he will suspend the levying of Succession Duty until the judicial rent shall have been ascertained?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, in Ireland the same rule as to the charge of Succession Duty prevails as that which prevails in England and Scotland. The rack rent at which the property was bonâfide left at the time of the death which led to the Succession Duty being charged was taken as the annual value, according to which the capital value of the succession has to be estimated. If the property was in land, Griffith's valuation was taken, and not 33 per cent. but a percentage varying from 25 to 33 per cent added, as showing the annual value. In England and Scotland the annual value as shown in the Income Tax is taken, which is more severe. The decision of the Land Courts will doubtless govern the Commissioners in making the assessment; and with respect to cases where the annual value is sub judice at the time of the death, the Commissioners will hold over their claim for Succession Duty until it is decided.
  MR. MACARTNEYasked, whether in cases in which Succession Duty was paid by instalments, the same consideration as that announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, arising out of the Land Court decisions, would be extended to the instalments yet unpaid?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. GLADSTONE): Sir, the payment of Succession Duty by instalments is entirely and absolutely an indulgence of a very remarkable character, which has been granted by Parliament in case of Succession Duty on land, and it serves little to disguise the case that the duty which ought to be paid to the Exchequer is the entire duty on the rental as it was at the time of the death; and I cannot undertake to revise what is to happen subsequently in respect to a decrease, any more than in respect to an increase, and, consequently, I do not think it would be just to introduce such changes as the hon. Gentleman suggests.

  NAVY—STATE OF THE IRON-CLADS.
  SIR EDWARD REEDasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether Her Majesty's ironclad ships "Rupert," "Audacious," "Bellerophon," and "Shannon," are lying at Her Majesty's Dockyards in need of repair; whether their repairs are being proceeded with; and, if not, whether, while they remain without repair, they are unavailable for the service of the Country abroad?
  MR. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: Sir, the Rupert, Audacious, and Bellerophon are now under repair at the Dockyards, and are to be completed during the current financial year. The Shannon has been paid off and stripped, but she is to be refitted during the present year. I need hardly add, in reply to the last part of my hon. Friend's Question, that until these repairs are completed the ships are not available for sea service.

  PROTECTION OF PERSON AND PROPERTY (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—MR. EDWARD O'CONNOR.
  MR. REDMONDasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If he will state the reasons for the removal from Naas Gaol to Kilmainham of Mr. Edward O'Connor, T.C. of Naas; whether he is aware that since Mr. O'Connor is proprietor of a business establishment in Naas, his removal to Kilmainham entails grave pecuniary loss upon him; and, whether under these circumstances he can order his release or his immediate removal to Naas?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. O'Connor was removed from Naas to Kilmainham after careful consideration; but I regret that I cannot state the reasons which influenced the Government in determining on the place of detention of any of the prisoners under the Protection Act. Mr. O'Connor is proprietor of the Commercial Hotel in Naas, which continues to be carried on in his absence. His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant is now causing inquiry to be made into his case.

  NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND)— SHANAGOLDEN NATIONAL SCHOOL.
  MR. SYNANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether all the children have been withdrawn from the National School of

  1091
  Shanagolden, in the county of Limerick, by their parents, and whether the teachers have left same; whether, in consequence, the parish priest has been obliged to rent a house in the village for the education of the children and to employ a staff of teachers for the purpose, and whether his application to the Commissioners of National Education for a grant for said school has been refused; whether said National School-house was built by public money; and, if so, how same came to be the property of the landlord of the village, and how he came to be the sole patron, owner, and manager thereof; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Irish Government propose to take any and what steps to secure a proper school fur the education of the children, or to recommend the Commissioners to give the usual grants to the school now rented by the parish priest for such education?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, I have been in communication with the Commissioners of National Education in reference to this Question, and find that all but 15 or 16 children have been withdrawn from the Shanagolden National Schools, they having been "Boycotted" since June, 1881, because the manager gave shelter for a few hours to a body of police in one of the schoolrooms during a Land League meeting. Of six teachers recognized three have left according to latest returns, and there is still one teacher in each department. In September or October, 1881, the parish priest established a school in the village in lieu of the "Boycotted" schools, and I believe the school is still in operation. I am informed that the grant was refused to this school. All the buildings in the group composing the National schools were erected by the late Lord Monteagle at his own expense, with the exception of a small sum of £74, granted by the Board of National Education towards the expense of building the boys' school. This sum was granted on security of a lease for 31 years, which expired in January, 1875, since which date the boys' school has been a non-vested school. The matter seems to me to be one which could easily be arranged by any person with influence in the locality, and I do not think the Government should be asked to interfere with the discretion of the Board of National Education.

  LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881— EIGHTS OF TURBARY.
  MR. BIGGARasked Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, If his attention has been called to the following case:—A number of tenants on the property of Sir George Hodgson, in the county Cavan, who always paid one shilling a-year for their turf bog, have got judicial rents fixed under the Land Act of 1881; but the landlord now asks them to propose a sum for their bog banks, and as it is feared the landlord may insist on getting a sum for their bogs equal to the reduction of rent and thus nullify the Land Act on his property; and, can he legally do this, and, if so, will the Act be amended in this important particular so as to protect a numerous class of tenants not only on this property but all over Ireland?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): Sir, my attention has only been called to this matter by the hon. Member's Question. If the facts are stated in this Question, it would appear that Sir George Hodgson is the owner of a turf bog which is in his own possession, and over which his tenants have no rights except to cut, save, and remove such turbary as he may sell to them or anyone else each season. If this be so he has the same lawful right as any other owner of moveable or immoveable property to sell it. Whether or not it is a matter for legislation is a question of policy, which it is not for me to reply to.
  MR. HEALYasked if it was not a fact that under the 5th sub-section of the 5th section of the Land Act the tenant was entitled to cut and save sufficient turbary for his holding?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, this Question assumed that the tenants had no right over the turf bog referred to. If they had, nothing could be done by the landlord to prejudice it.

  RIVERS CONSERVANCY AND FLOODS PREVENTION BILL.
  MR. DUCKHAMasked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he intends to proceed with the Rivers Conservancy Bill this Session; and, if so, when?
  MR. DODSON, in reply, said, the Government had not altered their intentions

  1093
  with regard to this Bill. They hoped to pass it into law this Session. He was unable to say when it would be taken—certainly not before Whitsuntide.

  POST OFFICE—LONDON AND GLOBE TELEPHONE COMPANY.
  MR. R. BIDDULPH MARTINasked the Postmaster General, When he will be able to state the conclusion at which he may have arrived as to granting a licence to the London and Globe Telephone Company, authorising them to work in London and its suburban districts; and, whether he has any intention of purchasing the business of one particular Company at a large price, and thereby creating a monopoly of telephone service, by which the public will be deprived of the benefit of a healthy competition in the development of a scientific invention which may still be considered to be in its infancy?
  MR. FAWCETT: I have received applications, not only from the London and Globe Telephone Company, but from other Telephone Companies for licences to carry on business in various towns, where a telephone exchange is already established, either by a private Company or by the Post Office. The important questions involved in these applications have for some time engaged my attention. I am not yet in a position to announce my decision; but I can assure my hon. Friend that there shall be no unnecessary delay in arriving at a conclusion, and in making it known. With regard to the latter part of his Question, I may state that the Government have no intention of purchasing the business of any Telephone Company.

  PARLIAMENT—BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE—ORDER OF BUSINESS.
  MR. ARTHUR ARNOLDasked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, if the discussion on the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. G. J. Howard) should close before 12·30, the Government would take Supply? He asked the Question because, if Supply were not taken, the Settled Land Bill, which he (Mr. Arnold) desired to oppose, would come on.
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that if the discussion on the proposal to open Museums on Sundays should terminate be-
  1094
  fore 12.30 at the Evening Sitting, the Government would take Supply.
  MR. SEXTONasked the Prime Minister if he could devise some means of hastening the consideration and passing in this House of the Arrears Bill, and so help the tenantry of Ireland from an increase of the number of evictions? He further asked if it was the fact that 1,800 persons had been evicted in Connaught during the past fortnight?
  MR. GLADSTONE: I have not had before me the number of evictions in the last fortnight. In respect to the other Question, the matter has not been lost sight of, and I intend to refer to it in the approaching debate.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEasked if the Prime Minister adhered to his intention of proceeding with the second reading of the Arrears Bill on Monday? The Bill had not yet been distributed, and, considering its great importance, he hoped the Government would not persevere in their intention.
  MR. GLADSTONE: I propose with regard to the very weighty Bill for the Prevention of Crime in Ireland, to allow an interval of Saturday, Sunday, and Monday between the second reading and the Committee. With regard to the Arrears Bill, where the question is one of principle, and where, in point of fact, Gentlemen would know nothing, on getting the Bill, that they do not know now, I think that the argument in support of a long interval is not very strong. I regret extremely that the Bill has not been distributed this morning; but I am positively assured that it will be in the Vote Office at 5 o'clock, and will be available for distribution by post this evening. As I have been led to say so much in answer to the appeal which the right hon. Gentleman was quite entitled to make, I wish to say that, assuming that the debate on the Prevention of Crimes Bill to terminate to-day, as I hope and do not feel any doubt will be the case, I certainly intend to ask the House to read the Arrears of Rent (Ireland) Bill a second time on Monday.
  MR. ONSLOWasked what would be the course of Business after Whitsuntide? There were important matters—the Procedure and Corrupt Practices Bill—now before the House. Would the Corrupt Practices Bill take precedence of Procedure?
  MR. A. J. BALFOURinquired what was to be done before the Whitsuntide Holidays, and what would be done if the Bill to be discussed that afternoon was not read a second time that night?
  MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that should the Prevention of Crime Bill by any accident not be read a second time this afternoon, he would have to consider whether it would not be his duty to ask the House to proceed with the debate at 9 o'clock this evening, or to take it on Monday. As to what would be the course of Business after Whitsuntide, by which, he supposed, was meant the Whitsuntide Holidays, he could not say what might happen; and it was premature yet to determine whether there would be any Whitsuntide Holidays or not.

  PARLIAMENT—RULES OF DEBATE— EXPLANATION—MR. P. EGAN AND MR. FORSTER.
  MR. DILLON: Sir, I am reluctantly compelled to ask the indulgence of the House for two or three minutes for a personal explanation. I wish to read a letter from Mr. Patrick Egan, of Paris, in reference to a charge of an atrocious character which has been made against him publicly in this House by the right hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster), and I hope the House will not refuse me the opportunity. The letter is addressed to me, and is as follows:—
  "The ex-Chief Secretary for Ireland, in his speech on the Arrears of Kent Bill, is reported to have spoken of Mr. Sheridan as a 'released suspect against whom we have for some time had a fresh warrant, and who, under disguises, has hitherto led operations in the promotion of outrages, going backwards and forwards between Mr. Egan in Paris and the outrage-mongers in the West.' I deny in the strongest and most emphatic manner that there is a shadow of foundation for the atrocious accusation conveyed against me in these words. I challenge Mr. Forster, if he has a particle of proof in sustainment of it, beyond the words of professional suspectors, to produce it. If he cannot do so I call upon him to withdraw the accusation. As regards Mr. Sheridan, he has visited Ireland just once since the League was proclaimed last October, and the object of his visit was shortly this. The funds of the League"——
  MR. MACARTNEY: Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. I wish to ask you, Sir, whether a Member is entitled to make a personal explanation on behalf of a gentleman who is not a Member of this House?
  MR. SPEAKER: I consider that the observations of the hon. Member are irregular, having regard to the manner in which he proposes to bring the matter before the House. If in the debate on the Bill he should think it propor to cite a letter of that kind the hon. Member would not be out of Order. To interrupt the ordinary Business of the House in this manner is out of Order.
  MR. DILLON: Mr. Speaker, I only desire to say that I have already spoken in the debate, and I shall have no further opportunity of taking the course you have suggested. One would have thought that this matter came under the usual courtesy extended to Members in cases requiring personal explanation.
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out that it is not a question of courtesy. It is an irregular proceeding, and if irregular proceedings of this kind were constantly allowed the Business of the House would very much suffer.

ORDER OF THE DAY.
  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]
  (Secretary Sir William Harcourt, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Attorney General, Mr. Solicitor General, Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, Mr. Solicitor General for Ireland.)
  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 157.]

    SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
    [SECOND NIGHT.]
    Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [18th May], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
    Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. SEXTONsaid, it became his duty to oppose this Bill being now read a second time. To any man who had a brain to think and a heart to feel it must be matter for serious consideration and sad reflection that at the end of 700 years of British supremacy over Ireland and at the end of more than 80 years of undivided Parliamentary rule the Government found itself yet in the shameful position of being obliged to resort to coercion and the suspension of liberty in order to compel the Irish people to obey its laws. Here were two small countries situated close together, and shut away by the ocean from the rest of the world, and

    1097
    yet such was the incomparable incongruity between the races, or such was the unhappy inaptitude of the Government of Ireland, that at the present day they were as little able as Henry II. was to reduce the Irish people to obedience and order by the ways of justice and of law. The code of the present Government of Ireland appeared to have two articles. In the pursuit of a factitious symmetry they had thought it necessary that these articles must run side by side. One article was repression, the other was conciliation. So far as he had been able to discover in the history of English rule in Ireland, she had always, except at the earliest periods, depended upon two articles. At the earliest period she depended on one, and it was brute force, pure and simple. The next development was a policy compounded in proportions nearly equal of force and fraud; and it would now occur to everyone listening to him, no matter what were his political opinions, that that combination described the manner in which the Act was passed which handed over to that Assembly the Parliamentary destinies of Ireland. The next development was the one before them—a policy compounded of force and conciliation; and he never could cease to regret that the right hon. Gentleman the present Head of the Government, when he came into power, had not the courage to face the Irish people with one article—a policy of conciliation alone. He, in a moment unwise for himself, unwise for his Party, unwise for Liberal rule, accepted the dictation of his political opponents, and abased himself before the demands of those who sought his destruction, and whose best hope was that they might induce him to forge the weapons which they should use against the liberties of the Irish people. If the right hon. Gentleman did not perceive it now, if he would not perceive it before the close of his career, which he (Mr. Sexton) hoped might be long prolonged to the honour of himself and to the good of the country, some other statesman must perceive before long that the policy of the English Parliament for the Irish nation must consist of one article only—that it must be a policy of what that Assembly termed conciliation, but which he preferred to term justice. The day of that policy was coming, perhaps it was hastened by the hideous and fatal mistakes of the present moment; but that
    1098
    the day of that policy had not yet arrived they had sad and ample proof in the Bill before them. Why did the task devolve upon them of considering this unexampled Bill to-day? Was it immediately because, or in any sense because, of a widespread state of things in Ireland affecting the condition of the whole community? He denied that the fact was so. This Bill rested mainly upon one lamentable and deplorable act—the assassinations in the Phœnix Park. Would any man tell him that if these assassinations had not been committed they should be considering this Bill to-day? Hon. Gentlemen would bear in mind that the Government in express terms gave their assent to anticipations of the future, which placed remedial measures in the forefront of Irish legislation, and allowed the question of coercion to be contingent upon the experience of remedial legislation. Bearing this in mind, and shutting out of consideration the deplorable, unexampled, and horrible act in the Phœnix Park, would any hon. Member question his statement, that but for that tragedy this Bill would not now be before them? The policy of conciliation, so far as the right hon. Gentleman had developed it by the release of "suspects," had already borne fruit. The face of society had become comparatively peaceful; and all of them, Delegates in that House of the Irish people, and feeling a deep and fervent interest in that people's welfare, were then entitled to hope that ere the end of the Session had come near, and it became necessary to discuss the question of Coercion, it should be undeniably seen, even by hon. Gentlemen whose political prejudices led them to look upon coercion as the only sure weapon of Government, that nothing in the state of Ireland following upon the policy of release entitled the Government to resort to the musty and mediæval weapon of coercion. The assassinations in the Phœnix Park—a dark and desolate page in the history of his unfortunate country—were an act which no laws could have averted, which no sagacity could have foreseen—were an act for which the Irish people, even if they had not made before the world an unparalleled outburst of pity and rage, could never have been held responsible. So long as men were found ready to risk their lives either in the

    1099
    gratification of their passions or in the assertion of their principles, the most stringent and the most ingenious laws were brought to a standstill in their regard. And while these laws might possibly serve to punish, they certainly could not prevent. If it were true, as he believed, that this Bill rested upon that deplorable act, then never in the history of the civilized world had such a Bill, dealing with the lives, the liberties, the fortunes of a people, in a spirit of the most unrestricted despotism, been rested upon such a basis. He, of course, acknowledged that the storm of rage which swept over England—[Mr. GLADSTONE: No, no.]—well "rage" might not be the word; but he would say that the storm of passionate emotion which swept over England after the news of those dreadful assassinations made the position of the Government extremely difficult. He knew it was difficult for the Government, in presence of such an exhibition of national feeling—irrational though he thought it with regard to the Irish people—to avoid the appearance of activity in the direction of repression. He knew that while this feeling applied an impulse to the Government, it also offered them a temptation; but he thought that if one other influence had not been at work in the direction of this Bill, even the assassinations in the Phœnix Park would not have sufficed to produce it—and that one other influence was the man who had lately vacated the Office of Chief Secretary for Ireland. If he were to endeavour to compress into a phrase the secret of that right hon. Gentleman's disastrous part in public life, and of his unparalleled failure, he would say it arose from a passion strong and permanent in human nature—the passion of vanity. That right hon. Gentleman went to Ireland, believing in his power immediately to set everything right, believing that he should carry all before him. He found difficulties in his way. He had not the patience to encounter those difficulties with a calm and equable spirit. He fell in with tellers of untruth. They flattered him, and he fell into their hands. He did not acquaint himself directly with the opinions and wishes of the Irish people. His mind became deluded by the official class in Ireland, and he, in his turn, with a degree of self-consciousness, misled his Colleagues of the Cabinet. They perceived now more
    1100
    fully than he (Mr. Sexton) thought they should perceive at this early stage the truth of the representations which the Irish Members made a little time ago. When he said that the assassinations in the Phœnix Park alone would not have produced this Bill, his meaning was that they would not have induced the Government to introduce this measure if they had not been aided by the state of feeling produced by the forces of the right hon. Gentleman, by his irritating, causeless, meaningless application of the Coercion Act; by his misleading of his own Colleagues, by his evasive answers in the House, and by his delusive memoranda; by the art with which he so represented the facts of Irish political life as to convey erroneous impressions to the minds of the English people, and by a course of conduct in that House which so exasperated the relations between the House and the Irish Representatives as to have the effect of exasperating the relations between the Irish and English people. When the assassinations occurred in the Phœnix Park, to intensify that exasperation the ground had been prepared by the right hon. Gentleman for the seed of fresh coercion to be sown. He could not pass from the subject of the deplorable assassinations without saying how much he could wish—of what good augury it would be for Ireland and England, if public men—if statesmen—had accepted that catastrophe in the noble and heroic spirit of the bereaved lady from whom that tragedy took away "the light of life." If there was one gleam of comfort for the Irish people in this gloomy situation it was to be found in the fact, perhaps trivial, but certainly satisfactory, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, who had proved that he could neither conduct himself with discretion in Office nor with dignity out of it, no longer occupied a seat on the Front Treasury Benches, and that his talents were likely to shine from a back bench for the remainder of his Parliamentary days. Last year the Government procured a Bill which dispensed at one stroke with all the protection which the Irish people had of their liberty. It placed the liberty of any man in Ireland at the discretion of officials—there was no jury, there was no evidence, there was no Court. That Bill had been in operation for a little over a year. The

    1101
    Government had arrested under it about 1,000 men. It had been stated in express terms, over and over again, that the last Coercion Bill was intended for the prevention of crime. It was actively and laboriously used by the right hon. Member for Bradford. Yet under its operation, taking away, as it did, from the accused the jury, the witness, and the Court, crime had not decreased, it had developed and multiplied. This Bill did not propose to take away from the accused all the protection which law and custom offered him. Of the three securities which he had mentioned this Bill took away only the juror; and with what reason—seeing that the Bill of last year enabling the Chief Secretary for Ireland to arrest any ill-doers of his own motion failed to put an end to crime—the Government could persuade themselves that this Bill would have any effect in stopping crime when their Executive had lost the drastic powers they possessed under its predecessor, he could not understand. He would like to know how Lord Spencer, who would not have the same power as the right hon. Member for Bradford, and who could not dispense with the Court, the witness, and the jury, would be enabled to seize those evil-doers who had eluded the right hon. Gentleman? They were asked to trust Lord Spencer. He marvelled at the childish character of that suggestion. Perhaps, if coercion were entirely new, they might be inclined, just as they say in Ireland, "To oblige you." They might be inclined for once to trust him. He (Mr. Sexton) knew a considerable deal about Ireland, and all he knew about Lord Spencer was that he was considered a good horseman, and he was not aware of any further extraordinary claims he possessed upon the public confidence. When anybody asked him (Mr. Sexton) to trust Lord Spencer or any other man, either English or Irish, or any collection of men, with the liberties and the fortunes of his people, and the lives of men accused of crime, he would reply that despotic power would corrupt the best man that ever lived by its very down-drawing and corrupting influence, and if Lord Spencer were an archangel he would refuse to trust him with it. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, whose frank and somewhat rough appearance of honesty was characteristic, when he
    1102
    first appeared at the Table of the House, spoke pathetically of his inexperience of Ireland, and asked them to trust him, and he really believed that some of them did trust him. [Mr. HEALY: Oh, no.] But when we saw that the Act confided to his care to put down crime was not used for that purpose, was not for a moment made effectual for that purpose; when we found it used deliberately to prevent the Representatives of the Irish people from so co-operating as most speedily, conclusively, and inexpensively to test the value of an Act of Parliament; when, spurred on by jealousy and fear, he turned all the weapons of that Act of Parliament against the Representatives of the people, and against men whose only crime was a sense of the public interest, how could we trust any man in the future? He would not trust any man, Lord or Commoner, with the powers proposed by the Act, no matter who administered it. He was interested last night to hear the new Chief Secretary for Ireland state that Government existed for personal and political liberty; but this Bill would bring political action in Ireland to an end and extinguish individual freedom. He listened with interest to that speech; but he was sorry to say that that interest, he would not say had vanished, but it had certainly diminished before that speech was over. It was an evil sign that the hon. Gentleman, whose ability and courage he admitted, appeared already, after a lapse of one short week, to be enamoured of the permanent officials of Dublin Castle who had been the ruin of so many Chief Secretaries before him. He had listened to the speech of the hon. Gentleman for some word of sympathy for the sufferings of the people—for some word of advice, or for some word of restraint of those owners of property who had so much power over the happiness of the people. He waited for some sign that the hon. Gentleman had a heart to feel as well as a brain to think; but, he was sorry to say, his speech was dry and cold, and that he went through his figures and his statistics of outrages and evictions in as unconcerned and unsympathetic a manner as if he had not left the Department of the Admiralty and was dealing with the tonnage or the capabilities of some of Her Majesty's ships. The hon. Gentleman gave them

    1103
    two sets of figures, and he marvelled what he meant to prove by the set of figures which had connection with outrage. He proved that in the years immediately preceding the Land Act of 1870 outrages rose in number, and that when the Peace Preservation Act was passed they decreased. He would, however, ask the Premier, who was concerned in the passage of both those measures, whether he had not attributed the decrease of outrage more to the Land Act than to the Peace Preservation Act? [Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: He has said so several times.] And for the five years after the passage of the Act of 1870, before the chicanery of the landlords and their lawyers had minimized its value, outrages fell. Then came seasons of distress, and the outrages again increased, as was shown by the figures of the Chief Secretary for Ireland. But the most marvellous fact of all—the one naturally passed over without much emphasis by him—was that although outrages increased from 1876 to last year, the very greatest increase of all was during last year, when the Coercion Act was in force. What was the moral to be drawn from these figures? He believed it was a double one—that just laws, in the sense of remedy, which would convince the people that the law was their helper against wrongs and their friend against oppression, were the most powerful engines against outrage; while, on the other hand, the most fruitful and powerful stimulant to every kind of crime and outrage was coercion. He then gave them a second set of figures, in which there was a remarkable gulf. He gave the particulars of every sort of crime, giving the number committed and the number of verdicts found by juries; but he did not tell them in how many cases the police had made arrests, or how many criminals had been brought before the juries. He (Mr. Sexton) claimed for the jurors of Ireland as thorough and as honest a discharge of their duties as the jurors of any country. Why was it that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary, in his speech on the introduction of this Bill, did not offer them some figures—some facts, some statistics—worthy of a deliberative Assembly, to convince them that the juries had failed in their duty? Even Mr. Justice Fitzgerald, the most excel-
    1104
    lent Judge on the Irish Bench, complimented the juries in the South of Ireland recently; and it was noticeable that, after the last Winter Assizes, there was all through the British Press an acknowledgment and admission that the juries of Ireland had not laid themselves open to the reproaches levelled against them in former times. He had not heard that any fault was found with the conduct of the juries at the Spring Assizes, and if it was to be found, it had not been mentioned in this debate; and certainly, before taking so extraordinary, so grave a step as removing the right of trial by jury, that House ought to claim the most complete and exact proof that they had failed in their duty—and up to the present moment of such proof there was not a single vestige. If the House wished to know why crime was not punished in Ireland, he would tell them. The first reason was that agrarian crimes, like many crimes that were not agrarian, and that were not detected, were secret in their character; that they were committed stealthily and furtively in the dead of night, and in lonely places, without a warning and without a witness. Such crimes would defy the most expert police, and the most orderly community, to detect; and, apart altogether from agrarianism and any special movement, there were in Ireland every year several classes of ordinary crime—such as incendiary fires, arsons, and so forth—the perpetrators of which no police could discover, and in which no arrests or convictions could be obtained in Ireland, or in any other country, for the simple reason that they were secret and furtive in their nature. The second reason for non-detection was because they allowed laws to continue in Ireland which the people felt to be oppressive. The only way completely to put down outrage in any community was by making the people feel that the law was on their side. Of course, it was a great thing to attack the conscience of a people; but the great motive power was this—to attack their sense of self-interest. Self-interest was the dominant power in all the actions of man, as in the actions of political Parties; and if they, by making laws in the interest of the people, showed the people that the law was their protector and their helper, they would put a power in their hands which would follow them, where the Lord Lieu-

    1105
    tenant's warrant could not, everywhere, every day of their lives, and which would suppress outrage. They heard last night that the Preamble of this Bill had been proved. That was a large assertion. That Preamble was an extraordinary collection of assumptions and fallacies. With regard to the Bill itself, the back of it contained such an array, such a phalanx of legal talent, as he supposed was never seen before. It was said that in the multitude of counsellors there was wisdom; but it seemed to him that, in this case, in a multitude of lawyers there was confusion. He read in the second page that if an appellant established want of jurisdiction in the Special Commission Court, the Court of Criminal Appeal might quash the proceedings. A little further on in the Bill he found that any offence which any person was believed to have committed in any place should be deemed to have been committed within a jurisdiction of the Court. He knew very little about that; but probably the gentleman who drew the Bill understood it. To give another example. In the Preamble the word "crime" occurred. He turned to the defining section, and found that the expression "unlawful association" meant an association formed for the purpose of the commission of crime or aiding in the commission of crime, and "crime," for the purposes of this section, meant any offence against this Act. Thus, an unlawful association was an association for committing crime; crime was any offence against that Act; and under the Definition Clause a member of an unlawful association was guilty of an offence under that Act. It was a crime to be a member of an unlawful association; that was the substance of the definition. The Preamble said—
    "Whereas by reason of the action of secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes in Ireland, the operation of the ordinary law has become insufficient for the repression and prevention of crime, and it is expedient to make further provision for that purpose,"&c.
    The House would observe the collocation of terms—"secret societies and combinations for illegal purposes." Of course, they were asked to trust Lord Spencer; but it appeared to him that anything more unrestricted than the power thus given to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland could not be imagined. A few words about the Preamble. They
    1106
    legislated last year against an open society, and the Executive put an end to the Land League; but he had missed any evidence of misconduct on the part of jurors. He had missed any evidence that secret societies were rife in Ireland, or so rife as to call for such a Bill as this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Home Secretary smiled a smile, which he, no doubt, thought was worth a thousand arguments. If the Secretary of State had evidence of the existence of secret societies, he wanted to know what it was, considering that the House last year legislated against an open society, and rendered Constitutional agitation impossible; and the Government had their way, because, as that phantom Lord Lieutenant, Earl Cowper, said, the Government were determined to drive discontent under the surface—and here was the result. If the combinations for illegal purposes, against which this Act was directed, were open, what were they? The Land League did not exist, and it could not be an open association against which this Act was directed. What, then, was it? He was only acquainted with two associations existing in Ireland which had the slightest connection with the present movement—one of them was the Ladies' League, and the other the Political Prisoners' Aid Society. The Ladies' League was founded to protect from starvation and death by cold and exposure the victims of the laws which they still permitted to remain in the hands of the landlords. The Political Prisoners' Aid Society was founded for the purpose of providing, through the benevolence of the public, such food for the victims of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) as might protect them from injury to health and probable loss of life under the mild and benevolent form of detention which he had declared to be intended not for punishment, but for prevention. He wanted to know was the present Bill intended to operate against either of these societies? He maintained that their purpose was entirely non-political, that they were outside the sphere of legislative action of this kind; and before they trusted Lord Spencer they wanted simply to know what, in the mind of the Government, was the meaning and purpose of the Act. By the proposal to abolish trial

    1107
    by jury the Government had already placed themselves in a very embarrassing position. Three of the most eminent Judges told a Committee of the House of Lords last year that they were both unfit and unwilling to exercise functions of the kind which this Bill would impose upon them. The Irish Judges met yesterday in Dublin and agreed unanimously to a resolution that the carrying out of this proposal would injure the administration of the law in Ireland and impair the respect entertained for the Bench. So far as impairing the respect felt for the Bench was concerned, he did frankly say that the respect felt for the Bench by the mass of the people was a very uncertain quantity, and therefore it was rather difficult to determine to what extent it could be impaired. The question was, would the Government, against the will of the Judges, impose this function upon them? This was a Bill which arose out of murder, and by which they proposed to commit the trial for murder to three Judges. He told the House that if this Bill should be effective against anything, it would not be effective against murder. A tribunal of three Judges would not be an effective tribunal for the trial of that offence, because Judges were inextricably bound up in the traditions of the Profession; they could not divest themselves of their sense of the divided responsibility between the jury and the Judge; and if murder cases were brought before a tribunal of this kind he felt certain that the unanimous assent of the Judges required for a capital sentence would never be obtained, and that the Judges would never take upon themselves the novel and startling, the terrible responsibility which they proposed to cast upon them. It was proposed to cast upon them the responsibility of trying cases of treason or treason-felony; and he supposed this would also include the fanciful offence of treasonable practices, to which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, who was fond of a good wide clause, to leave plenty of room for the filling up of warrants, was so much attached. Why was this charge of treason-felony brought under the Act? Why was the trial of treason in Ireland to be taken out of the hands of juries? The Attorney General for Ireland was asked yesterday by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy) to state to the House how many treason
    1108
    cases had been tried in Ireland for the last 10 years, and in how many cases the juries had disagreed. In recent years there had been no trials of treason in Ireland. There were trials of treason there in 1865 and 1867, when numbers of men were convicted and sentenced to death or penal servitude for life. The juries of Cork and Dublin convicted those men. The Government had never failed to procure convictions for treason in Ireland on bringing forward any personal evidence; and, in the name of common sense and reason, he asked the House what was the meaning of the monstrous and grotesque absurdity of confining cases of the extremest gravity to a tribunal of Judges? Where was the shadow of reason for doing that when it could not be alleged that any case of treason had come forward in recent years, and that juries refused to convict on sufficient evidence? It was a curious thing that to the Lord Chancellor, the only Judge who did not hold his office for life, who was the servant of the Administration, and who was removed at the pleasure of the Government, was intrusted the power of fixing the rota—that was to say, the selecting the three Judges who were to set the example by which the others should be guided. He objected to the Judges altogether. The Judges of Ireland were not like the Judges of England—they were a body of promoted politicians. They were a body of men, either landlords themselves or closely connected with landlords, whose prejudices and sympathies set them altogether on one side, and that the side of one small class as opposed to the great mass of the people. Many of the Irish Judges reached their present position through politics. Many of them reached the Treasury Benches by breaking their pledges to the people, and, as he said, they were promoted politicians. He might refer to the right hon. Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, who was a very favourable type of the class. He had not been obliged to break any pledge in order to reach this House; but he was doing political service there, in his (Mr. Sexton's) opinion, against the interests of the Irish people. What was his conduct in the House? Why, there never was a more docile servant of the Administration. His expositions of the law were fearfully and wonderfully

    1109
    vague. If he did not find anything to suit him in the Statute Law, he fell hack upon the Common Law; and, as circumstances changed and varied from day to day, the right hon. and learned Gentleman evolved from his inner consciousness suitable laws accordingly. If such things were done in the green tree, what would be done in the dry? With what fairness could the lives and liberties of men be placed in the hands of Officials of that stamp? This was also a creative Act, because it brought into existence, for the first time, a number of brand new offences. Turning, however, to the question of "intimidation," which the Attorney General the other day said was an offence at Common Law, but which was entirely unknown to the Common Law, he was compelled to declare that if the definition of intimidation in this Act were carried out to the full limit it was intended or anything like it, political and public life—and an hon. Member suggested private life also—was at an end in Ireland. Any word calculated to make any person apprehensive of danger or injury to any member of his family or household might be construed as intimidation, and the unhappy person who had used it might be handed over to the Brothers Lloyd, the magisterial roughriders from Zululand and British Burmah, who acquired in those foreign parts among savage and semi-savage people that conception of the rights of civilized people and that sense of magisterial duty which recommended them to the favour of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford. What was the meaning of the struggle for reform in any country but simply this—that there were some classes in the country who held vested interests detrimental to the good of the people? But under the Intimidation Clause of this Bill what reform movement could be pursued in Ireland? What vested interest could be attacked or what abuse condemned? Not only did they strike through it at the ordinary political rights of the people, but at the most valuable rights of the people—the mutual rights of the Representatives of the people to take action with their constituents. If there was a General Election in Sligo to-morrow, if his seat was contested, what questions would he find most prominent in the minds of his constituents? Would it not be mat-
    1110
    ters relating to the Sub-Commissioners? Questions as to the necessity of a speedy development of the Purchase Clauses, of those having reference to the conduct of the Land Act, by putting upon the miserable bogs of wretched turf the price which the Sub-Commissioners had taken off the land? Suppose he denounced all these things, the cruelty of the landlords, the unrighteous rents, and criticized the unspeakable meanness of the landlords in putting on the turf what had been taken off the land. All this would be, according to the clause, putting the landlord, his family, and his property in fear and terror, and might also be construed into loss of business, or something of the kind. He stood upon the declaration that this clause would at once manacle and gag, and was intended to paralyze the Irish people, and to strike them dumb. Could the Government show that it would prevent nothing but illegal agitations? The clause made criticism a crime, and exposure of terrorism a felony. It made vested interests sacred, while efforts at reform would become treason. If the Government could show how it would work without putting an end to political life, and that under it their most cherished liberties would be sacred, let them do so. To descend to a smaller matter, it was provided on the same page of the Bill that an assault on a constable was to be an offence under the Act, whether it had relation to agrarianism or not. The person of a policeman was to be as sacred as that of a dervish in the East. The deed might be done in a drunken brawl. Nevertheless, the offender was to be at once hurried before officials like the military gentleman from Birmingham, whose word, to say the least of it, was as good as his oath. Or, perhaps, the unfortunate man might be taken before the military magistrate at Mayo, who delivered gunpowder speeches, and who had been remonstrated with by his superior officer. Those were the men who were to have the privilege of sentencing to six months' hard labour. [An hon. MEMBER: Without appeal.] This Bill denounced the man connected with an unlawful association as guilty of a crime, and the man who committed a crime as a member of an unlawful association. He should like to know whether the Prisoners' Aid Society and the Ladies' Land League

    1111
    would come within the definition of unlawful associations, the members of which were liable to very heavy penalties under the provisions of the measure? No fewer than seven general powers were given by this Bill, three of which would affect the person, and four the property of private individuals. One of those provisions rendered strangers liable to be arrested by the police, who, as a rule, were the greatest strangers in the district, being sent from the South to the North, and from the North to the South; and yet the strange police were empowered to arrest as strangers persons who were far better known in the locality than themselves. He would not further criticize the Bill, except to say that it was exceedingly strange and incongruous that, whereas the Bill gave the right of appeal from the decision of superior tribunals, there was no appeal given for the summary jurisdiction; so that a matter might be argued out with the greatest ability in a superior Court, and yet the decision be the subject of appeal. Was it intended that the Courts should sit in public or in private? The proceedings under the Act might be private. There was nothing in the Act to prevent it; but there was to be no appeal from the decisions of rash and inexperienced Resident Magistrates, who were for the most part either old soldiers or the broken-down scions of the aristocracy—men appointed, perhaps, for the reason given by Sidney Smith for the preferment of a clergyman—namely, because he was fit for nothing else. These men might sit in the daytime or at night, and in any place, and yet impose six months' hard labour, which, in the case of a delicate man, would mean a sentence of death; and yet there was to be no appeal. If there was to be an appeal for the higher tribunal, why not for those obscure tribunals? But the most dangerous part of the Bill was its retrospective character, and the restrictions it would place upon the Press. The Government were so entangled, it seemed to him, with their actions, that this measure was necessary to get them out of the mess. But the mere fact that the Act was to be retrospective showed that it might be used to gratify political revenge. The Bill would put an end to public and political life in Ireland, and he did not imagine that under it it would be possible for the Representatives of the people
    1112
    in the House to hold consultations together or with their constituents upon any public matter. He was not certain that the reasonable representation of the Irish people would much longer be possible in the House; and if they could not confer with those who sent them there or learn the opinions of their constituents, he was at a loss to understand what they would be there to do. They, however, would very speedily see by the administration of that Act whether it would still be possible for them to occupy their positions of standing between the Government and the people, and whether it would not be their duty and only course to steer out of the way from this desperate struggle which the Government were wilfully forcing on themselves. Let them and the people come face to face. He did not expect that this Bill, any more than those which had preceded it, would dim the spirit of the Irish people. Many measures of this sort had been tried centuries past; and however it might affect the Parliamentary course of the Irish people, that was only a small portion of the National cause. There were many ways of expressing the National cause, the National action; and he would state what was not a passionate or a futile hope, but what was a calm and intense fact, that a measure like this, conceived in obstinate prejudice and ignorance, and foredoomed ere it was passed to end in shameful failure, might delay the deliverance of Ireland, but would not impede it, and in the long run would make it more certain.
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I attach the greatest importance to the expeditious progress of this Bill. I may be right or wrong in my opinion; but it is one which I hold very strongly, and which I hold in the interest, not only of the dignity of this House, but of the people of Ireland. It has been hoped, and I still cherish the hope, that this debate may close to-day. I trust that I am justified in regarding the lengthy speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down as one delivered by him in compliance with the mandates which he has received in reference to this matter, and, therefore, I do not make any complaint of the length of his speech. But as far as I am concerned, I think that I shall most promote the objects that I have in view by not delaying longer my ap-

    1113
    pearance in this debate, which, I am afraid, is a necessity, and by restricting my observations as far as possible after the example of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary for the Home Department, in introducing this measure. I will, however, make one general observation upon the speech of the hon. Member who has just sat down. A very large portion of it has consisted of criticism upon the details and the very language of the Bill down to the minutest point. I am far from questioning the right of the hon. Member in the course of a debate upon the second reading of a Bill to criticize every line, every word, and every letter of it. There is no doubt about that; but there is a very great question about the discreet use of it. If Bills are to be discussed with this pitiless examination, this pitiless inquest into these details, we know very well what the effect is. Nothing is saved for the Committee; but great time is lost upon the preliminary stage, and the natural consequences follow in the impediment of Public Business. It is the question of the spirit in which these discussions are to be conducted—are they to be conducted with a desire fairly to take the judgment of the House upon them; or are they to be conducted with a desire to magnify and prolong every debate that may take place upon the several stages? ["Oh, oh!"] I beg pardon. I have said it is a question whether it is to be so used. Surely that is important. If I had been permitted, I was about to say that the whole of the debate which I heard yesterday filled me with the hope that a more judicious and temperate course was intended to be taken; and that I will still say. I admit that I heard many heated expressions fall from the hon. Member for Westmeath (Mr. T. D. Sullivan); but I am afraid that it is a necessity of his nature that when he rises in this House his expressions should be of a warm character. At all events, so it was; but the remarks of the hon. Member did not give me to understand that it was intended that there should be an unduly prolonged debate upon this Bill. I feel called upon to notice two striking arguments which were made use of by the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon).
    1114
    The hon. Member, in referring to the question of Irish juries, differing in some degree from the speech to which we have just listened, admitted that in Ireland juries had returned verdicts which were against the evidence in certain cases; but he said that the same thing could be said of English juries. [Mr. DILLON: To a certain extent.] I said in certain cases. I am not here to assert with mathematical precision that no such thing has happened in England; but I am here to assert that I believe when it has happened it has generally happened in this way, that means questionable and in themselves unwarrantable have been used for ends which were not unfavourable to the public welfare. But is the abuse of the jury system, which the hon. Member admits has occurred in Ireland, one that can claim a similar excuse? Well, Sir, we have heard figures cited with which I will not trouble the House. The hon. Gentleman who last sat down says no evidence has been given of the failure of the jury system, and he relies upon the case of the juries at the Winter Assizes. [Mr. SEXTON: The Spring Assizes.] The hon. Gentleman relied upon the case of the Winter Assizes positively, and on that alone. With respect to the Spring Assizes, he said he had not heard any discussion upon them. At the time of these Winter Assizes we, on this Bench, were too glad to hail and welcome the symptoms of what we thought improvement. Not here alone, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) referred with every satisfaction to the hopes he had derived from those Winter Assizes. I am sorry to say these hopes have not been refreshed or sustained by what has taken place. The hon. Gentleman says that evidence ought to be given, and that evidence has not been given in the course of the debate. I believe my right hon. Friends have abstained from details, simply because there are some cases which are believed to be cases of notoriety, and not to require specific testimony to sustain them. If specific testimony is wanted, as the hon. Gentleman has referred with commendation to the opinion which Judge Fitzgerald uttered in regard to the general principles of the jury system, will he take the evidence of Judge Fitzgerald, and

    1115
    other learned Judges in Ireland, who have borne testimony, within a very recent period, to the failure of the jury system in Ireland, so far as regards agrarian offences? And, Sir, that is not the case in very small offences merely; unfortunately, it has risen to very high matters indeed. Let me take the question of intimidation, and suppose that to be one of the minor offences to which the hon. Member for Tipperary referred. If that be so, am I to be told that such intimidation—not trivial intimidation, but intimidation in furtherance of the object of illegal combinations, intimidation which does not express the silly and foolish wish of an individual, but the set purpose of large and powerful bodies of men—am I to be told that is one of the objects, beneficial to the public welfare, for the sake of which we are to look with tolerance and indulgence upon the failure of the jury system? No, Sir; the case is, unfortunately, directly the opposite. So far as juries have failed in Ireland—and I rejoice that it is not in every class of crime they have failed, but only in agrarian cases—but so far as they have failed, I am afraid their failure admits of no such apology or extenuation as that which may possibly, though insufficiently be alleged of the failure of juries in other parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman says that this Bill will put down the Land League, and that the Land League will revive when the Bill expires. Why should this Bill put down the Land League? If the Land League have in view simply the purposes which were professed in its original prospectus, so far as I can at the moment recollect them, I am not aware of any reason why the Land League, whether wise or unwise, politic or impolitic, should not exist. I am afraid that was not the meaning of the hon. Member for Tipperary; but that, seeing in this Bill, what he was justified in seeing, a measure intended to put down all intimidation arising out of the action of bodies of men joined together to ruin their fellow-countrymen for the fulfilment of their legal duties and obligations—I am afraid it was chiefly on that account that he complains of the operation of the Bill and said that, until this Bill expired, the Land League could not revive. If that be so, I only say that, deeply as I regret that the hon. Gentle-
    1116
    man should entertain such views of political right and morality as appear to me involved in such a proposition, he himself must feel that the very statement of them on that footing is a statement which, more than any other, will at once recommend the passing of the Bill to the vast majority of the House. The hon. Gentleman who has just sat down (Mr. Sexton) says that for a long time the government of Ireland by England meant only force, and that afterwards it was a mixture of force and fraud. I will not enter into a contest with the hon. Gentleman about the sad history of the past. I am afraid that I am too much in concurrence with him as to its general character to begin such a contest; but he went on to the period of the present time and said—
    "What I wish is that, instead of that dual creed which you now profess of conciliation combined with force, you would get rid of one article of your creed and adopt as your motto for Ireland conciliation alone."
    But the just mind of the hon. Gentleman led him to correct himself, and he mended what was defective in this statement.
    Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;—
    The House went;—and being returned;—
    Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to several Bills.

  PREVENTION OF CRIME (IRELAND) BILL.
  Question again proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  MR. GLADSTONE, resuming, said: I was coming, Sir, to the observations of the hon. Member for Sligo, to the effect that we ought to have only one article in our political creed, and that article should be conciliation; and he went on to speak of that article of conciliation as rather one of justice. Sir, I quite agree with the hon. Member—the article of justice satisfies me perfectly; but I must remind the hon. Member that it means justice to all and to everyone. Unfortunately, this includes the use of force for the punishment of evil-doers, and the praise of all who do well. If the hon. Gentleman asks me whether I place my reliance chiefly upon force, or on what he has termed conciliation, I

  1117
  answer him that I place my reliance undoubtedly upon the removal of the causes of discontent, infinitely more than upon mere force. But, Sir, that is a necessary part of our duty which cannot be overlooked. The hon. Gentleman says—and there again I agree with him—we must show the people that the law is their protector and helper, and trust to our showing this to bring them to the side of law. I agree; but then I must show that to all sections of the people, and among these I am bound, not least, to show it to those who, during the last autumn and winter especially, have suffered most cruelly, for not only the exercise of their legal rights, but for the performance of their legal and personal duties. So much for the general principles upon which we act. As to the remark made upon the conduct of the right hon. Member for Bradford, I can only say that during his tenure of Office he enjoyed the perfect confidence of his Colleagues; that he had their cooperation; that they shared his responsibilities; and no part, either small or great, do they seek to shift from themselves upon him. The hon. Gentleman says—and I refer to this not in a spirit of controversy—indeed, as far as I can command and control myself, the last thing I desire is to treat this Bill in a spirit of controversy at all—he says this Bill rests upon one outrage. Permit me to say that that is a great mistake. The hon. Gentleman went on to do a gross injustice to the people of England. The words escaped his mouth of "the storm of rage" which passed over England on the announcement of the horrible massacre in Phœnix Park. The hon. Gentleman afterwards qualified this; but still he said it was a storm of emotions unjust to Ireland. Never was the hon. Gentleman more mistaken. He may have been led by one or two shameful manifestations of feeling, shameful in a degree that I cannot trust myself to describe, assigning to the people of Ireland the guilt of this massacre, and expressing the belief that it was the true utterances of their opinion. But for the people of England, let me say that there have reached me, down to the present time, about 600 addresses and references to myself, all of them proceeding from more or less public bodies, and a considerable number of them from Ireland; but I think not
  1118
  less than 500, perhaps in proportion to the population, from this side of the Channel, and out of these 500 there are not five—I do not know that there are two—I am not sure there was one—that spoke the language of wrath and resentment, for their universal exhortation was an expression to the Government of the urgent hope that they will persevere in their policy and do strict and full justice to the people of Ireland. I am quite sure that by attempting this correction of what I believe to be an involuntary error on the part of the hon. Gentleman, I shall not offend him; but he will be rather glad to give me his acknowledgments for it. Never in my life, I am bound to say, have I seen a nobler attitude spontaneously assumed by a great people than in the case of their manifestation, when the nature of the act that had been done would not justify—far be it from me to say that—but would, in some degree, have excused, or, not unnaturally, would have prompted an expression of very different sentiments. The case, as it comes before us, is this. We see in Ireland, it is admitted, a great prevalence of agrarian outrage. We cannot but take into view the non-detection of agrarian crime as a heavily aggravated feature. We now have in operation an Act of invidious and offensive character, which is to expire within no long time, and which it is our desire, if we can do it compatibly with public duty, to let that Act die a practical and natural death, even before it legally shall die. Consequently, we propose a Bill which is not, in our view, a Bill of resentment. It is not a Bill against a nation, at least in its intent. If hon. Gentlemen can show, when we come to the Committee on this Bill, that it has that character, the point is one that we shall be ready to discuss in a fair and impartial spirit, on details as they may arise. It is a Bill of substitution; and it is a Bill substituting an action that will be public, that will be in great measure judicial, and that will be throughout responsible for action which, unfortunately, could not be, and has not been, responsible at all in the effective and ordinary sense, because, although Gentlemen were entitled to call Her Majesty's Government to account under the Act now in existence, yet they did not possess, and they hardly could possess, from the very nature of the

  1119
  case, the means of making their charges effective, even from their own point of view. Well, this Bill was not founded upon the recent outrages. I may say that I toot one of the very earliest opportunities of expressing my own belief, after the occurrence of this horrible outrage, that it was one, the effect of which would be even perhaps more deeply felt and more keenly acknowledged in Ireland than elsewhere. But I must not shut my eyes to the facts. No facts have occurred to induce me in the least degree to qualify that declaration. I adopt the sentiment of the hon. Gentleman himself with regard to it. But I have, along with the existence of agrarian outrage, and with the general failure of detection and punishment, to connect another circumstance. I could not hear without acknowledging their justice the words of the right hon. and and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), when he pointed out last night that in this case there was a car; there was a horse, there was a driver, there were four men, apparently peculiar in their appearance; there was daylight, there was a long distance traversed, there were the environs of a great city, there were thoroughfares penetrating into the environs of the great city, traversed by this car, and horse, and driver, and four men, so that many must have been witnesses, in whose power it must have been to give information which, if received in series, could not but have led us to a point far more advanced towards the detection and punishment of this outbreak than we are at now. What, in cool blood and perfect impartiality, is the minimum of fair inference for this fact? My inference is that, to some small extent—and I believe it to be infinitely small—there may even be sympathy with this abominable crime; but that also, beyond the limits of that sphere of sympathy, there is a wider sphere of terrorism, and the knowledge of the terrible nature of the motives that have actuated the criminals themselves does operate powerfully as a strong intimidation against many men in Dublin and its environs, who would have been ready to give information that they must possess, but who have not, under the circumstances, given that information. But let me say that this terrible crime is not vital to the con-
  1120
  sideration of the Bill—that it is not this one outrage which has produced the Bill. I may make this admission to the hon. Gentleman who has said that we agreed to proceed with remedial measures before proceeding with measures to strengthen the law. I think he is inaccurate. I do not remember any pledge of that kind; but this I do recollect and freely admit, that after the release of the three Members of Parliament we did think it highly desirable, considering the state of feeling, and if the course of events permitted it, that a few weeks should elapse before proceeding to legislate for Ireland. But after this dreadful act—and this is the sole weight that has been given to it—it became impossible to proceed in that way. It became absolutely necessary to proceed with this Bill at once. I think the hon. Gentleman, in the interior forum of his mind and conscience, will see that I am justified in what I say, that however patient and kindly the state of public sentiment in this country may, be it would not have endured, and ought not to have endured, the postponement of the subject after that tragedy; on the contrary, that it would have insisted on the Bill being proceeded with forthwith. It was not, however, this tragedy itself. It must be recollected that before that tragedy public feeling had been greatly excited by two horrible murders—the murder of Mr. Herbert and Mrs. Smythe. But neither is that the main reason for this Bill. I declare for myself and for my Colleagues that in our view the main basis of this Bill, and the motives which influenced us to bring it forward and press it on with all the energy we can muster, were not special regard for persons of rank and station who, unhappily, have become victims to the fury of criminals; it is much more the regard which we have for the misery that has been carried far and wide among the body of the population. Outrage has been committed in every form—in some quarters perhaps lighter—but in every form, even the most cruel and extreme. It is this which has so many victims within its grasp. It is this that has lain at the very root and foundation of our conclusion that it was our absolute duty to legislate upon lines as Constitutional as we could, but in effective substitution for the Life and Property Protection Act now in force, for the sake

  1121
  of the people of Ireland themselves. I will not follow the hon. Gentleman in the remarks that he made upon the details of the Bill. In a Bill of so many details, I am quite prepared to say that it is possible that some criticisms may be very useful; and, indeed, there are even matters, to which, however, I think I had better not now allude, in which we ourselves have arrived at the conclusion that some improvements may be made. Two things only I wish to say before I sit down; for I am most anxious to avoid any lengthened trespass on the time of the House, and I am most anxious also, if I can, to maintain something of a judicial tone in dealing with this subject, and to avoid whatever can tend to exasperate or to wound. There is a relation between this Bill and the Bill for dealing with arrears in Ireland. The hon. Member does us neither more nor less than justice when he says that we associate these two Bills. They are, in fact, living members of the same policy. They are, in our view, inseparable one from the other. With regard to the Bill before the House, we must earnestly press it with dispatch through the House, not with any desire to restrict the rights of any portion of the House, but with a deep conviction of what is expedient. With respect to this Bill, we feel that it would be idle to carry it forward, idle to pass it into law—it would convict us of total ignorance of our own duties and position—if we did not pass it on its main lines unaltered. That is our intention; and so far as it depends upon us that is what we shall do. I am bound to say that I cannot quite concur in one remark made by the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) last night, when he said that many speeches had been made from this side of the House which went to emasculate or destroy the Bill. The most stringent criticism I heard from this side, as far as my memory sustains me, was the speech of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce); but the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets, while he made some criticisms in which I cannot concur, and while he made some suggestions with reference to the desirableness of the separation of the Executive and judicial powers, and not laying too great weight on the action of the Lord Lieutenant, yet it must be observed that my hon. Friend himself
  1122
  did not question at all, but, on the contrary, he expressly defended, under the circumstances, the erection of the exceptional tribunal. He did not deny that an effcient law against such intimidation as I have described is required. He did not deny that there must be an extension of summary jurisdiction in Ireland. A person who admits these propositions goes a great way towards justifying the substance of this Bill. We desire to carry forward this Bill in relation to the Arrears Bill. It is not necessary for me to say what relative value I assign to the one and to the other. They are, in our view, inseparable. We cannot consent to be parties to the abandonment or to the essential impairing either of the one or the other; neither can we consent to be parties to the interposition of any delay that can be avoided. Our desire and intention is to ask of Parliament to apply itself, with one and the same energy—although necessarily, to some extent, in succession to one another, as absolute parity of proceeding is a thing impossible—with one and the same energy to expedite the Bills and pass them into law. That is one reason why I venture to hope the House may allow the second reading to be taken to-day. I do not know altogether what view may be taken with the Bill dealing with arrears; but different views might be taken in different quarters. As far as I know, not only the Irish Members who sit below the Gangway opposite, but the numerous Irish Members in this part of the House, are most desirous to expedite that measure. It would be a very great mistake if it should happen that if there is any portion of the House averse to the Bill, those opponents should receive any justification, any warrant, any excuse for the attempt to impede its progress—of course, I do not object to any opposition in fair discussion—by any unnecessary and untimely discussion of this Bill. I hope hon. Members will excuse me for the delivery of what may be called a gratuitous and an officious instruction to hon. Members upon the discharge of their duties. It is at least well intended. The Bill is not conceived in any Party spirit. It is founded upon one principle, to which I have alluded during the last anxious weeks—namely, a desire that we may meet the difficult crisis as becomes sound-hearted men and loyal

  1123
  citizens, and that we may say nothing, and may omit to say nothing, that could possibly be injurious to the great Imperial policy and popular interests which are at this moment, perhaps, more than ever involved in the wise, right, and temperate conduct of the House of Commons.
  MR. PARNELL: I am sorry, Sir, that the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister should suppose that there is any intention on our part to offer any unfair or unnecessary opposition to this Bill. It is not my intention, nor do I believe is it the intention of my hon. Friends, to oppose the Bill in any way unfairly; but I wish to point out that this is a Bill of a very wide and sweeping character. It proposes to make an alteration in the whole Criminal Judicature in Ireland upon lines which are almost unprecedented even in the sad history of our country; and not only so, but it involves other consequences of a most far-reaching and extended character which none of us can foresee at the present moment. And although I do not wish to object to the desire of the right hon. Gentleman to obtain a second reading of the Bill to-day, I am bound to point out to him that the discussion which we have had upon this measure up to the present time, upon this most important stage, has been exceedingly superficial and limited. I would also further make this appeal. The right hon. Gentleman, yesterday, said he would feel it right to take the Committee stage of the Bill on Tuesday next. I think it is of the utmost importance that Amendments which it may be necessary to suggest as additions to, or alterations in, the Bill in Committee, should be of a practical and well-considered character; and if we are impelled, in this hurried fashion, into the Committee on a Bill of such scope as this, I do not see how it is possible for us to avoid the presentation of a mass of matter which may be more or less superfluous and unnecessary, and with which we might have no great desire to take up the time of the House. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to give us a little further time for the consideration of the Amendments which we may deem it our duty to move in the Committee stage of the Bill. As regards the Bill itself, I will only say that I believe, to the fullest
  1124
  extent, in the good intentions of the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister and the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan). I believe they do not intend, through this Bill, to injure the liberties of our people. I believe they intend only to use it against crime. But we have heard the same thing before. We have heard the same words from the lips of every Minister of the Crown who, since the Union, has presented a Coercion Bill for Ireland to this House. I admit that, perhaps, the intentions of many of them were not the same as those of the right hon. Gentleman; but Coercion Bills for Ireland have always been presented to this House with the same expression of a desire to preserve public and private liberty which have accompanied the presentation of this Bill on the present occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) told us he knew the persons against whom the Bill of last year was to be used; but we know what was the result, and we cannot conceive how it is possible that any other result can follow the working of the present measure. We do not believe any man is good enough or noble enough to be intrusted with the liberties of a whole people. The Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Prime Minister have said that they do not intend to do this and they do not intend to do that, and that they wish to use the Bill in a certain way; but I wish to point out, however, that the Bill leaves it absolutely in the power and at the discretion of the Executive Government, the Representatives of the Crown, and the police to do what they please as regards the repression of any right, private or public, or any Constitutional action whatever. With the best intentions, we believe that, sooner or later, the Chief Secretary for Ireland is bound to be perverted and destroyed by the evil counsels which have reduced the right hon. Member for Bradford to his present position. There is in Ireland an official circle which represents the minority—a very small minority—the class of landlords whose traditions are saturated with evil; and it is utterly impossible for anyone, however strong or however imbued he may be with the principles of liberty, to resist the influence and avoid the action of that class for any considerable period. It therefore comes to this. When we

  1125
  are asked in this Bill to surrender everything into the safe-keeping of the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland—in resisting that we are entitled to call, as a witness to what is likely to happen, the experience of the past, and to ask whether the nature—whether the very nature—of the case does not render it impossible that our apprehensions should not be well defined? Now, Sir, what does the Bill do? It gives the right to the Judges to try and deliver sentence upon cases of treason, treason-felony, murder, firing at the person, manslaughter, and some other offences of a grave though diverse character. In other words, it puts political offences and horrible crimes upon one and the same footing. I do not mean to deny for a moment that political offences are not greatly entitled to your consideration, and that you should obtain whatever guarantees you can, or may think proper, for their prevention; but I do deny that you are entitled to choose your Judges and your executioners for the infliction of these sentences from the very class of our political opponents against whom we have been fighting in Ireland for so many years. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, at an early period of the Session, amused the House by attempting to prove against me a charge of constructive treason, founded upon passages in my speeches. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, I hope, some day will be a Judge. All I can say is that I trust he will not be one of the Judges upon a tribunal to try me for that offence; for I fear that if he did his duty, as he supposed he was doing it when he was making the speech in question, he would give me a very short shrift and a very short day. I mention that as a practical example of one of the reasons why I am naturally disposed to view this Bill with apprehension. The late Mr. Isaac Butt told me once that it would not be possible for any of us to commit any graver offence in the eyes of the law than sedition, because, he said, it was impossible for a public speaker to be indicted upon his speeches alone for any higher office than sedition or seditious libel. The hon. and learned Gentleman was a lawyer of great skill and experience; but I regret to find that the judgment of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attor-
  1126
  ney General for Ireland does not coincide with his, and that the right hon. and learned Gentleman considers it is possible for public speakers to be guilty of the crime of constructive treason. Any public speaker in Ireland who hereafter ventures to make a speech will have to do so with the fear of the right hon. and learned Gentleman before his eyes, in his future position—which I hope he will attain, and which he thoroughly deserves—as a Judge. Now, I pass to the offences against the Act, and I must protest against the course pursued by the framers of the Bill in reference to this part of it. Not only do you provide special tribunals for the trial of offences, which are offences already provided for according to the ordinary law of the land, but you create a special offence, and constitute special tribunals for the purpose of trying that offence. You create the offence of constructive intimidation, and you make it of such a wide character that it is absolutely impossible for any person to do or say anything in Ireland, no matter what his intentions may be, without running the risk of being sent to prison for six months with hard labour. Now, I did not object very much—certainly I was willing to undergo the kind of imprisonment to which I have been subjected for the past six or seven months; but I certainly think that our local political Leaders in Ireland ought not to be called upon to stand the risk which would be entailed upon them by that clause of this Bill. Imprisonment with hard labour in Ireland is little short of slavery. We had in Kilmainham some 60 or 70 convict prisoners, and I saw how those men were treated. I saw how they were half starved to death. I saw how, with their stomachs empty, they were worked like galley slaves, and I saw the brutal way in which the warders of those prisons were trained and educated to treat those men; and I say I should not be willing to submit our local political Leaders to the prospect that is thus unfolded before them. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton), that under this Bill all public actions of any kind, whether the Land movement, or any other movement, no matter how Constitutional, must cease in Ireland until this Bill expires. It will be a matter for us of very great consideration, after this Bill is passed, as to what our future

  1127
  course should be, whether we will continue in public life any longer, or whether we should leave the question to the right hon. Gentleman to arrive at whatever solution may be arrived at. But, however that may be, it is our duty, I think, on the various stages of this measure, before it has received the assent of the House, to point out these matters to you, and to show you the reasons why we fear that, although you may attempt to strike at assassins, you will in reality be striking Constitutional liberty. I had hoped that the Land League movement, with the passage of the Arrears Bill, and with the prospect of further alterations in the Land Act of last Session, of a just and equitable character, might very shortly have emerged from the state of vehement agitation and activity into a more placid and, perhaps, a more reasonable condition. For my part, I should not have objected to such a solution of the questions. We have been contending against the right hon. Gentleman for the last two years. We have found him to be a great, and a good, and a strong man. I think it is no dishonour to us to avow that he has fought us in a way we should not wish to be fought again by anybody in the future. And I regret that the event in Phœnix Park has prevented him from continuing in the strength of that course; and that, owing to the supposed exigencies of his Party, or of his position in that course, he has felt himself bound to turn aside from the course of conciliation, justice, and concession into those horrible paths of coercion which you have often trod before, by which your statesmen have always failed even to reach that which they put before themselves when they first started, and which, I fear, on the present occasion, will lead to much greater and graver dangers than those of the past.
  MR. BROADHURSTsaid, he could not allow that opportunity to pass without expressing his opinion that many of the provisions of the Bill were altogether too stringent, and of a nature which many Liberal Members of the House could hardly support. He referred especially to Clauses 4, 13, and 14, the clauses dealing with intimidation. He had had some experience of the law which defined what intimidation consisted of; and he had no hesitation in saying that, under those clauses, it would be almost
  1128
  impossible for one person to sneeze in the presence of another, without making himself liable to the charge of intimidation. He especially objected to the portion of the Bill which proposed to deal with the right, or rather the total suppression, of public meeting. In proceeding on the line of the suppression of public opinion in Ireland, they were pursuing one of the most fatal courses that could be adopted towards that or any other country. He also regretted the attempt which was directed against the liberty of the Press. Any opinion which might be put into any leading article in those newspapers might be expressed in this House, and reported by those newspapers, and no Government could prevent their publishing them. He also objected to the exceptional powers which were given to the magistrates with regard to the imprisonment of witnesses. If he voted for the second reading of that measure, he would only do so with the firm determination to exercise all the power he might have in Committee to cut it down, to make it more reasonable, and, therefore, more calculated to attain the objects at which it aimed. He did not believe the public opinion of this country had ever demanded anything of this kind. He believed the proposals in the Bill were far in advance of public opinion in this country, and that if the proposals in the Bill were submitted to the great electoral body of this country they would oppose them by an overwhelming majority. They had applied coercion long enough; they were not satisfied with the results; and he could have wished the Government to have adhered firmly to a policy of kindness, of consideration for the opinions of the Irish people, and to have seen what would have resulted from carrying out such a policy for 12 months.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he must presume that there was no intention on the part of the Government to diverge from their course in reference to arrears; and, if so, he thought such a course on the part of the Government would lead to no concessions on that side of the House, because, when they remembered that weeks, and even months, had not been considered too much last year to spend in discussing the last Coercion Bill, which was of a less stringent character than this, it was too much to expect them to go through the second reading of the pre-

  1129
  sent one after only a day and a-half's debate. As the Prime Minister had failed to give any promise to the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) that, if the second reading of the Bill were carried, full opportunity would be given for the consideration of the Amendments, the right hon. Gentleman could not expect that the Bill would be allowed to pass through its present stage without ample discussion. The Prime Minister had complained that the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had spoken on the measure an hour and a-half; but when the magnitude of the interests involved in the Bill were considered, he (Mr. Healy) did not think anyone had a right to complain that a Member had occupied an hour and a-half in speaking upon it. The Bill gave power to Major Clifford Lloyd and Co. to give six months' imprisonment to anybody. If the Government intended to use this Bill fairly, let them discharge Major Clifford Lloyd, Major Bond, the harassers and freebooters now interfering with the rights of the people, and then the Irish Party might be able to place some confidence in them when introducing this Bill. The Bill would be used for the purpose of putting down agitation; and the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had observed that it aimed at the suppression of crimes committed against people for discharging their legal obligations. He (Mr. Healy) asked what was supposed to be, in the popular mind, the prevailing sin in Ireland? It was the taking of land from which a tenant had been unjustly evicted. Was that a legal duty or obligation? It was in order to safeguard land-grabbers that the Bill was brought in. This Government, or any Government, would never eradicate from the minds of the Irish people that it was a crime both against God and man, in the present condition of Ireland, where land was life, for a man to take land from which another man had been unjustly evicted. [Laughter.] The Secretary of State for the Home Department smiled; but would he allow him (Mr. Healy) to tell him a fact which might strike him as strange in this matter? In Donegal, where land-grabbing had been going on to the greatest extent, if a man went to a priest and confessed that he had taken land from which another had been unjustly evicted, that priest would refuse to give that man absolution. He mentioned
  1130
  that as a proof of the feeling, not only political and social, but religious, with which that crime was viewed in the minds of the Irish people. He said that though a man might be legally entitled to take land from which another man had been unjustly evicted, the man who did so deserved the severest social ostracism with which he could be visited. It was viewed as a crime by the people of Ireland, and he believed it must also be a crime in those regions where British law was very little considered. The right hon. Gentleman had also stated that he for one was willing to accept the definition of the hon. Member for Sligo as the basis of the policy upon which the Government would proceed towards Ireland; but he (Mr. Healy) himself had no belief in English good government in Ireland. The only people who ought to derive benefit from the Government in Ireland were the Irish people; but all that England had done there had been done to serve the ends and meet the emergencies of English Party politics. That was naturally the case since England held Ireland in her power. Justice to Ireland meant regarding English Party necessities and English interests, and nothing but that governed that Government, or any English Government, in its dealings with Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the Act of last year as an Act of an invidious character; but it was too late to say that now. When they (the Irish Members) denounced it last year, it was spoken of by the Government in terms of praise; and he was surprised that, at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman, in introducing the present Act, was not ashamed to denounce the Act which he had formerly spoken of with so much satisfaction. Charges had been made against the people of Dublin because the perpetrators of the recent murders had not been discovered; but he (Mr. Healy) would say that the people of Dublin were eager to give up the murderers to justice. ["Oh, oh!"] He defied anyone to deny that. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for Dublin University (Mr. Gibson) said that because a horse and car and four men remained undiscovered, that was a disgrace to the people of Dublin; but everyone who knew the Phœnix Park was aware that the traffic was considerable, and that it was not unusual to see four men driving

  1131
  through it; therefore, it was not fair to cast reflections upon the people because these four men had not been discovered. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had said that this Bill was drafted before the murders; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department had said that the noble Lord the late lamented Chief Secretary for Ireland had gone over to Ireland with the flag of peace and conciliation in his hand; and yet they were told that, at that very time, the Bill was in preparation, and that it was to have been introduced by the late Chief Secretary. He (Mr. Healy) considered it was a libel on the memory of that noble Lord to say that a Bill of this kind could either have been necessary or possible. But the Prime Minister took a different tone, and said that an absolute necessity for the Bill had been created by the murders in Phœnix Park. That showed it had been brought in to suit Party exigencies, and on account of the state of public feeling in England; no regard had been shown to Irish sentiments. He would like to know whether it was intended that the Arrears Bill, which formed a branch of the policy of the Goment, should proceed stage by stage with the present Bill? He thought that the passing of a good Arrears Bill would stop outrages, because the people would then have no fear of being evicted on the roadside. Such a measure would do far more towards establishing peace and order than this Coercion Bill, which, indeed, would only excite irritation and tend to promote crime. Let them look at the opposition that had been threatened by the Tory Party to the Arrears Bill. He thought the proper course for the Government to adopt was to proceed first with it de die in diem, and send it up to the House of Lords. When it was seen what they would do with it, the Irish Members would be able to judge what was their proper course in relation to this Coercion Bill. He did not know if they remembered the words used by Thomas Francis Meager in 1848—namely, that "within the shores of Ireland the English never shall have rest." Those words were just as true in 1882 as they were when they were uttered. In governing Ireland they must have the majority of the people with them. The people of Ireland hated and detested English rule
  1132
  as much as did the people of India, and England had no chance of keeping Ireland except by coercive legislation. Until they were given the power of managing their own affairs they would resist English rule. They were as determined as ever to assert their right to govern themselves in their own way, without any interference from foreigners, for as such they regarded Englishmen. They had now had 82 years of a joint Parliament for England and Ireland, and scarcely a year had gone by in which they had not had a Coercion Act for the latter country. The present Bill was not aimed at crime; it was simply a Bill to enable the Clifford Lloyds, the Burkes, the Hamiltons, and the other members of the ruling hierarchy in Ireland to ride roughshod over the Irish people, to maintain British law, to keep the English bit in the Irish mouth. Let them go on with that system. Perhaps some day they would not be able to keep up that system, and then the turn of the Irish people would come. Meanwhile, it behoved the Irish Members to expose to the country and to the world the tyrannical and mischievous character of coercive measures such as that now before the House.
  MR. A. GREYsaid, that there was a great difference between the present Bill, and the one of last year. Even the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) had admitted that the Bill introduced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was not so strong as the coercive measure passed last Session, because, while the Act of last year deprived a person who was reasonably suspected of having committed a crime of a jury, of a tribunal, and of witnesses, the present Bill only proposed to deprive the accused of the jury. He looked on that admission as a ground for hoping that the opposition to the present Bill, which only deprived the accused of trial by jury, would not be nearly so prolonged or so strenuous as that which was offered to the more objectionable measure of last year. The hon. Member for Sligo had endeavoured to draw the inference that the new Bill must be a failure, because the measure of last year had been a failure; but that did not at all follow. If the coercion of last year had failed, that did not prove that all coercion was wrong, but only that the right sort of

  1133
  coercion was not tried. Last year's Bill enabled Ministers to place in confinement persons who were reasonably suspected of a criminal offence, and it had been felt by hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that it was exceedingly objectionable to confine men in prison on reasonable suspicion of having committed a criminal offence, without giving them a chance of being heard. But the present Bill proceeded on a wholly different line, and only endeavoured to make it certain that crime should not be committed with impunity, and that those who committed crimes and those who obstructed the administration of justice should, after fair trial, meet with prompt punishment. He now wished to make a remark which he feared might not meet with the approval of all the Members on his (the Ministerial) side of the House. He had heard with great regret the Prime Minister declare that the Arrears Bill and the Prevention of Crime Bill were inseparable—that they were living members of one and the same body. He had heard that statement with great regret, because the maintenance of law and order he regarded as the first function of a Government. That duty was held by all our great political writers to be the first mission of every Government; and he confessed that he did not think it was quite becoming that the Prime Minister should state, in that solemn and earnest manner, to the House, that the passage of a Bill which, in the opinion of himself and his Government, was absolutely necessary to enable them to fulfil their first function—provision for the due maintenance of law and order—should depend upon a measure dealing with arrears—a measure about which there was not an unanimity of opinion even on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and on which there remained a great deal to be said. He hoped that the Government would, under any circumstances, persevere in endeavouring to pass through the House a measure for the maintenance of law and order, which he believed to be absolutely essential to enable it to perform its first function, and that the enforcement of the law would not be rendered dependent on the passage of a Bill to which he would not now further allude, but on which he would, if he had the oppor-
  1134
  tunity, make a few remarks on Monday evening next.
  MR. STOREY: Sir, I hope that the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Northumberland (Mr. A. Grey) does not represent any large body of opinion on this side of the House. I do not understand why he should object to the Prime Minister telling the people of England that he regards the Bill dealing with arrears as equal in importance to one putting an end to the Constitutional liberties of Ireland. It is, no doubt, the duty of the Government to maintain law and order; but how can they better do so than by delivering the people from suffering and injustice? I have intended, for the last few days, to try and give the House, from a Radical standpoint, some views on the matter now before us. The debate, so far, has been noticeable in one respect. The hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan)—whom, as a North-countryman, I welcome, as another North-countryman, into his most honourable Office—and the Prime Minister have placed before the House, in as admirable a manner as men could, the policy they propose for Ireland. Numbers of hon. Members on this side have, from different points of view, criticized or supported their policy, and hon. Members from Ireland—a few—and those in terms the propriety of which we must admit, have criticized the measure; but from the Benches over there no voice has been heard but that of the right hon. and learned Gentleman who represents the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). I am not far wrong, then, in assuming that what he said expressed the opinion of many hon. Members, if not of the whole Party, sitting there. And what has he suggested? His wish is that this Bill should be made stronger, and should be made to last longer. He proposes to make it stronger, by taking away some of the safeguards it bestows; and, in words which certainly sent a shudder through me, he expressed his distaste—the distaste of an Irishman—for he used a choice Hibernianism—for these "eternal temporary" Coercion Bills. Actually he, an Irishman, wished the law in Ireland to be permanently put an end to, and that Ireland should be governed by arbitrary measures. When a Representative of Toryism thus expresses his appreciation of arbitrary government, of course, one expects

  1135
  naturally that a Whig landlord, the scion of a Whig house, would rise on this side to express his concurrence, and to beseech the Government not to listen to any man on this side who wishes to emasculate this Bill. The words also of the hon. Member for Roxburghshire (Mr. A. Elliot) were that those who object to this Bill have not the opinion of the Liberals of England and Scotland behind them. That may be so, and I thank God in one respect if it be true. Last year when a few Radicals stood up and protested against the Coercion Act, they were twitted, and rather unworthily twitted, I think, by some who also call themselves Radicals, with being influenced by the fact that their constituencies contained a considerable element of Irish voters. If it could be said truly, or untruly, last year that we who oppose coercion now, and have at all times done so, were influenced by sordid motives, that cannot be said at all events to-day. I agree with those who believe that a large portion of the Liberal sentiment in the country will support the Prime Minister in the Bill he has brought forward, and I believe, too, that the men who dare to stand up and say now, as they have said at other times, that they object to the measure, will very probably bring on themselves the severance of many political friendships. I feel for myself that every word I utter loses me a vote. ["Oh, oh!" and "Go on!"] I understand hon. Gentlemen; but I can promise them that if I did go out in that way I should come back again. I feel that every sentence I complete digs, as it were, a grave in which many political friendships will be buried. You may believe we are wrong, but you cannot now doubt we are honest in our opposition. I hope I may be pardoned when I venture to tell the House that I disagree from Her Majesty's Government, and that I object to this measure. I object to it because I believe it will fail. Who say it will be a success? Her Majesty's Ministers? They told us the same thing last year of last year's measure, and yet, to-day, we witness the failure—as shown by the appearance of this new Bill. Who say it will fail? The Irish Members? They told us the same thing last year, and today they are accepted as true prophets. Nay, more than these tell us it will fail. History tells us so, for history
  1136
  does not contain the record of a Coercion Act that has been successful. I often think—[Ironical cheers from Conservative Benches.]—I am sorry hon. Gentlemen recognize that as an exceptional circumstance; I hope they will not judge me by themselves—I often think that if Englishmen honestly looked back on the Constitutional government of Ireland since the Union, they would display a great deal more modesty in the discussion of Irish affairs. For 80 years on either side of the House you have been seeking to govern Ireland. Whig and Tory, what have you done? How have you succeeded? Every measure that the Irish popular Party has asked for, you first of all denied, and finally granted. Every time you have brought in a Coercion Bill, they have denounced it, and, finally, you have had to admit its failure. And thus, after 80 years, you are placed in the position to-day, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) has told you, of having brought in the worst Coercion Bill ever placed before the public. [Cries of "Divide!"] I hold it will be unsuccessful, because it does not deal with the real difficulty of the case. If the Bill would capture the murderers who committed that diabolical murder in Dublin, or the murderers who committed the equally diabolical murders in the West of Ireland—the murders of Mrs. Smythe, of Mr. Herbert, and others—if it, in any way, would tend to the discovery and capture of the criminals, I would give it my support. It is a mistake, a great mistake, to suppose that English Radicals have any sympathy with criminals, and that they will not support the majesty and supremacy of the law just as much as Whig or Tory. But I do not believe that this Act will be successful in detecting crimes, and for this reason—it does so very little to meet the only great difficulty that exists in Ireland, and which the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets (Mr. Bryce) has pointed out. But I will appeal to a greater authority than the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets—to the right hon. Gentleman himself (Mr. Gladstone). He has not discovered only in 1882 what are the defects in the administration of the law in Ireland. On the 6th of January, 1881, the right hon. Gentlemen the Prime Minister described our chronic difficulty in Ireland thus—

  1137
  "Our justification for asking for such powers is, not that we have not sufficient police and military forces at our command—not that the stipendiary magistrates are unwilling to do their duty;.… not the difficulty, hut the impossibility of procuring evidence."—[3 Hansard, cclvii. 114.]
  Now, I ask, to what appreciable extent will this Bill help you to obtain this, so long as the people of Ireland labour under the conviction that they are under unjust laws, which they call on you to do away with? I was in hopes three weeks ago that at last we had entered on the right path. I never listened with more satisfaction to a speech than to that delivered by the Prime Minister—and though I have not been long in the House, I have heard his speeches more often than many older Members—but I never listened with more satisfaction to a speech of his than I did to that in which he, for the first time, I think, declared that his desire was to govern Ireland according to Irish opinion. In equally strong words, he stated that government by force was hostile to the British Constitution. What a fair vista was opened out to English Radicals three weeks ago; and yet now again, instead of advancing in that path, seeking the opinion of the people of Ireland, and governing by Constitutional methods, we are drawn back again on the old, worn-out, miserable road we have travelled so often in vain. Why so? The right hon. Gentleman rejects the idea that the plan has been changed because of the assassinations. I took down his words just now. He said it was then the intention of the Government to allow a few weeks to elapse before legislating for Ireland at all. He intended, he said, to go on with the clôture. Well, I cannot say I altogether like the clôture; but, certainly, this was a discreet policy on the part of the Prime Minister. He wished to let feeling in Ireland settle down. Will the Government tell us why? Was it not in their secret souls, if not in their open councils, that they intended to wait in the hope that things would so settle, that peace and order would so overspread the country after the "suspects" were released, that it would be possible—happily possible—to proceed merely with remedial legislation, letting the Coercion Acts expire without their being under the painful necessity of producing such a measure as this at all, I think I am right.
  1138
  ["No, no!"] Then more is the pity if I am wrong. [Cries of "Divide!"] I am sorry to stand between the House and the disposition to divide; but I may be allowed a few minutes longer, as I am sure to say something that nobody else will say. I have imperfectly shown to the House that I cannot vote for this measure—first, because I think it will not succeed; and, secondly, because I will have no part or lot in continuing methods of government that have heaped nothing but failure and disgrace on the people of England. This Bill is not prepared for the good of Ireland, but out of deference to the sentiments of the people of England. A Government could not last a week that did not bring in such a Bill; the present sentiment of the English people is such, and the feeling of hon. Members opposite is such, that if the Ministry had not brought in the Bill, they would have raised a loud cry that would have shaken the Government from their seats. How much longer are we to go on? [Ironical cheers from the Conservative Benches.] I am sorry the House is getting impatient with me; but the people of Ireland have much more right to be impatient with Members of the House.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must call on the hon. Member to address himself to the Chair.
  MR. STOREY: I was under the impression, Sir, that I was doing so; and, certainly, I so intended. I say I am not disposed to support the Bill, for I cannot give my vote in support of a system that governs Ireland merely out of deference to the state of English Parties and of English sentiment. An hon. Member lectured the Radical Party a short time ago because we were disposed, he said, to make Ireland the sport of Party. Now, the Radical Party is not open to such a charge. The Radical Party have had no such opportunity to make Ireland its sport, because the Radical Party have never been in power; but what has been the case is, the Whig and Tory Parties have made Ireland their sport, and from time to time have sought to get into Office by supporting or opposing measures for Ireland. I hold that if there had been a Radical Party, there had been no Coercion Act last year. If there had been 20 resolute men, firm in their convictions and determined in their opposition, joined

  1139
  with the Irish Members, there would have been no Coercion Act last year, and we should have no Coercion Bill now. "But," says the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon (Mr. Goschen), "we must not make any compact with social revolutionists." Why not, if they are right? Why not make a compact with them? Whether he is right or myself, the whole question is not whether we choose to call them by certain names. If they be right, we ought to join and support them, no matter what the result. But Whig and Tory combine to pass Coercion Acts for Ireland, and between them Ireland comes to grief while we Radicals sit still. We screw up our courage to vote now and again against details; but we have not the resolution to declare—as we ought to declare—that the method of governing Ireland is rotten and bad, and only productive of mischief, and that the only successful method of governing Ireland is by Irishmen—men there are here. I will not speak of them there, on the opposite Benches, because I cannot trust them, or of these here, on this side, because I have never been able to discover if they have any opinions; but there are Irish Members in the House who have the courage of their opinions, and whom popular opinion has sent here, and I want to know will the House, some day, come to see that the true method of governing Ireland is to take the Members, in whom the people have confidence, and let them govern the country according to Irish ideas and for distinctly Irish purposes? I have only one thing more to say. The Prime Minister made a settlement of the affairs of the Transvaal. He did not, by that settlement, please some hon. Members in this House; but I will take the liberty of refreshing his memory and that of the House with one citation from his speech. He said—
  "With regard to affairs in South Africa—(South Africa mind, not Ireland)—the principle on which we act is this—that believing that there were certain demands upon us which were up to a certain point just, we determined to proceed on the principle of agreeing to these demands and conceding them at once, not in a haggling or huckstering spirit, not waiting for the chapter of accidents, not placing ourselves in a position when we would have had to yield to pressure or difficulty what we would be unwilling to yield to justice; but rather at once, when we had in the country an overwhelming force, sufficient beyond all doubt to compel
  1140
  submission, to put down all military resistance, to yield to justice a liberal interpretation."
  How happy would it be for us—to put it on a lower level, how happy for the Liberal Party—if sentiments like these governed the Ministry in dealing with Ireland. What is our plan of governing? If Ireland complains, we close our ears. They complain more loudly, and we cry, "Trouble us not." Yet more loudly they cry out, and begin to agitate, and we say, "Here are these Irishmen at it again." They grow excited, and crimes begin to be committed by the more desperate among the population, against the wishes of their Leaders. Then, when this has risen to a height, when crime has come in to support political action, then, when the Government, Whig or Tory, has no other method of coping with it, it yields to force and pressure—ignobly yields, when it would have been better and more just to have listened to the demands of the people at first. I have not had many opportunities of speaking in the House, and it may be I shall not have many more; but I disagree with the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy), who often tells us he hates the House. I am an Englishman. I reverence the House and its traditions, as much as ever Whig or Tory did, and I am content, nay, I am anxious, that the House should grow in public fame and glory; but are you adding to its fame by continuing this method of governing Ireland by means of—first the rod, and then the sugar plum. I call on you to use a better method—trust the Irish people and the men they trust; give them sway in the land; and, whatever happens, we should be delivered from a condition of things which is discreditable to the freest Constitutional country in the world.
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of replying to the speech to which we have just listened, nor indeed to continue the debate; but I rise for the purpose of answering an appeal which was made at an earlier period of the afternoon by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and which has subsequently been pressed upon the Government by the hon. Member for Wexford (Mr. Healy). That appeal was made in very moderate terms and, I think, in a con-

  1141
  ciliatory spirit; and it is one, therefore, which the Government feel bound to consider carefully. The hon. Member for the City of Cork suggests that the Government should give some assurance that they will delay the next stage of the Bill beyond Tuesday, on which day they had previously stated it had been their intention, or rather their hope, that the Bill might be taken in Committee; and the hon. Member for Wexford suggests that we should take the Arrears Bill pari passû with the Bill which is now under discussion. The Government are very anxious, as has already been stated, to take every convenient opportunity for going on with the Arrears Bill. If any time whatever is at our disposal which can properly be employed for that purpose, we shall certainly be disposed to devote it to it; but we do not think that to say that in all cases and in all events the two measures should proceed pari passû with equal steps would conduce to the speedy passage of either measure. As regards the suggestion that the Committee upon the Repression of Crime Bill might be delayed, the hon. Member for the City of Cork states that if that were done, he thought it would enable the Party with whom he generally works to consolidate their Amendments, and thus effect a shortening of the discussion. Certainly, the Government do not desire in any way to prevent the fullest possible fair discussion of the clauses of the Bill. They require in a complicated measure of this kind a great deal of consideration, and the Government will welcome all reasonable discussion of its clauses. The Government, however, think it will be desirable to go on with our original proposal, and to go into Committee upon the Bill on Tuesday next, with the understanding that if the hon. Member for the City of Cork and his Friends find that the time is too short to enable them to put down all their Amendments, and if they should then make an appeal to us with regard to some particular clause, then the Government will be willing to consider such an appeal, and postpone the clause to a subsequent day. In the meantime, it appears to us that the hon. Member and his Friends will be able to put down sufficient Amendments for the discussion on Tuesday, and, in that way, we shall be able to proceed most
  1142
  speedily with this Bill; and, this Bill once disposed of, we shall go on with the Arrears Bill, which we regard as of almost equal importance.
  MR. MITCHELL HENRYsaid, that he fully admitted that the administration of justice in Ireland required great strengthening; but that, he would remark, was a very different affair from saying that the interests of justice required that the liberties of the Irish people should be entirely suspended during the next three years. Until both sides of the House arose to the conviction that the Government of Ireland must have in it some element of the Irish nation, and must have in it an Irish Executive and some Representatives of the men who were sent to the House to represent the Irish people in Parliament, they would always be having Coercion Bills introduced. Upon that ground he had uniformly voted against the principle of coercion, and he would vote against this Bill. No doubt, the state of Ireland did require very serious consideration, and the law did require strengthening; but the strengthening must consist in administration, and in the belief of the people in the justice of the law. This Bill was not to be administered by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. It was not to be administered by the House of Commons. It would be administered by those paid individuals who were sometimes selected, as it appeared to him (Mr. Mitchell Henry), upon the principle of getting those who were least adapted to administer the law in that country. The consequence would be that they would have in every village in Ireland people unjustly stopped and arrested by the police. They would then have a repetition of those acts which followed on the passing of the Coercion Acts of 1871, and the time of the House of Commons would perpetually be taken up by questions raised in consequence of the administration of the law. Ireland was, at that moment, overrun with assassins. ["No, no!"] That was his opinion. He did not say it was the opinion of hon. Gentlemen opposite. He believed there was in Ireland a conspiracy of assassination which was pervading almost every part of the country. Therefore, he advocated the strengthening of the law. Yet he

  1143
  objected to the kind of tribunal that was to be brought into operation under this Bill, both as to the powers which the Bill would put in the hands of stipendiary magistrates, and to a great many other clauses, especially the Court of Judges in substitution of trial by jury. If they wanted to strengthen the jury system, why not adopt the Scotch jury system of verdicts by a majority; and why not allow the verdict of "not proven;" and why not give the power of interrogating the accused? There were not many countries in which justice was more impartially or more efficaciously administered than in Scotland. To adopt this Bill, which seemed to him to be martial law under the name of something else, was a thing he would have no part in. A successful measure should give power to interrogate prisoners as to their conduct, the giving of a verdict on the vote of the majority of the jurors, and the power to return open verdicts in the absence of evidence. [Cries of "Divide!"] He viewed with the greatest regret the hungry impatience of the House to vote on this Bill without any discussion at all, and he had never seen anything in his life so extraordinary as what he might term the demoralization of Irish opinion. Nothing had struck him so forcibly as the "sucking-dove criticism" of this Bill by hon. Members opposite. He certainly had expected some real discussion from them. He had been particularly disappointed in the speech of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), who had just been let out of prison under circumstances which were creditable, possibly, to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, but which were very discreditable to the hon. Member himself. ["Oh, oh!" and "Divide!"] He felt it was useless to persist in opposing the Bill at present; but he should propose considerable Amendments in Committee.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that, in the face of the recent Dublin tragedy, he felt it was only a matter of good taste to refrain from voting against the Motion for leave for the introduction of this Bill, which was of a most atrocious character. They all knew how much inclined the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department was to draw the long bow; but even if that Bill were 10 times as severe—10
  1144
  times as stringent or atrocious as it had been said to be by the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he would still have supported it, if it had been framed for the purpose of detecting and punishing crime. Instead of doing that, however, it would strike at the very Constitution of Ireland. He objected to the tribunal of Judges. They were to be selected Judges, and that was tantamount to what the Irish people called a "packed jury." He raised no objection to that part of the Bill which dealt with the suppression of secret societies; but he believed that the administration of the last Coercion Act had done more towards fostering secret societies than all the Fenian organizations in that country. The Lord Lieutenant already had the power to prohibit public meetings; and during the past six months he, or rather the Chief Secretary for Ireland, had, in malice prepense, prevented every meeting in Ireland, for however legitimate a purpose it might be. He (Mr. Callan) objected also to the general and undefined powers in regard to the detention of strangers. The clause with respect to newspapers gave more power to the police in Ireland than the French Act gave, even after the Orsini bombs explosion, and was open to serious abuse. They spoke of the efficiency of the police; but the police administration of Ireland was the most ignoble and inefficient that had ever come under his notice, and the administration of the past Coercion Act by the late Chief Secretary for Ireland had made his name, he believed justly, a name of evil memory in Ireland. The cause of the murders in Phœnix Park being allowed to be carried out was, he alleged, the thorough inefficiency of the Irish police and the withdrawing of all safeguards for protection. [Cries of "Divide!"] He knew what he was about; he did not wish to talk the Bill out, and would sit down before the division time came. He trusted that they would not go into Committee on Tuesday, and that before that time the fiery cross would be sent round, and that every Whig, Tory, and Home Ruler would be in his place, so that the Irish people could know who should be marked as black sheep. He hoped that every Irishman who was not in his place would receive at the hands of his constituents, at the earliest possible opportunity, political annihilation.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 383; Noes 45: Majority 338.

  AYES.

  Acland, C. T. D.

  Causton, R. K.

  Acland, Sir T. D.

  Cavendish, Lord E.

  Agnew, W.

  Cecil, Lord E. H. B. G.

  Ainsworth, D.

  Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

  Alexander, Colonel

  Cheetham, J. F.

  Allen, W. S.

  Childers, rt. hn. H. C. E.

  Allman, R. L.

  Christie, W. L.

  Allsopp, C.

  Clarke, J. C.

  Anderson, G.

  Clifford, C. C.

  Armitage, B.

  Clive, Col. hon. G. W.

  Armitstead, G.

  Coddington, W.

  Asher, A.

  Cohen, A.

  Ashley, hon. E. M.

  Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

  Bailey, Sir J. R.

  Colman, J. J.

  Balfour, Sir G.

  Compton, F.

  Balfour, J. B.

  Corbett, J.

  Balfour, J. S.

  Corry, J. P.

  Baring, T. C.

  Cotes, C. C.

  Baring, Viscount

  Cotton, W. J. R.

  Barnes, A.

  Courtauld, G.

  Barran, J.

  Courtney, L. H.

  Barttelot, Sir W. B.

  Cowan, J.

  Bass, H.

  Cowper, hon. H. F.

  Bateson, Sir T.

  Crichton, Viscount

  Baxter, rt. hon. W. E.

  Cropper, J.

  Beach, rt. hn. Sir M. H.

  Cross, rt. hon. Sir R. A.

  Beach, W. W. B.

  Crum, A.

  Beaumont, W. B.

  Cunliffe, Sir R. A.

  Bective, Earl of

  Currie, Sir D.

  Bentinck, rt. hn. G. C.

  Dalrymple, C.

  Beresford, G. de la P.

  Davenport, H. T.

  Biddulph, M.

  Davenport, W. B.

  Birkbeck, E.

  Davey, H.

  Blackburne, Col. J. I.

  Davies, D.

  Bolton, J. C.

  Davies, R.

  Borlase, W. C.

  Dawnay, Col. hon. L. P.

  Bourke, rt. hon. R.

  Dawnay, hon. G. C.

  Brand, H. R.

  De Worms, Baron H.

  Brassey, Sir T.

  Dickson, T. A.

  Bright, rt. hon. J.

  Digby, Col. hon. E.

  Brinton, J.

  Dilke, Sir C. W.

  Brise, Colonel R.

  Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

  Brodrick, hon. W. St. J. F.

  Dodds, J.

  Dodson, rt. hon. J. G.

  Brooke, Lord

  Donaldson-Hudson, C.

  Brown, A. H.

  Douglas, A. Akers-

  Bruce, rt. hon. Lord C.

  Duff, R. W.

  Bruce, Sir H. H.

  Dundas, hon. J. C.

  Bruce, hon. R. P.

  Dyke, rt. hn. Sir W. H.

  Bruce, hon. T.

  Earp, T.

  Buchanan, T. R.

  Ecroyd, W. F.

  Bulwer, J. R.

  Edwards, H.

  Buszard, M. C.

  Egerton, Adm. hon. F.

  Butt, C. P.

  Elcho, Lord

  Buxton, F. W.

  Elliot, G. W.

  Caine, W. S.

  Elliot, hon. A. R. D.

  Cameron, D.

  Elliot, Sir G.

  Campbell, J. A.

  Emlyn, Viscount

  Campbell, Sir G.

  Estcourt, G. S.

  Campbell, R. F. F.

  Evans, T. W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, H.

  Ewart, W.

  Ewing, A. O.

  Carington, hon. R.

  Farquharson, Dr. R.

  Carington, hon. Col. W. H. P.

  Fawcett, rt. hon. H.

  Feilden, Maj.-Gen. R. J.

  Cartwright, W. C.

  Fellowes, W. H.

  1146

  Fenwick-Bisset, M.

  James, W. H.

  Ferguson, R.

  Jardine, R.

  Finch, G. H.

  Jenkins, D. J.

  Findlater, W.

  Jerningham, H. E. H.

  Fitzmaurice, Lord E.

  Johnson, E.

  Fitzpatrick, hn. B. E. B.

  Johnson, rt. hon. W. M.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. H. W.

  Jones-Parry, L.

  Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J.

  Kennaway, Sir J. H.

  Floyer, J.

  Kingscote, Col. R. N. F.

  Foljambe, C. G. S.

  Kinnear, J.

  Folkestone, Viscount

  Lacon, Sir E. H. K.

  Forster, Sir C.

  Laing, S.

  Forster, rt. hon. W. E.

  Lawrence, Sir J. C.

  Fort, R.

  Lawrence, Sir T.

  Foster, W. H.

  Lawrence, W.

  Fowler, R. N.

  Lea, T.

  Fremantle, hon. T. F.

  Leake, R.

  Freshfield, C. K.

  Leatham, E. A.

  Fry, L.

  Leatham, W. H.

  Galway, Viscount

  Lechmere, Sir E. A. H.

  Gardner, R. Richardson-

  Leigh, hon. G. H. C.

  Leigh, R.

  Garnier, J. C.

  Levett, T. J.

  Gibson, rt. hon. E.

  Lindsay, Sir R. L.

  Giffard, Sir H. S.

  Lloyd, M.

  Givan, J.

  Lopes, Sir M.

  Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

  Lowther, rt. hon. J.

  Gladstone, H. J.

  Lubbock, Sir J.

  Gladstone, W. H.

  Lusk, Sir A.

  Goldney, Sir G.

  Lymington, Viscount

  Gore-Langton, W. S.

  Macartney, J. W. E.

  Gorst, J. E.

  M'Arthur, A.

  Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

  M'Arthur, W.

  Gower, hon. E. F. L.

  M'Clure, Sir T.

  Grafton, F. W.

  M'Garel-Hogg, Sir J.

  Grant, A.

  Mackie, R. B.

  Greene, E.

  Mackintosh, C. F.

  Greer, T.

  M'Lagan, P.

  Gregory, G. B.

  Macnaghten, E.

  Grenfell, W. H.

  Magniac, C.

  Grey, A. H. G.

  Makins, Colonel W. T.

  Gurdon, R. T.

  Manners, rt. hn. Lord J.

  Halsey, T. F.

  Mappin, F. T.

  Hamilton, I. T.

  Marjoribanks, E.

  Hamilton, right hon. Lord G.

  Martin, R. B.

  Maskelyne, M. H. Story-

  Hamilton, J. G. C.

  Mason, H.

  Harcourt, E. W.

  Master, T. W. C.

  Harcourt, rt. hon. Sir W. G. V. V.

  Matheson, A.

  Maxwell-Heron, J.

  Hardcastle, J. A.

  Mellor, J. W.

  Hartington, Marq. of

  Milbank, Sir F. A.

  Hay, rt. hon. Admiral Sir J. C. D.

  Miles, Sir P. J. W.

  Monk, C. J.

  Hayter, Sir A. D.

  Moreton, Lord

  Heneage, E.

  Morgan, hon. F.

  Herschell, Sir F.

  Morgan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Hibbert, J. T.

  Morley, S.

  Hildyard, T. B. T.

  Mowbray, rt. hn. Sir J. R.

  Hill, A. S.

  Mulholland, J.

  Hill, T. R.

  Mundella, rt. hon. A. J.

  Holland, Sir H. T.

  Munts, P. H.

  Holland, S.

  Murray, C. J.

  Hollond, J. R.

  Newdegate, C. N.

  Holms, J.

  Nicholson, W. N.

  Hope, rt. hn. A. J. B. B.

  Noel, E.

  Howard, E. S.

  Noel, rt. hon. G. J.

  Howard, G. J.

  North, Colonel J. S.

  Howard, J.

  Northcote, H. S.

  Hubbard, rt. hon. J. G.

  Northeote, rt. hn. Sir S. H.

  Inderwick, F. A.

  Jackson, W. L.

  O'Donoghue, The

  James, Sir H.

  Onslow, D.

  1147

  Paget, R. H.

  Selwin-Ibbetson, Sir H. J.

  Paget, T. T.

  Palmer, C. M.

  Severne, J. E.

  Palmer, G.

  Shield, H.

  Palmer, J. H.

  Simon, Serjeant J.

  Parker, C. S.

  Sinclair, Sir J. G. T.

  Patrick, R. W. Cochran-

  Smith, E.

  Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

  Pease, A.

  Stafford, Marquess of

  Pease, Sir J. W.

  Stanley, rt. hn. Col. F.

  Peddie, J. D.

  Stanley, hon. E. L.

  Peel, A. W.

  Stanley, E. J.

  Pemberton, E. L.

  Stansfeld, rt. hon. J.

  Pender, J.

  Stewart, J.

  Percy, Lord A.

  Summers, W.

  Philips, R. N.

  Talbot, C. R. M.

  Phipps, C. N. P.

  Talbot, J. G.

  Playfair, rt. hon. L.

  Tavistock, Marquess of

  Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

  Taylor, rt. hn. Col. T. E.

  Porter, A. M.

  Tennant, C.

  Portman, hn. W. H. B.

  Thornhill, T.

  Potter, T. B.

  Thynne, Lord H. F.

  Powell, W. R. H.

  Tillett, J. H.

  Price, Sir R. G.

  Tottenham, A. L.

  Pugh, L. P.

  Trevelyan, rt. hn. G. O.

  Pulley, J.

  Tyler, Sir H. W.

  Raikes, rt. hon. H. C.

  Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.

  Ralli, P.

  Vivian, A. P.

  Ramsay, J.

  Vivian, Sir H. H.

  Ramsden, Sir J.

  Wallace, Sir R.

  Rankin, J.

  Walpole, rt. hon. S.

  Rathbone, W.

  Walrond, Col. W. H.

  Reed, Sir E. J.

  Walter, J.

  Reid, R. T.

  Warton, C. N.

  Rendel, S.

  Watkin, Sir E. W.

  Rendlesham, Lord

  Waugh, E.

  Repton, G. W.

  Webster, J.

  Richardson, J. N.

  Whitbread, S.

  Richardson, T.

  Whitley, E.

  Ridley, Sir M. W.

  Wiggin, H.

  Roberts, J.

  Williams, S. C. E.

  Robertson, H.

  Williamson, S.

  Rogers, J. E. T.

  Willis, W.

  Rolls, J. A.

  Willyams, E. W. B.

  Ross, A. H.

  Wilmot, Sir H.

  Ross, C. C.

  Wilmot, Sir J. E.

  Rothschild, Sir N. M. de

  Wilson, C. H.

  Round, J.

  Wilson, I.

  Russell, G. W. E.

  Winn, R.

  Russell, Lord A.

  Wodehouse, E. R.

  Rylands, P.

  Wolff, Sir H. D.

  St. Aubyn, W. M.

  Woolf, S.

  Salt, T.

  Wortley, C. B. Stuart-

  Samuelson, H.

  Wroughton, P.

  Schreiber, C.

  Wynn, Sir W. W.

  Sclater-Booth, rt. hon. G.

  Yorke, J. R.

  Scott, M. D.

  TELLERS.

  Seely, C. (Lincoln)

  Grosvenor, Lord R.

  Seely, C. (Nottingham)

  Kensington, Lord

  NOES

  Biggar, J. G.

  Finigan, J. L.

  Blake, J. A.

  Gray, E. D.

  Brooks, M.

  Healy, T. M.

  Byrne, G. M.

  Henry, M.

  Callan, P.

  Labouchere, H.

  Collings, J.

  Lalor, R.

  Corbet, W. J.

  Lawson, Sir W.

  Cowen, J.

  Leamy, E.

  Dillon, J.

  Lyons, R. D.

  Dillwyn, L. L.

  M'Carthy, J.

  1148

  M'Coan, J. C.

  Power, J. O'C.

  Macfarlane, D. H.

  Russell, C.

  M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

  Sexton, T.

  Martin, P.

  Shaw, W.

  Molloy, B. C.

  Sheil, E.

  Nelson, I.

  Storey, S.

  Nolan, Colonel J. P.

  Sullivan, T. D.

  O'Connor, A.

  Synan, E. J.

  O'Connor, T. P.

  Taylor, P. A.

  O'Donnell, F. H.

  Thomasson, J. P.

  O'Gorman Mahon, Col. The

  Thompson, T. C.

  O'Kelly, J.

  TELLERS.

  O'Sullivan, W. H.

  Power, R.

  Parnell, C. S.

  Redmond, J. E.

  Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday next, at Two of the clock.

  And it being now five minutes past Seven of the clock, the House suspended its Sitting.
  The House resumed its Sitting at Nine of the clock.

ORDER OF THE DAY.

  SUPPLY.—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  OPENING OF NATIONAL MUSEUMS, &c. ON SUNDAY.—RESOLUTION.
  MR. GEORGE HOWARD, in rising to move—
  "That seeing the success which has attended the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the National Museums and Galleries in the suburban districts of London and in the City of Dublin, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived for extending this action to all Museums and Galleries supported by National funds,"
  said, that though the movement on this question had greatly gained in the country, that House had not been called upon to express an opinion since 1879, when the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) brought forward a Motion on the subject. The hon. Member was fond of leading forlorn hopes, and he might have been afraid that if he brought this question forward now he might have on his side a considerable majority. The matter, however, had been greatly argued out-of-doors, and in "another place," and he thought the supporters of the movement had every reason to be gratified with the result of the argument. The principal argument brought against the Resolution was, that they wished to secularize the Sunday, and,

  1149
  as it was called, destroy the religious character of the day. In trying to controvert these things, he did not need to dwell on the Sabbataiacal argument, because he did not think they should hear that it was a wicked thing to visit Galleries and look at objects of Art. It had often struck him that although the Founder of our religion probably said more on the superstition of the Pharisees in Judea on this subject than any other, this superstition had formed a large part in our religious observances in this country. That superstition, he thought, was a good deal diminished now; but although they did not hear the Sabbataiacal argument in its crudest form, they were told they wished to provide alternatives for religious worship on Sunday. His hon. Friend (Mr. Caine) had an Amendment on the Paper to the effect that such Museums and Galleries should not be opened before 1 o'clock on Sundays; and if that safeguard were added to the Resolution, which he would readily consent to, it would not be possible to maintain that they wished to take away the facilities for worship on Sunday. He came to the more important argument, that the opening of these places would diminish the character of the Sunday as a day of rest. It was quite true that his proposal would involve a certain amount of Sunday labour on the part of officials of different kinds; but the principle of Sunday labour by the few for the benefit of the many was already acted upon to a large extent, with the most beneficial results. Besides, it would be perfectly possible to make arrangements for allowing those who would be employed in Museums, &c., on Sundays to obtain an equivalent holiday in the week. If the opponents of this scheme went against the employment of any persons on Sundays, then he thought these opponents ought to go further, and, if they were consistent, they ought to move that the Museums and Galleries already open should be closed; because the suburban Museums already open employed a far larger number of men than would be required in large towns in the shape of railway officials, omnibus drivers, &c., engaged in the conveyance of the people for the City. He would give a few figures as to the relative attendances on Sundays and weekdays. Last year the number of Sunday
  1150
  attendances at Kew was 411,512; the week-day attendances 425,116; so that the visitors on Sunday were nearly equal to the visitors on the other six days of the week. The smallest number of attendances on any one Sunday was 281; on any one week-day, two. On May 14 the number of visitors at Kew was 23,000. After that, he did not think anybody would be found to move that the suburban Museums should be closed, because it would be certain to be rejected by the House, and to create indignation out-of-doors. No doubt, they should hear the argument about this proposal being the "thin end of the wedge." This Resolution was the thick end of the wedge, The thin end was when the suburban Museums and the Museum at Dublin were opened. His Motion did not affect in any way the opening of music halls and other places called trading places of amusement. To open such places on Sunday it would be necessary to have separate legislation, which would meet, not only with the opposition of the highly-organized bodies who were opposed to his proposal, but also of those who were in favour of it. There was no chance of such a measure being carried. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. M'Arthur) said the opening of Museums on Sundays would be injurious; but his position would be much stronger if, instead of "would be injurious," they could say "had been injurious," and that where the custom prevailed it had led to the demand for the opening of all sorts of places of amusement. There had been no such demand in Dublin, and no desire had been expressed on the part of the inhabitants where such places were opened that they should be closed. The mention of Dublin brought him to Edinburgh, in this way. Several Scottish Members had asked him whether he proposed to include Scotland in his Motion. He wished, in putting forward his Resolution, to make it as general as possible, and to affirm a principle. Now, he had no authority to exclude in his Resolution the people of Edinburgh from the benefits which he asked should be conferred on the people of London; but if Scottish Members differed from him on the subject, he could see no objection whatever to their receiving from the Government that amount of Home Rule which Dublin had hitherto enjoyed. He hoped, however, that whatever the feel-

  1151
  ings of Scottish Members about Edinburgh, these would not induce them to vote against the liberty of the people of London. As things were, at present the only place anyone had to go to was the public-house. The churches were shut up for many hours on the Sunday. In Roman Catholic countries the churches were open all day for the purpose of worship, of rest, and of thought; but we were so fond of closing everything on Sunday, that we locked up our churches during several hours of that day. If the Local Option majority were in earnest they would support this Resolution, which, though it did not deal directly with the Temperance question, provided an attraction for the people on the day when the temptations to intemperance were the greatest. Some might say the right way was to shut up the public-houses altogether on Sundays. He was one of those people; but if they did shut up the public-houses, the demand for opening some other places would be far stronger than now. He had heard it said the working classes would not avail themselves of the privilege of going to these Museums and Galleries if they were open. He did not believe that at all. But there were others than the so-called working-classes, business men and clerks, who worked very hard, who, at the end of a day's work, would much rather go home than into the glaring gaslights of a Museum or Picture Gallery. Those people had a right to see the treasures of which they were joint owners on the only day it was convenient for them to go there. Some people said the opening of these places would give an encouragement to the employment of all kinds of labour for the purpose of money-making. He did not believe in a tendency of that kind, because everything was going in an opposite direction at the present time. Bank holidays had been established; shopkeepers and others gave their employés Saturday half-holidays; and Trade Unions had secured great advantages in these respects to their members. He did not think, therefore, that his Motion would be at all likely to be attended with that result. The hon. Member for Stoke-upon-Trent (Mr. Broadhurst) intended to suggest that Museums and Art Galleries should be open from 6 till 10 on three evenings in each week. That would not be a good arrangement; but,
  1152
  whether it would or not, it would be useless as a substitute for Sunday opening. He (Mr. Howard) was informed that the experiment of throwing open the Museum and Reading Room at Stoke-upon-Trent on Sundays was commenced in January last, and had, so far, proved a success; and that an increased attendance was expected in consequence of the loans made from the Collection at South Kensington. He congratulated the Vice President of the Council on the assistance he gave to that movement. The right hon. Gentleman had stated that the municipal Museums of Manchester and Birmingham were open on Sunday afternoon, and that he could not think of not making loans to them. But why should the people of those towns be more favoured than the people of London? There were several Collections in London on which they had a special claim. The Cartoons of Raphael, which had been taken from Hampton Court, where they could be seen on Sundays, were shut up at South Kensington, where nobody could see them. Again, the Sheepshanks Collection, which had been left with a special request that it might be open to the public on Sundays, was not visible on that day. Having quoted a passage written from Berlin by Mr. Cobden, in 1838, to the effect that the sober German thought his open Tivoli gardens and theatres better than the drunkenness and filth of an English labouring man's Sunday, the hon. Gentleman said that he did not ask for the opening of Tivoli gardens and theatres, but for something which would not only make the working man's Sunday more cheerful, but more elevating also. He hoped that by their vote they would enable the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) to enable the public to see the treasures in South Kensington on Sunday. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.
  MR. BURT, in seconding the Resolution, said, that its supporters were not innovators, but they simply asked the House to extend and carry out logically a principle which was already in partial operation, and which had proved very successful in the parts of the country where it had been tried. What reason could there be for objecting to the opening of the National Gallery, the South Kensington Museum, and the British Museum on Sunday, in addition to the

  1153
  other places already open on that day? It could not be alleged that there was anything irreligious or demoralizing in the works of Art and other objects in those Institutions. Many of them were distinctly of a religious caste—all of them were pure and elevating in their nature and character; and he thought, therefore, that to be consistent they ought to carry out the principle already recognized and adopted. It was urged that the opening of Museums on Sunday would add seriously to Sunday labour. He entirely sympathized with that objection, and he should certainly oppose anything which tended in that direction; but experience showed that, in proportion to the large numbers of people who were interested in viewing the works of Art exhibited in those places, the number of attendants required on Sunday was almost infinitesimal. The number of people who in 1880 visited the Galleries thrown open through the influence of the Sunday Society was between 17,000 and 18,000, and the highest number of attendants on any given day was five, though, on one occasion, 3,300 visitors were present. Last year upwards of 19,000 people visited the same places, and again the highest number of attendants was five, though the visitors, on one particular occasion, were between 3,000 and 4,000. That appeared conclusive in the direction of showing that very few attendants were needed to look after those who visited the Galleries on the Sunday. The Museums and Galleries had on those occasions been very much crowded, clearly indicating that there was a great demand on the part of the inhabitants of London for such advantages, while there was also evinced the utmost good behaviour on the part of all who were privileged to enjoy them. Reference had been made to the absence of Petitions; but though he was one of those who did not underestimate the value of Petitions, it was possible to overrate them. His experience went to show that the tendency was to restrict Sunday labour. It had been limited already, not through the action of the employers of labour, but of the workmen themselves, who probably, from economical and social, quite as much as from religious considerations, had a confirmed disinclination to Sunday labour, and in the future they would be quite able to protect themselves from
  1154
  any evils in this matter. There was evidence to show that the feeling of working men was in favour of this movement, for in every place in which a working men's club had been established, that club was open on Sunday. There was this encouraging feature about these clubs, that the working men members had voluntarily thrown aside the idle and frivolous, though innocent, amusements in which they indulged on the other days, and devoted their time to listening to lectures and to other solid methods of improvement. With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), as to opening Museums at least three evenings in the week, while he thoroughly appreciated the object he had in view, he quite agreed with the Mover of the Resolution in considering it as not an Amendment to the Resolution before the House. The proposition of the hon. Member could not be accepted as a substitute for opening the Museums on Sundays, because the great mass of the working men, after a long day's work, were scarcely capable of enjoying the works of Art exhibited in the Museums and Picture Galleries. Moreover, the best of the working men would like to take their wives and children to the Museums; but this they could not do at late hours in the evening. Then many people not ordinarily included in the term working men—such as clerks and shop-attendants, who worked during long hours at tedious occupations—would derive great benefit from the opening of these Institutions on Sunday. While he sympathized with the motives of those who, from religious considerations, took an opposite view upon this subject, he could not understand those opponents who looked with equanimity upon the opening of beershops on Sundays, while they opposed the opening of these National Institutions on Sundays; and he was glad to see that public opinion was gradually tending in the direction of closing these beershops on Sunday, while, at the same time, providing healthy and elevating places of improvement in their stead. He trusted that the House would support the present Motion.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "seeing the success which has attended the action of Her Majesty's Government in opening on Sundays the National Museums and Gal-

  1155
  leries in the suburban districts of London and in the city of Dublin, this House is of opinion that the time has arrived for extending this action to all Museums and Galleries supported by National funds,"—(Mr. George Howard,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. A. M'ARTHUR: Sir, I freely admit that my hon. Friends the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution are influenced by pure motives and good intentions. I hope they will give me credit for being actuated by similar motives, and by a sense of duty in opposing the Motion. My hon. Friends think that the adoption of this Resolution by the House would be a step in the right direction, and would do good. I believe it would be a retrogressive movement in the direction of a Continental Sunday, and would do harm. My hon. Friends believe that the policy which they advocate would promote temperance, and be a great advantage to the working classes. I contend that it would largely increase the consumption of alcoholic drinks; that it would be injurious to the best interests of the nation, and especially of working men. My hon. Friends inform us that the success which has attended the opening of Museums and Art Galleries on Sunday convinces them that the time has arrived when it is desirable to open all State-supported Museums and Institutions of the kind on the same day. I argue that the step proposed is unnecessary, that the time for it has not arrived, and, I hope, may never come. I do not deny that some measure of success has attended the opening of Libraries, Art Galleries, and Museums where the experiment has been tried; but it has not been the kind of success which the Sunday Society, or, as I think it should more properly be called, the anti-Sunday Society, profess to wish to achieve, for they profess to be most anxious to benefit the working classes, and to wean men from the public-house. Now, Sir, I doubt not many persons have visited these places of amusement or instruction that have been opened on Sunday; but if that fact is to be brought forward as an argument in favour of Sunday opening, then we have only to open the theatres, music halls, dancing saloons, and similar places, in order to see mul-
  1156
  titudes flocking to them. The same argument will hold good, and the numerical success of the experiment will be urged as a reason why we should proceed further in the same direction, until every bulwark for the protection of our English Sunday, to which we owe so much, is swept away. Again, if we look for the working men who were to be reclaimed from drunkenness and induced to enjoy purer pleasures and cultivate higher tastes, I am convinced that the attempts made, however well intended, have utterly and lamentably failed. I am assured by persons who have made it their business to watch the effect of Sunday opening of Museums and Art Galleries, and judge for themselves, that the vast majority of those who visit such Institutions on Sunday are persons who could, without much inconvenience, visit them equally well on week-days, and that the number of working men who attended is almost infinitesimal. Nor do I believe that even the few who attended have been weaned from the public-house; and my conviction is that not a single drunkard has been reclaimed, or ever will be reclaimed, by such means. Then as to the wonderful success which has crowned the zealous efforts of the so-called Sunday League and Sunday Society. I think a little investigation will prove, as I have already intimated, that it is more imaginary than real. Take Birmingham, for example—of which we have heard so much. It is said that the opening of the Art Gallery there has been a great success. Well, I find the average attendance during the past three years has been: In 1878, 942; in 1880, 749; and in 1881, 547. It is evident, therefore, that less interest is taken in what was at first regarded as an experiment; that the attendance is steadily decreasing; and that even the highest average attendance of 942 out of a population of upwards of 400,000 cannot be regarded as indicating success. I am also informed that in Manchester and other places a large proportion of those who attend are young lads or young men and girls, who spend their time in idle gossip, or in reading comic and illustrated papers, which they could read equally well at home. But what about the want of success? If so much good has been accomplished by this means, how is it that so few towns in the country seem

  1157
  disposed to accept the boon offered, or to take the advice of the Sunday Society? How is it that efforts made to open Museums, Libraries, and Art Galleries have failed in London, Salford, Leeds, Bolton, Leicester, Nottingham, and other places, while in some cases the proposal has been rejected by overwhelming majorities? I am aware statistics are regarded as tiresome and uninteresting; but I hope the House will bear with me while I give a few to prove the correctness of what I have stated. In 1879 an attempt was made to open the Guildhall Library. The motion was defeated by 104 against 34. Last year a similar motion was brought forward, and was defeated by 97 against 25, giving the larger majority of 72 in a smaller house. In Nottingham a resolution was brought forward in 1879 to open the Castle Museum on Sunday, and was defeated by the narrow majority of 3. In 1880 a similar motion was defeated by 32 against 24, giving a majority of 8, and in 1881 the motion was defeated by 34 votes against 8, giving a majority of no less than 26 against the opening of Museums, thus proving beyond the possibility of doubt that the feeling against Sunday opening had steadily and very largely increased. In Keswick the experiment of Sunday opening was tried for several years, and failed. In Maidstone, after an experiment lasting three years, the Town Council decided, by 16 votes against 3, to close their Museum and Library on Sunday. The results of Sunday opening were strongly condemned by the Mayor, and the Librarian writes, in answer to a gentleman who wished to obtain authentic information upon the subject—
  "We have a great many persons who visit this place continually; but that which I wrote was my first impression in the matter, which is now quite changed. I have given myself plenty of time to study the people who visit on Sunday; and I have come to the conclusion that the Institution is made use of simply for a meetinghouse of young people (lads and servant-girls—these we are continually turning out), who never come to the place during the week, or very rarely, and care for nothing, The lads who go into the Library look at nothing else than The Illustrated London News, and it is very seldom anyone requires a book on any subject. I do not consider the place is made use of in a proper manner, and it does not serve the end which we might have expected. I was in favour of it; but I cannot support it any longer. Mind you this, if I thought it tended towards doing good, or that the people came to study and
  1158
  learn anything, I should continue to support the opening of the Institution; but my experience now teaches me better."
  Now, Sir, if the truth were honestly told, my impression is that we would have a good deal of similar evidence respecting other places open on Sunday which my hon. Friends are authorized to represent as having been very successful. But, Sir, while I do not think men would be weaned from the public-house, I fear there would be weaning of a much more objectionable character. My conviction is that next to the ordinance of public worship, Sunday schools have done more to civilize, to benefit, to bless, and to promote good order, obedience to the law, and the moral, intellectual, and religious improvement of the masses than any other agency; and if Museums, Art Galleries, and similar Institutions are open on Sundays many young persons would probably be induced to go there instead of to Sunday school, and to form habits and make acquaintances that might be the reverse of beneficial to them. It is also argued that the course recommended by my hon. Friends would promote temperance. I hold, as I have already intimated, that it would largely increase the consumption of alcoholic beverages or drinks, for you must have refreshment stalls at which wine, spirits, and ale will be sold and largely consumed. If we require proof of this, we have it in the fact that the vast majority of publicans are in favour of Sunday opening, because they are well aware it will be to their advantage. When application was made for a music licence for the Surrey Gardens in 1875 it was stated that on 13 acres of ground there were no less than eight drinking bars, and free passes were given largely for the sake of profits on drinks. At Brighton it was stated that 14 persons were employed in the public-house department when the Aquarium was open all day on Sunday. I might give more statements of a similar kind to prove that, just in proportion as you open such places, you must afford facilities for obtaining drink and increase the temptation to take it. Again, it is asserted that much good and no evil results from the opening of Art Galleries and places of amusement on the Continent. Will the House permit me to read a short extract from a German paper to show

  1159
  the fallacy of this argument? The writer, after referring to the proper observance of the Sunday, proceeds—
  "We Germans, and we Schleswig-Holsteiners not the least, are, to a great extent, far removed from such a celebration of Sunday. The day of rest and of most elevated joy is too often robbed of its honour. The forenoon of Sunday is given up to work and the afternoon to pleasure. That which can elevate man is often despised, but that which degrades him is sought after. On Sunday the policemen reap their most abundant harvests; on Sunday children occasion the greatest anxiety; on Sunday evening, above all other days, does the wife anticipate the return of her husband with a foreboding heart. Drunkenness and riotousness celebrate their greatest triumph on Sunday; and most of the misdemeanours are committed on that day, or are intimately connected with the misuse of it. We turn, therefore, to our own countrymen with the urgent request that they would, in their various spheres, endeavour to procure for the Sunday a more honourable observance in our land. If the Sunday acquires a different character the national life will rest upon a securer basis. Wilhelm von Humboldt justly said that the future of our nation depended upon the observance of the Sunday. The Sunday question is not that of a Party, but the common cause of all who have the true good of the people at heart. Not merely the Church, but the State and the family as well, must demand and promote a right observance of Sunday."
  Now, Sir, I think it is much to be regretted that, while thoughtful men on the Continent are anxious to remedy the evils and mistakes of the past, and avert the dangers of the future, some of our people are endeavouring to move in an opposite direction, and deprive many of their Sunday as a day of rest and enjoyment. As to the necessity for Sunday as a day of rest, I do not think it is necessary for me to say much. Even those who advocate Sunday opening argue in favour of one day's rest in seven; but they think that men compelled to work on Sunday might rest during some week-day, and thus secure compensation. This may seem very good in theory, but it could never be carried out on a large scale; and perhaps the best answer to the proposal is that large numbers of men who now work on Sundays seldom get even a holiday, much less one day in seven, to recruit their exhausted energies, for want of which many of them sink into premature graves. Almost innumerable proofs of this might be adduced; but there is one very striking illustration which I would like to mention; I believe I alluded to it on a former occasion, but
  1160
  not during the present Parliament. Hon. Members are aware that until very recently there were large tracts of country in Australia that had never been explored. Numerous attempts were made to cross the Continent and to ascertain the nature of those unknown regions, and there were many failures and some loss of life. A short time before I left the Colony, some 18 or 20 years ago, an attempt was made which it was hoped would prove successful, and one of the strongest parties ever organized for the purpose left Melbourne under peculiarly favourable circumstances. Camels were imported; a sufficient number of men and horses were secured; the leaders were men of great energy and considerable scientific attainments; ample stores were collected, and every provision was made to preserve the health and lives of the party. But the leader made a great and fatal mistake. He paid no regard to Sunday as a day of rest, although he rested occasionally on week-days. I will not detain the House by entering into details. It is sufficient to state that I believe all the animals and all the men, except one man, perished, and he was rescued to tell the melancholy tale, after having been some weeks or months with the aborigines, who treated him kindly, and assisted him to eke out life by getting and eating a kind of wild corn or grain called nardoo by the Natives. Well, Sir, we have, I am happy to say, an illustration of a different kind. A few years after the time to which I have just alluded another exploring party was organized to start from Queensland, I think from the Gulf of Carpentaria. It was also well arranged and ably conducted; but the leader, Mr. Landsborough, adopted what proved to be sounder policy. He set out with the determination not to travel on Sunday, unless compelled to do so, to reach water, or owing to some necessity; and it is impossible to read the very interesting Reports of the two expeditions without being struck with the different policy pursued and the different result. I have already stated the sad result of the expedition conducted by Burk and Wills, and I believe I am correct in saying that Mr. Landsborough and his party traversed the same desolate country without the loss of man or beast. It is just possible circumstances may have been more fa-

  1161
  vourable for them in some respects, although I have never heard this stated; but I think the reasonable probability is that had Burk and Wills given themselves and their men and cattle the regular rest of the Sunday the lives of those brave and energetic men might have been saved. We have numerous testimonies in support of the great advantage of Sunday rest. Lord Palmerston ascribed the remarkable vigour which he retained in old age to the circumstance that he had all his life given himself up to rest on Sunday. Lord Beaconsfield, speaking on one occasion in opposition to a Motion similar to the one now before the House, is reported to have said—
  "Of all divine institutions the most divine is that which secures a day of rest for men. I hold it to be the most valuable blessing ever conceded to man. It is the corner-stone of civilization, and its removal might even affect the health of the people. It (the opening of Museums on Sunday) is a great change, and those who suppose for a moment that it could be limited to that proposal will find they are mistaken."
  Lord Macaulay said—
  "While industry is suspended, while the plough lies in the furrow, while the exchange is silent, while no smoke ascends from the factory, a process is going on quite as important to the wealth of the nation as any process which is performed on more busy days. Man, the machine of machines, is repairing and winding-up, so that he returns to his labours on Monday with clearer intellect, with livelier spirits, and with new corporeal vigour."
  Adam Smith writes—
  "The Sabbath as a political institution is of inestimable value, independently of its claims to Divine authority."
  Almost innumerable quotations of a similar character might be given not only from the speeches and writings of great and good men of the past, but also from many eminent men who are still happily with us, including the right hon. Gentleman the present Prime Minister; but I fear to tax the patience of hon. Members too severely. Our opponents, however, assert with singular inconsistency that they do not wish to do away with or abolish the day of rest. They would advocate a day of rest during the week for those who labour on Sunday. I have already said it is all very well in theory, but it cannot be carried out in practice. It is not done now with those who toil, some of whom are at
  1162
  work from 15 to 18 hours out of the 24 every day, Sunday included, and seldom have a day of rest, except, perhaps, one Sunday out of four, while many do not even get so much. Now, Sir, I am not one of those who attach little importance to the religious aspect of this question, but I believe Christianity has made us what we are as a nation, and that just in proportion as we secularize the Sunday we lessen the influence of the Christianity we profess; or, to quote the language of Count Mon-talembert—
  "There can be no religion without public worship, and there can be no public worship without a Sabbath."
  But I oppose this Motion chiefly on the ground that it would, in my opinion, be injurious to the best interests of the working classes. We must not allow ourselves to be deceived by the idea that the proposal refers only to the National Galleries and Museums. Everyone who reflects for a moment upon the subject must know perfectly well that opening a few places of the kind in London would be like a drop in a bucket. Even if people were disposed to visit them in crowds the number they could accommodate is small; but what we are asked to do is to grant the permission of the British House of Commons to break down another barrier for the preservation of our national Sunday. This will be used as a powerful lever to break down similar barriers all over the Kingdom, and the next demand will be for the repeal of the law which prohibits money payments for places of amusement open on Sundays. Now, Sir, I hold we have nothing to do with gentlemen or municipalities who throw open their public or private Galleries or Museums; but I trust this House will not, by sanctioning the opening of State-supported Institutions, set an example which would inevitably lead to the opening of almost innumerable places of amusement on Sundays, all over the Kingdom, and to a vast increase of Sunday labour of various kinds. It is all very well to say the working classes are independent and quite able to protect themselves. Sir, it is not so; there are tens of thousands who cannot protect themselves against the slavery to which they are compelled to submit, and to whom the condition described in the seven-day cabman's song is equally applicable,

  1163
  "Drive, drive, drive,
  In sunshine, frost, and rain,
  Ever to labour, yet never to thrive,
  The brand of the outcast Cain;
  Dinner and church and play,
  Rail and rout and ball,
  Till life and health are worn away,
  And never a rest at all.
  In Sabbaths I have no part,
  My part in my soul I doubt,
  A tempest is raging within my heart,
  That rivals the storm without.
  For it's drive, drive, drive,
  Till labour shall stop my breath;
  Body and mind alike diseased,
  And both at the door of death."
  Sir, whatever else might be the effect of opening additional places of amusement throughout the country, no one can doubt or deny that one result would be to increase largely the number of those who would have thus to toil. Of this the more thoughtful and better class of working men are well aware. One of their ablest leaders and advocates, Mr. Lucraft, who has been a most useful member of the School Board for London since its formation, and who was one of the candidates for the Tower Hamlets at the General Election, in answer to a question whether he would vote for opening Musuems on Sunday, is reported to have given the following answer:—
  "As to the opening of Museums on Sunday, he looked at it from purely a workman's point of view, and he should not like to work seven days instead of six. He therefore could not vote for opening Museums on Sunday."
  The answer was responded to by cheers; and I may add that Mr. Lucraft is not either a bigoted or ignorant Sabbatarian, anxious to restrict the liberty or enjoyment of working men, but a real and earnest friend, who has the perspicacity to perceive that the tendency of the course advocated by the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution is in the direction of general Sunday labour, and of seven days' work for six days' wages. Sir, Sunday is a great advantage and a great blessing to all who make a proper use of it; but it is pre-eminently so to working men. To them it is a priceless boon, a rich heritage, which, if they are wise and understand their own interests, they will not be easily induced to part with. Our great national poet has written—
  "Who steals my purse, steals trash, 'tis something, nothing;
  1164
  'Twas mine, 'tis his, and has been slave to thousands;
  But he, that filches from me my good name,
  Robs me of that, which not enriches him,
  And makes me poor indeed."
  The same language may be very appropriately applied to Sunday. The rich, who can do as they please on that day, but who, either from hatred of all that is sacred, or from a sincere, though I believe mistaken, desire to serve the poor man, filches from him his day of rest—his natural birthright—robs him of that which, if lost, makes him poor indeed. Sir, we who oppose the secularization of the Sunday are honoured occasionally with a liberal share of abuse and misrepresentation. We are accused of being ignorant, bigoted, and intolerant. Well, Sir, we can bear this with great equanimity. We believe that a very large majority of the working classes are in favour of preserving their Sunday, and we desire to assist them to the best of our ability. We do not, as has been represented, advocate either a Jewish or a Puritanical Sunday. We are well aware that there are works of necessity and mercy which must be attended to, and that there ought to be a certain amount of Christian liberty enjoyed on a day which should be the "brightest and best of all the seven," nor do we imagine it any sin to look at paintings, statuary, or other works of Art on Sunday; but we contend that the increase of labour, the increased consumption of spirituous liquors, and other evils which need not be enumerated, would far outweigh any good that might be accomplished. We also believe there never was a time when there was less necessity for opening such Institutions. Fifty or 100 years ago, when comparatively few of the working classes could read, and when the hours of labour were much longer than at present, there might have been more reason for such a step, but now, with increased educational advantages; with penny and even halfpenny papers and periodicals in abundance, containing much useful information; with the Saturday half-holiday and frequently a whole holiday on Monday; with the parks open, where pure air and exercise can be enjoyed; I hope I may soon be able to add with all Museums open three or four nights during the week, and many other advantages, we do not believe that opening Museums

  1165
  and Art Galleries on Sunday would do good to the working classes, but the contrary. I therefore feel it my duty to oppose the Motion. I fear I have already trespassed too long upon the indulgence of the House; and, thanking hon. Members for the patient hearing they have given me, I will conclude, as I did on a former occasion, in the eloquent language of Emerson, whose loss our American friends have so recently had to mourn:—
  "Two inestimable advantages Christianity has given us—first, the institution of preaching the speech of man to man; and, secondly, the Sabbath, the jubilee of the whole world, whose light dawns welcome alike into the closet of the philosopher, into the garret of toil, and into prison cells, and everywhere suggests, even to the vile, the dignity of spiritual being. Let it stand for evermore a temple, which new light, new love, and new hope shall restore to more than its first splendour to mankind."
  MR. CAINE, who had on the Paper the following Amendment to the Motion:—
  After the words "National funds," to insert the words "but such Museums and Galleries shall not be opened to the public before one o'clock on Sunday afternoons, and shall be entirely closed upon one other day of the week,"
  said, his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Howard) was willing to adopt that Amendment if the Forms of the House had permitted. With regard to the extraordinary statement by the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) that the opening of Museums and innocent places of amusement on Sunday would produce a larger consumption of ardent spirits, he desired to remind the House that it had twice affirmed the principle of the Sunday closing of public-houses; but it had not yet affirmed the principle of opening Museums, Picture Galleries, and Libraries; they were, therefore, much nearer the closing of public-houses, and if they were closed, the dangers that were feared from the increased resort to them entirely disappeared. He had studied the question in Holland as a Protestant country, and Belgium as a Catholic country; in Amsterdam and in Brussels he found the churches crowded on the Sunday morning, so that there was difficulty in getting admission to them; and later in the day he found the public places of recreation and instruction also crowded. He believed that there was absolutely nothing to fear, so far as the Christian religion was con-
  1166
  cerned, from the opening of places of instruction like public Picture Galleries. But that by no means implied the opening of places of amusement like the old Surrey Gardens or the Brighton Aquarium. He was as great a stickler as anyone for a weekly day of rest, and he would urge that that should be strictly secured for all public employés; therefore, if the Motion of the hon. Member for East Cumberland were carried, as he hoped it would be, he should move to amend it in the direction he had indicated.
  MR. SLAGGsaid, that public opinion in Manchester was very much divided; but he could affirm with the most perfect confidence that the experiment made in opening the Royal Institution Picture Gallery in that city on Sunday by a few public-spirited men had been in the highest degree satisfactory to the promoters of the movement; and, further, that those who attended on Sunday afternoons were of the classes that they most wished to see availing themselves of these opportunities, the pure artizan classes of the city. They came in such large crowds that it taxed the ingenuity and patience of the attendants to conduct them through; and it was with the greatest regret on the part of a large section of the working men that the experiment had finally to be abandoned for some reason or other. He really could not imagine how those familiar with the places and habitations of working men in large towns could possibly bring themselves to begrudge the opportunities for improvement and mental recreation such as it was the object of his hon. Friend to secure. To say that these opportunities existed on ordinary week-days was too absurd. The population of this country was very hardly worked, and they had not energy when their daily work was over to embark in such recreations. Therefore, upon grounds of the recreation of the people, of their mental culture, and of the opportunities which he thought the opening of these Institutions would give to improve their artistic, and especially and directly their commercial usefulness, he had great pleasure in supporting the Resolution. The House had, of course, introduced the dreadful bugbear of the French Sabbath. A good many things were done on the French Sabbath which he did not think were likely to be done

  1167
  in this country, and which had no relation whatever to the opening of Museums and Picture Galleries on that day. These were largely visited on the Sunday in France, Germany, Belgium, and Norway; and, from personal observation, he believed that the opportunity of visiting them on the Sunday was an unmixed advantage to the people.
  MR. ONSLOWsaid, it would be a great desecration of the day if the views of the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken were carried out. The Sunday was a day of rest, and he did not believe any good would result to the working classes if these places were open. Nay, more; he did not believe the working classes wished Museums and Picture Galleries opened on Sunday. He could confidently say, from his experience of the working classes, no great desire had ever been expressed for the Motion now before the House, and he believed the grievance complained of was purely imaginary. Nothing, he believed, would fill the public-houses more than the opening of these places. How would hon. Members like to be on their legs in the National Gallery or in the Crystal Palace for three hours without getting some refreshment; and where could people go but to the public-houses? Let no one suppose that he was in favour of closing the public-houses on Sunday. Still, to be consistent, he must tell hon. Members opposite that if they carried out their views nothing more would tend to fill the public-houses than the opening of these places of amusement, and it was only human nature that it should be so. Various pamphlets on this subject had been circulated. He had seen, but not read them. No pamphlet, either one way or another, would convince him that he was wrong in the views he held. The popular and broad view of the working classes on the question was that they were perfectly content that things should go on as at present. He objected to the proposal of the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine), because he did not desire to see a day of rest created other than the one which was recognized by the nation; and if his Amendment were carried it would be tantamount to the Legislature manufacturing another Sunday. If Museums were to be opened on Sunday, he failed to see why music halls and theatres should not be thrown
  1168
  open likewise, for surely the drama and music were just as much Fine Arts as sculpture or painting. It was for these reasons, and not because he posed as a Sabbatarian, that he should consistently, on all occasions, oppose the present and all similar Motions.
  MR. BROADHURST, who had the following Amendment on the Paper:—
  "That it is undesirable that Parliament should further promote the employment of Sunday labour by authorising the opening of the National Museums and Galleries which are now closed on that day; but that such Museums and Galleries should be open between the hours of six and ten p.m. on at least three evenings in each week,"
  said, he regretted finding himself compelled to vote against the Motion of his hon. Friend. He took that course entirely unconnected with any Society. He did it entirely in the interests of labour, with which he had been connected all his life, and on the ground that the seventh day should be kept distinct, and as fully relieved from all associations of labour as it was possible to do. He also opposed the Motion on the ground that there was no sufficient demand in the country to warrant the House adopting the Resolution submitted to them. He further opposed it on the ground that the Motion could have no effect except loosening the ties which bound them together in defence of an absolute right of having one day in seven free from all labour. Not a single speaker had attempted to contend that there was any considerable demand for the Motion. The Society which promoted its object was only able, after a month or six weeks' hard work, at enormous cost, to half fill St. James's Hall at the meeting held last Wednesday. He remembered more than 20 years ago that the subject was discussed in the lodge rooms of a trade society to which he belonged in the Metropolis. If the question were again discussed, he felt sure that it would be found that the feeling in favour of the Motion had not increased. That being so, he did not feel warranted in supporting the Motion. He wished to ask the attention of the House to the other course which he proposed. If the Museums and Picture Galleries were open from 6 to 10 on three nights a week, he was sure they would be largely frequented, and the course would meet with the general approval of the people of London. In support of that opinion,

  1169
  he would refer to the South Kensington Museum, which for 25 years past had been opened on three evenings in the week. The total number of visitors in the evening was 6,397,515, and during the first three months of the present year 126,063 had visited the Museum in the evening, as against 49,209 in the day time. These figures were, he thought, unmistakable evidence in favour of his Amendment. The argument against lighting the British Museum and the National Gallery at night had ceased to have any force. All those who had seen the magnificent electrical exhibition at the Crystal Palace would feel that in the future there need be no difficulty on the score of lighting. It was said that the working people had no opportunity of visiting the National Collections except on Sunday. If that were so, what became of the argument, so long and so successfully employed, in favour of the Saturday half-holiday and later hours on Monday? The argument was that these increased hours of leisure were required in order to enable the people to visit these Exhibitions, and avail themselves of other forms of secular enjoyment. The difference between the hon. Member for East Cumberland (Mr. G. Howard) and himself was that his hon. Friend was seeking to re-cast the social arrangements which had been in existence with regard to that matter for centuries past; whereas he himself was endeavouring to maintain the old tradition of keeping one day in seven absolutely free from labour. He was not much impressed with the argument urged on behalf of the busy City man, who went to his office about 11 in the morning, and returned fagged and worried about 3, in a condition utterly unsuitable to the enjoyment of works of Art. He was not disposed to break with old habits for the benefit of that class of society. There were other people for whose welfare he felt a deeper concern—the toiling masses of the country. The shop assistants were given their Saturday afternoons in order that they might have the opportunity of visiting these Museums and Galleries. If anyone walked through our main thoroughfares in the West End at that time, he would see that the principal shops of the district were entirely closed, and that it was desirable to promote further Saturday closings, than that Sunday openings of Museums should be con-
  1170
  sented to in order to meet the case of the shell-fish shopkeeper, who worked their white slaves from Monday morning till Saturday night without time or opportunity of recreation. It was perfectly true that if this Resolution were passed they were not likely to see it embodied in a law next week. But people, like nations, never lost their rights by a single Resolution; that was accomplished by Resolution after Resolution and concession after concession. The proposal was one innocent enough on the face of it, but fraught with the gravest and most certain danger, if not to the people now, to the children who would come after them. It had been said that this proposal would relieve public-houses. But did the skilled artizans and workpeople spend their Sunday in the public-house? No. Who were the poor neglected creatures with whom the public-house teemed on that day? Those who were the most unfortunate of the class, and who were the least skilled, and therefore the worst paid, and were, therefore, the worst housed of all our population. Was it likely that this class that loitered round the doors of the public-house, waiting for admittance, were people who were thirsting to worship exhibitions of Fine Art? The tendency, if there was any, of that Motion would be to increase enormously Sunday labour. How could it possibly be otherwise? The masses of the people who, the supporters of the Motion contended, were desirous of visiting these Museums and Galleries, lived, for the most part, in outlying districts. They must be conveyed to the City and back, and if they spent their day in the Metropolis they must be provided with some refreshment. All these things must necessarily tend to increase Sunday labour. It had been said that no general system of labour on a Sunday would be the result. But where were they going to draw the line? Once they had admitted this abstract principle, were they going to hold it fast, and prevent further encroachments? He believed no good could come of such a change. To those who lived a ceaseless life of toil, the Sunday was to them that which the cooling stream in the desert was to the weary traveller. They knew they should arrive at it; and it was one of their great hopes in life that they should, on that one day of the week, feel that all men were

  1171
  equal for 24 hours, and that they were having a foretaste, at least, of a future in which they should share with all mortals the results of a life of labour. The rich had their recesses, their periods of relaxation. The working man had nothing except this day. He asked Parliament, who had never conferred that advantage, not for one moment to attempt to take the advantage from the workpeople. The gift was anterior to Parliament. He asked them, in the name of those who toiled, to retain it, and not to play ducks and drakes with such a sacred, such a priceless gift as this which they enjoyed, and to hand down to them and those who came after them the great and priceless boon of one day of rest out of seven.
  MR. J. G. TALBOTsaid, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Broadhurst) had made an impressive—he would say a touching—speech. He was glad that, representing a constituency at the opposite pole of the social scale from that which the hon. Member represented, he had the opportunity of supporting a view which, if he (Mr. Talbot) had advocated it alone, might have been suspected of class prejudices; and he thought he was speaking, not only for himself, but for right hon. Friends who sat near him, when he said he was glad, in opposing the Motion, to feel that he was in accord with one who claimed—and he thought rightly claimed—to represent a large amount of the working-class feeling of this country. It would be an exceedingly difficult thing to arrange that persons employed on Sundays should have an equivalent holiday in the week, and there would be a great danger of their losing their holiday altogether. Too many persons were already unduly employed on Sunday; and to add to their number, as the Resolution proposed to do, seemed to be most uncalled-for and impolitic. It was said that the working classes had no opportunity of visiting Museums, &c., on week-days. That might have been true some years ago; but the number of popular holidays of late years had very much increased. Foreigners, seeing the shops closed, imagined that the English Sunday was dull; but that was an entire mistake, as anyone could see who watched the faces of the people in the streets and the Parks. If it was right to open Museums on Sundays, what
  1172
  distinction could be drawn which would exclude theatres and music halls? It would be found impossible to draw the line between them. Moreover, it must be remembered that in the foreign countries which had been spoken of, where the one set of buildings were open, the others were open also. The late Earl of Beaconsfield said that those who supposed for a moment that the change could be limited to the proposal for opening Museums and Galleries would find themselves mistaken. And the present Prime Minister wrote—
  "Believing in the authority of the Lord's Day as a religious institution, I must, as a matter of course, desire the recognition of it by others. But over and above this, I have myself, in the course of a laborious life, signally experienced both its mental and its physical benefits. I can hardly overstate its value in this view; and for the interest of the working men in this country, alike in these and in other yet higher respects, there is nothing I more anxiously desire than that they should more and more highly appreciate the Christian day of rest."
  The House would do unwisely if it allowed itself to be led by any specious arguments as to the needs of the working men to depart from a long-established custom of the country on this important subject. A day of rest was necessary for all classes, and had been handed down to us as a Divine institution, which he trusted the good sense of the House would preserve.
  MR. JESSE COLLINGSsaid, the hon. Member who had just sat down (Mr. J. G. Talbot), like most speakers upon this question, had represented the matter as if the question before the House were—whether they should be deprived of their Sunday and their Sunday's rest? Now, that was not the question before the House, because the Motion of his hon. Friend (Mr. G. Howard) was not to compel people to go into Museums or Art Galleries, but to give them an opportunity of doing so if they chose. Therefore, that consideration very much narrowed down all the remarks which had been made with regard to the desecration of the Sunday and so forth. There was, however, another argument introduced by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman asked, where were they to stop? Why not open theatres as well as the National Galleries? Well, it was a difficult question, no doubt, to say

  1173
  where they were to stop; but the question of the hon. Gentleman should have been asked when they allowed omnibuses and cabs to ply in the streets on a Sunday, and trains to run upon the Railways. The fact was that each question must be settled upon its own merits; and when the hon. Gentleman opposite asked what distinction there was between National Collections and theatres, the answer was this—it was simply sought that the working classes of the Metropolis should be allowed to visit and enjoy their own property on the only day on which they had leisure to do so. That was quite a different thing from allowing a trading and profit-making concern to take money at the door for amusement or any other purpose. He thought the hon. Member would see the great distinction that was to be drawn between the two cases. When the working classes of London, or anywhere else, asked that they should be allowed to go into the British Museum, which was their own property in their corporate capacity, it was precisely the same thing as when the hon. Gentleman opposite entered his own library or picture gallery to look at his books and pictures. The only difference was that in the one case the hon. Member was the sole proprietor, while in the other the working classes were proprietors in their corporate capacity. A pamphlet had been quoted in regard to Birmingham which he wished to refer to, because the statements which it contained were calculated very much to mislead. He would take the first paragraph which appeared in it. It stated that the attendance of visitors at the Art Gallery in Birmingham on Sunday had been altogether a failure, and that in the three years 1878, 1880, and 1881 they were considerably under 1,000 in number. As the writer of that pamphlet was well aware, just at the time he began to give his statistics, the Art Gallery of Birmingham was burned down, and what had been called the Art Gallery since was simply a little room in which pictures were stored until the Gallery could be built again. He could scarcely fancy that the gentleman who compiled these figures could have been ignorant of the number of persons who visited the Art Gallery in the three years previous to the Gallery being burnt down. The numbers quoted in the pamphlet between 1878 and 188l were 942, 749, and 594
  1174
  respectively; but in the three years previous to that date the numbers had been 41,000, 36,000, and 29,000. He, therefore, threw away the pamphlet altogether when he found an attempt of this kind being made to foist such statements upon the House in the name of information. He had always noticed in that House that whenever opinions, which were formed from actual experience, were placed before the House, that the House was always inclined to pay attention to them. He might, therefore, say that for eight years he had been Chairman of one of the largest Art Galleries out of London; and on going into the town of Birmingham on a Sunday, seeing every place dull and dismal except the public-houses, and this magnificent building—the Art Gallery—altogether shut up, it seemed to him that the closing of it was almost a crime against religion, morality, and the higher life of the town. He ventured, therefore, in 1872, to introduce a motion in the Birmingham Town Council that the Gallery should be opened on Sunday from 1 o'clock until 10. In consequence of that motion a deputation, composed of nearly every clergyman and minister of the town, waited upon the Council; and he was bound to say that the representations of the deputation were successful for a time, though the Galleries were eventually opened on Sundays. But he now joined issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) as to whether his hon. Friend had a right to speak for the working classes in this respect. He altogether disputed the right of his hon. Friend, because, when he (Mr. Collings) found it impossible to give effect to his Resolution, he sent for the leaders of the working classes in Birmingham, and said to them—"This is not my business. I have my own library, and I do not want to go to this building; but it is your property, maintained out of your taxes. Will you allow those who have no need of Free Libraries and Art Galleries to prevent your entry there?" The consequence was that in three weeks there was such a large demonstration upon the part of the working classes that the Town Council could not resist their importunity, and from that day to this the Free Library and Art Galleries had been thrown open on Sunday. He held in his hand a resolution passed by the re-

  1175
  preservatives of the Trades Council of the borough, which was as follows:—
  "That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is the duty of the Town Council to adopt that part of the Report of the Free Libraries Committee which recommends the opening of the Art Gallery and Reference Library on some part of the Sunday; that such a place of resort would be of great value, and be greatly appreciated by a large number of the inhabitants of the borough; and that, instead of lowering the morality of those who might be inclined to visit that Institution during such times, it would tend to encourage study and thoughts that would elevate the mind, raising them to the consideration of the highest subjects.—Signed, WM. GILLIVER, Secretary to the Birmingham Trades Council."
  Since that day, to his own knowledge, many men who were in the habit of spending their Sundays in the public-house had become regular visitors to the Library and Art Galleries of Birmingham, He did not advance that as an argument; but he mentioned the fact in support of their claim to the right of enjoying their own property. But what had his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), in his very interesting speech, advanced? His hon. Friend stated that "labour should accommodate itself to the traditions of the country." He did not wonder that his hon. Friend should have been cheered from the opposite side of the House, because a more Conservative and a more caste-retaining principle the strongest advocate of difference of classes could not have advanced. Another statement put forward was that Sunday labour would become general, and that the working classes would have to work seven days instead of six. But running alongside of that argument was the complaint that the working hours and working days were being lessened by the working classes themselves. Surely the danger could not exist in both directions; and so far as the statement of his hon. Friend, that no skilled labourer would go into a public-house, was concerned, he could state as a fact that that was not so. He knew many persons of that class personally, and he had received the thanks of their families, because whereas, at one time, in default of any other provision, they spent their Sunday in the public-houses, they were now regular visitors to the Free Library and Art Galleries. What was it that his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) contended? He contended that the rich
  1176
  man ought to enjoy his property as much as he chose, but that the working classes should not have an opportunity of enjoying theirs. If a man were able to subscribe one guinea a-year to the Zoological Gardens, or the Grosvenor Gallery, or other places of resort, the sin disappeared, because respectability and wealth entered in; but to see the workman, with his wife and family, going into an Institution which belonged to them in their corporate capacity, in order to enjoy themselves on a Sunday afternoon, seemed, in the eyes of some persons, to be a crime, and must not be allowed. They were frequently talking in that House about the alleviation of the condition of the working classes; but it was of no use going down and preaching to them about bettering their position, because, unless it could be shown that they would be happy in their present position, their mission would be a failure. Everyone could not rise in the social scale, and the object of the House should be to bring enjoyment to the people in the class amid which they dwelt. What was there at present to make their homes happy? First of all there was education. That the Legislature was giving to them. There were only three things the possession of which could give permanent enjoyment, and that was the opportunity of enjoying and the power of appreciating matters connected with art, literature, and science. These were the only things worth caring for, and an opportunity should be given for the artizans to enjoy them. How were they to get over the difficulty of providing them? They got over it by the Communistic principle of taxing the people for the benefit of the many. It was quite evident that every working man could not possess pictures or a library. He had neither a house to put them in, or money to buy them with; but he could enjoy them to the same extent as a private individual as a member of a Corporation. Every man in London, in his corporate capacity, possessed pictures in the National Gallery as good, or better, than any private gentleman in that Assembly, or in any other. The question, then, was, were they going, by their vote that night, to shut him out from an enjoyment which every hon. Member of that House possessed every Sunday of his life? He believed, if a vote upon this question

  1177
  could be taken by ballot, that his hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. G. Howard) would carry his Motion by a considerable majority. But what stood in the way of the question was the amount of Sabbatarianism that existed in the community. That Sabbatarianism turned questions of this kind into the narrowest of issues—and issues that were not contained in the Motion of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had delivered a speech against the Motion. He (Mr. Collings) knew Guildford very well, but he did not think that a Free Library or a Museum existed there. Therefore, what he would say to the hon. Member was—" First catch your hare—first get your Library and Museum, and take away from Guildford the reproach of having no such Institutions, then it will be quite time enough to speak about the opening of them." He had referred to the opposition which was made at first to the opening of the Museums and Free Libraries at Birmingham. At the present moment, after an experience of nine years, he believed that if they were to appeal to the ministers of religion—including the clergymen of the Established Church and the ministers of other denominations—they would find no very considerable number in favour of closing either the Libraries or Art Galleries. None of the fears that were at first expressed had been realized; but more than the hopes they had expressed had been found to be true, and he had had ministers coming to him within the last year or two to say, candidly—"We were wrong in our fears in regard to that movement. We see now that it was a movement in the direction of morality, and that it was for the best interests of the borough that these Libraries and Art Galleries should be thrown open." He held in his hand the titles of the books which, in the course of a year, had been read on Sunday in the Libraries. In one Library alone there had been 22,000 volumes read on Sundays in the course of a single year. The list was headed by "History, biography, and voyages." Then came "Poetry and the drama," followed by "Art and Science." He was bound to say that the lowest on the list, with one exception, was "Theology," and the exception was "Works for the blind," which stood lowest of all. He
  1178
  might say also that in respect of the Petitions which had been signed against the opening of the Libraries, Museums, and Art Galleries, that in Birmingham they had a Petition presented signed by 15,000 persons. He took the trouble to inquire what the nature of the Petition was, and he found that 80 per cent of the signatures were those of Sunday school children appended to the Petition at the instance of their teachers. Now, he did not like that; it took away something from his faith in the reality of the opposition. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) said there was no demand for the opening of Museums and Art Galleries. His contention was that there was a demand, and if there were none, then it was their business to create one. When they could get the people to make an earnest, active, and outspoken demand for art and literature they might rest assured that many of the social problems, which now gave them such great difficulty, would be solved for the future. For these reasons he desired to create a demand for the study of art and the enjoyment of literature. One thing he knew quite well, that if they opened Art Galleries the people would visit them in increasing numbers. He had stood in the Birmingham Gallery on a Sunday afternoon for hours together, and he had seen the working men, with their wives and children, looking at the pictures exhibited there, and passing their little criticisms upon them; and he knew very well that their visit would be the subject of conversation in the family circle, perhaps, every day, at every meal, during the week. He did not know anything about the trades in London; but he did know that London was a very demoralized place, generally speaking, and he dare say that they were less advanced than the trades in the country. It was absurd to say that working men would not go into Art Galleries in order to enjoy pictures they would see there. Unfortunately, the working man had no opportunity at present. He had to get up at 6 or 7 o'clock in the morning; his work during the day kept him constantly employed often until 7 or 8 at night; and what time had he for going to Art Galleries or Libraries? If he had no taste at present for the enjoyment of art and literature, the reason was that a taste

  1179
  for them had never been developed in him. His hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) said he wanted to keep Sunday wholly distinct from the every-day employment of the working man. What could there be more distinct than the enjoyment which the supporters of the present Motion were contemplating for them, in relieving them from the association of employments which were sometimes degrading and often enervating? He repeated that the question was not one of forcing the people into Libraries and Art Galleries, but simply of giving them the opportunity of entering such Institutions. He was quite sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would commit a great mistake if they persisted in continually placing difficulties in the way of proposals such as that now before the House, and in overlooking the demoralizing enjoyments which existed. By so doing, he contended that they did more than anything else towards debarring the working man from making progress towards that higher life of the nation which they all ought to enjoy.
  SIR WILFRID LAWSONsaid, he was sorry to stand in the way of his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella); but he would not detain the House for any length of time. For his part, he thanked his hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. G. Howard) for having brought the question before the House; because, however the division might go, he thought the House would agree with him so far, that they had had a very interesting discussion, and a discussion which had been illustrated by the very able and eloquent speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), although a good many things had been said which were scarcely apropos of the Motion of his hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow), for instance, said that if Museums were opened on Sundays they might just as well open the opera houses and the theatres; but the hon. Member did not seem to remember that the two cases stood on quite a different footing. Operas and theatres were not supported by public money. That made all the difference; and the only reason they had any right to discuss the opening of these Museums in that House was because they were supported by the national funds; and the House of Com-
  1180
  mons had the disposal of the national funds. For his part, he did not think it was either wise or just that they should dispose of the national funds in the interests and according to the views of one particular sect, and not according to the interests of the whole nation. The idea that they ought to promote certain religious views in that House seemed to him to be a mistake. He thought it was John Stuart Mill who said that a very large portion of the evils that exist in this world arose from the idea that one man was responsible for another man's religion. Keeping that maxim in view, he was inclined to support the Motion of his hon. Friend. He did not see why those people who were the advocates of Sabbatarianism should overrule the rest of the nation. He admitted their sincerity, although they went to extremes. He remembered being told that one of these Sabbatarians, teaching in a Sunday school, once said to a boy—" Beware of the beginning of sin; many a man has commenced with murder, and ended with Sabbath-breaking." One reason why he was in favour of the proposition of his hon. Friend was that the proposal of his hon. Friend was, in point of fact, a permissive Bill. They talked about the impropriety of going into these places on a Sunday; nobody was forced to go. His hon. Friend only wished to give permission to those people who desired to improve themselves by going into these places. His hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) was not compelled to go. He might stop at home and read a good book, and accompany himself with a hymn if he liked. His hon. Friend was one of the strongest advocates in that House for keeping the public-houses open on Sunday, and yet he would shut up these Museums, which certainly did no harm if they did no good. It appeared to him that some persons seemed to think the established religion in this country was the worship of Bacchus. His hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland (Mr. G. Howard) brought the Motion forward in order that the power of Bacchus might be somewhat diminished. They had heard a good deal about these public-houses. If the present system continued, and all the public-houses were kept open, then his hon. Friend's proposition was all the more desirable, because they wished to

  1181
  induce the people to go somewhere else. All of them desired to draw the working man away from the fascinations and temptations of the public-house. Therefore, on that ground, the proposition of his hon. Friend was right. On the other hand, if they shut up the public-houses on Sunday, and there were Bills now before the House for that purpose, the working men would have nowhere else to go, and it became still more important to open the Museums. The most able speech delivered that night against the Motion was the speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst). He had been proud to hear it. He was proud to think that one who was called a working man's Representative could speak in that great Assembly with such ability. But he was not sure he could say that the speech of his hon. Friend had convinced him. His hon. Friend was very cautious in his statements. He did not give any authoritative statement of what the opinion of the great mass of the working men was. His hon. Friend knew too much for that; and he was told on good authority that the working men, through their unions, which was the authoritative mode of expressing their collective opinion, had never yet expressed an opinion, one way or the other, on this great question. There was another question on which his hon. Friend was also cautious. He said nothing about the opinions of his own constituency. At Stoke they had one of these places open. Why did he not say that the men of Stoke felt great evil from it, and desired to have it shut. His hon. Friend did not say that, and hence he presumed that he was unable to do so. His hon. Friend was eloquent, denunciatory, and declamatory; but he did not prove anything. He did not prove that working men would be a penny the worse for going to one of these places. And why should he be worse? Were they the worse? He saw plenty of rich men in that House. It was a House full of rich men. They had their picture galleries, and he dared say that they spent their time in them on Sunday afternoon. What worse were they for it? It had always seemed to him, ever since he had been able to consider the question at all, that the very meanest and most contemptible thing they did was that throughout the whole of their public
  1182
  life the rich men went and enjoyed these things, and yet they would not let the poor man enjoy the things which he himself had paid for. They prevented the poor man, who paid taxes for the support of these Institutions, from visiting them on the only day on which he had an opportunity of doing so. The hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) talked about robbing the poor man of his Sunday. He (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) almost fancied that he was at a Licensed Victuallers' dinner, hearing them talk, again, about "robbing a poor man of his beer." It was the hon. Member who wanted to prevent the poor man from making a good use of the Sunday, and who drove him into the public-house. He did not think the working man had anything to thank the hon. Member for. He thought he might rather feel inclined to say, "Save me from my friends." He did not want to put that matter too high, but he said that if that Motion and the policy of his hon. Friend were carried out the very greatest blessing would be conferred upon the country. He did not mean to say that going to see stuffed specimens of natural history was the highest pitch of refined and intellectual culture that could be found in the country; but what he did say was that it was better to go to Institutions in which such things were to be seen than to go to those abominable places which the law freely opened for their admission now. His hon. Friend the Member for Leicester (Mr. A. M'Arthur) had quoted Emerson in his favour. He should not have done so, and he would not if he had known what he was about, because Emerson was a member of a Sunday Society. They had been told that the adoption of his hon. Friend's Motion would open a door to irreligion and immorality. Did the hon. Member know what had occurred in America—and America, at least, was as religious as they were—["No!"]—and that was not saying very much. The Americans were, at least, as moral and religious as they were; and he was informed that the whole of their Institutions which were paid for by the public money were kept open on Sunday for the use of the working man. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No; it varies in different States.] His right hon. Friend said the practice varied in different States. He was glad that his right hon. Friend ad-

  1183
  mitted so much., because he believed that his right hon. Friend was about to get up and declare that he had no sympathy with the Motion. [Mr. MUNDELLA: No!] He was wrong again, and he was informed that his right hon. Friend was in favour of the Motion. Therefore he thought he had better sit down at once, in the hope of hearing his right hon. Friend adduce much better arguments in favour of the Motion than he was able to do. He would only say, as he said in the beginning, that it was grossly unfair that the public money should not be spent in favour of the whole body of the community; and on that ground he sincerely trusted that his hon. Friend would succeed that night in carrying his Motion, and in putting things upon a better footing in future.
  MR. STUART-WORTLEYsaid, he would not have interposed at that late hour if it were not for the fact that an hon. Member who had spoken from that side of the House asserted that if they consented to the opening of Museums on Sunday they would next be called upon to open the theatres and music halls. Now, for some time past he had taken part in a Society whose object was to give concerts to the working classes. Some of them had been given on the Sunday, with the co-operation and assistance of clergymen of the Established Church. He cited the fact, in spite of the proposition put forth in the eloquent speech of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), in order to show that the working men of the country were really anxious to avail themselves of the opportunity of refining their mind and cultivating their taste by the enjoyment of the highest class of music. As he had said, these concerts were given on the Sunday, and they were attended in large numbers by working men, who evidently took the greatest pleasure in them. At one of them he had observed that the faces of the audience were of that patient, contemplative cast which seemed to indicate rather the student than the artizan. Mentioning the fact to a friend, he added that almost the entire audience wore spectacles. "Then that," said his friend, "shows that you do not know much of the neighbourhood, because the spectacles prove that they are principally printers and bootmakers." It, however, established two things—first, that
  1184
  there was a great desire for Art among the working classes, in whatever form it could be obtained; and, secondly, that if it was presented to them on the Sunday they were only too glad to have it. He thought the fact he had mentioned went far towards disposing of the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), that because the dissolute frequenters of the public-houses were not likely to find their way into the Museums, the Museums should therefore be kept closed on Sunday. Their great difficulty at present was a deficiency of information as to the real wishes and feelings of the working classes. The Motion had stood some time upon the Books of the House; but, since Easter, there had not come a single Petition upon either side of the question from his own constituency. They had the negative proof on one side of the question that in certain towns where the Town Council might open these Museums they did not do so. In a few towns they did, for the degree of taste for Art exhibited by the working classes in different towns varied considerably. In Manchester, as was well known, greater taste for Art existed than, perhaps, anywhere else in the Kingdom out of London; and there, he believed, the feeling was strongly in favour of throwing these Institutions open on Sunday. He intended to vote for the Motion; but he thought it ought to be qualified to the full extent by the Amendment placed on the Paper by the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine). He did not think the public Galleries and Museums ought to be thrown open on Sunday until 1 o'clock in the afternoon, and they ought not to be kept open to a very late hour in the evening. In giving his vote for the Motion, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he did so from no desire that Parliament should enforce the Sunday opening of Museums by legislative provisions, against the clearly expressed wish of the working classes. He recorded his vote merely as the expression of his individual opinion, formed in consequence of the personal experience he had gained while endeavouring to provide the means of gratifying the musical taste of the working classes.
  MR. MUNDELLA: Sir, I can only say, at the outset of my remarks, that

  1185
  one of the ablest advocates of the movement which is the basis of the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for East Cumberland—I refer to the late Dean Stanley—has said that the observance of Sunday, more than any other question of a religious character, touches the heart and conscience of the whole community, and that to many on the right hand and on the left it is as the apple of the eye in the domains of conscience. And in his address upon the Sunday Question he enlarged upon the importance of the continuance of Sunday as a day of rest. Again, Dean Stanley, who, I am sure, believed that he was not doing anything which would endanger this observance of Sunday as a day of rest, said—
  "I presume we shall have to consider the best mode of using what, certainly, is one of the greatest institutions which this country possesses for the religious and moral elevation of the people."
  Sir, I am bound to say that in some of the speeches to which we have listened to-night, Sunday has not been treated as one of the religious and moral institutions of the country. On the contrary, having regard to the National sentiment on the question, some of those speeches, I think, have betrayed too much of levity, not to say ridicule. Now, Dean Stanley says also that—
  "This is a question which must, after all, be decided by public opinion."
  My hon. Friend says that the Museums and Picture Galleries referred to are National Institutions, and that every partner in them has the right to go to them on Sunday. But that does not follow, because it is for the majority of the partners in these Institutions to decide whether they should be open on Sunday. Now, his hon. Friend had doubted whether he should be supported by the Scotch Members, many of whom, he said, had asked him whether he intended to open the Scotch Museums on Sundays, and his reply to them was—"If you give us your support for England, I shall not object to your taking Scotland out of the operation of the Resolution, in case Scotch opinion should be against it." But, Sir, that is admitting the whole case, because it is an acknowledgment that the question is one which must be decided by public opinion. When you have once admitted that, the next thing is to endeavour to ascertain what
  1186
  is the public sentiment on the question. Now, looking at the matter on both sides, there are some who maintain that the working classes of the country are in favour of this movement; on the other hand, there are those who maintain they are against it. But we have the most incontrovertible evidence as to what is the opinion of the country on this question in the fact that there are 154 Museums in the United Kingdom, the greater part of which belong to the Municipalities of our large towns, and that out of these only four are open on Sundays. It is said that this arises from want of appreciation on the part of the working classes. But I do not believe it. The town of Nottingham has done more for Art, and shown a higher appreciation of Art, than any town in England; it has obtained a special Act of Parliament that it might tax itself highly to support its Museum, and it has one of the finest and best furnished Museums in England, standing on the site of its ancient Castle. That Museum has been the cause of some contention as to whether it should be open on Sunday or not; and at the last Election the question was decisively settled by the rejection of those candidates who voted for the opening of the Museum on that day. An hon. Member behind me cries "Shame!" but I am only indicating what is the public feeling upon this question in Nottingham. I do not say whether that public feeling was rightly or wrongly expressed; but I say, inasmuch as it is the public sentiment of the town, we are bound to respect it. But, I say, further, that the question was not decided by Sabbatarians, as they are called; it was decided, as I am informed, by the Town Clerk, by the working men of the town, who were apprehensive that if they once began the system of opening Museums on Sunday, some other consequences would follow, and that by slow degrees, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) describes it, the complete day of rest, which we all enjoy, and which nobody enjoy and require more than the Members of this House, will be taken away. That fact is certainly illustrative of public opinion on this matter. With regard to what my hon. Colleague (Mr. Stuart-Wortley) has said, no doubt he has done good service in discoursing beautiful music to the working classes on Sunday; but I

  1187
  find that they enjoy beautiful music in other places besides concert rooms. They enjoy it in Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's, and wherever they have an opportunity of listening to it; and it is not to be supposed that those who care about this question are the only portion of the class who enjoy Art, whether musical or pictorial. Indeed, the working classes were learning to enjoy it more and more, and I say there is nothing which has done so much to promote their enjoyment of it as the Saturday half-holiday, which has been instituted in this country for that purpose. An hon. Member has pointed out in the course of this discussion that we are the only nation in the world which has the Saturday half-holiday, with the exception of America, and that opportunity is made good use of by the working classes to visit the Museums, which are in consequence crowded to suffocation. Then, in addition to this, there are the Bank holidays, for which we are so much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Sir John Lubbock), and which gives further opportunities to the working classes to visit the Museums. But what are the National Museums which my hon. Friend alludes to as among those which it is desirable to open on Sunday? He speaks of the Hampton Court Gallery. But, Sir, people go to Hampton Court to breathe the fresh air, and to enjoy the country fields. It is not for indoor, but outdoor, enjoyment; and I repeat that it is not the pictures that the working classes want, but fresh air, social enjoyment, and rest. There is nothing in the world, according to my experience, so fatiguing as visiting Picture Galleries and Museums. I am convinced that it is rest that the working man requires who has to work all the week; and I say he is fairly entitled to it on Sunday. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst) suggests that the proper way to meet the demand for opening Museums and Galleries would be to open them between the hours of 6 and 10 p.m., for at least three evenings in the week; while the hon. Member for Scarborough (Mr. Caine) suggests that they should be opened on Sunday evenings for four or five hours, and closed for one entire day during the week. This last proposal, I must say, would be impracticable;
  1188
  it would cause the greatest possible disappointment to many persons, because you have people coming to London from all parts of the world, who want to see our National Museums; and would be greatly disappointed if they had to go away without doing so. However carefully you select the day on which the Museums are to be closed, you cannot fail to cause great inconvenience to many thousands of visitors. Now, with regard to the other alternative of the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. Broadhurst), who suggests that all Museums should be open from 6 to 10 o'clock on three days of the week, I think that is a sensible and proper idea. I must not speak of the British Museum or National Gallery in the presence of the Trustees; but I think that those who saw the Royal Academy lighted up by electricity on the opening night—when each picture, with all its colours, was as distinctly visible as at mid-day—will agree that the electric light will enable us to light up our Museums with perfect safety. What is the case with South Kensington Museum? It has been open for 25 years, and during the whole of that time it has never been closed for a single day—not even for the purpose of cleaning. A careful account has been kept of the number of persons who have visited it between the hours of 10 and 6 in the daytime, and also from 6 to 10 in the evening, and this account shows that 14,000,000 of persons have visited the Museum in the daytime, and 7,000,000 in the evening, between the hours named, which latter would have been shut out if those hours had not been adopted. This shows the advantage of availing ourselves of the opportunities afforded by the electric light. I am speaking before some of the Trustees of the National Museums, and I say with these facilities there is no reason why our Museums should not be open every day of the week for 12 hours of the day. For my own part, I do not believe that the working classes of this country are in favour of opening our Museums on Sunday; and, probably, there is no better illustration of that than is afforded by the town which I myself represent. When the franchise was extended to the working classes, the number of electors in that town rose from 10,000 to 40,000. There is now a beautiful Museum in Sheffield, as well as a central Free

  1189
  Library; but I have never been asked by my constituents to promote Sunday opening, although they are constantly making demands to give the postmen more rest on Sunday. The fact is, their desire is to maintain Sunday as a day of perfect rest—a most enjoyable day, and the greatest blessing to all, as it is at present. In the speech which Lord Macaulay made on the Ten Hours Bill, he described, in suitable language, the advantages which England derived from the maintenance of her Sundays as a day of repose from toil. I hope the English Sunday will long retain that character; but if we are to secure that result, it can only be attained by mutual concession—each class giving up something which may be both enjoyable and innocent for the common benefit. In this way many persons abstain from using their horses and carriages on Sunday, because they recognize the desirability of making some concession to man and beast. They do not say it is undesirable to take a drive on Sunday, but they consider it desirable to minimize labour on that day. Again, we see that the 4,000,000 persons who dwell in the Metropolis are content to be deprived on Sunday of all correspondence with their friends and relatives in order that the postman might not be trudged to death. And we are not much the worse for it. I remember, when first I came to London, I was much inconvenienced by the want of letters; but my views upon that subject have changed, and I am now very thankful that no letters come to me on Sunday. I will conclude my remarks by saying that until the National sentiment has so far completely altered as to make Sunday a day of recreation and amusement rather than a day of perfect rest—speaking for myself only—I hold it to be the duty of the Government not to open our National Institutions on Sunday.
  MR. ECROYDsaid, he could not pass from this subject without expressing, in a few words, the views of his constituents, and especially those of them who belonged to the working classes. During the last 35 years a great advance had taken place in their condition. Their thirst for knowledge had increased with the leisure which had resulted to them from wise legislation; and it was precisely those members of the working
  1190
  community, who had come under the influence of this elevating change, whose sentiment as to the necessity of observing the Sabbath as a day of rest was most firmly established. No one who came much into contact with them could have the smallest doubt as to what was the prevailing opinion in their minds upon this subject. It was not that they undervalued what was presented to their view in these public Institutions, but they felt that the Sabbath was not the day on which the pleasures of National Museums and Galleries should be enjoyed; they appreciated what they saw in the Museums, but they insisted none the less that the precious privilege of one complete and unbroken day of rest should not be in the slightest degree invaded.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 208; Noes 83: Majority 125.—(Div. List, No. 88.)
  Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICES AND REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  MR. COURTNEYasked for a Vote of Credit of £2,137,750 for the Civil Service and Revenue Departments. A Vote on Account for two months was passed early in the Session. Those two months had now nearly expired, and it was necessary for the Public Service that another Vote be granted.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a further sum, not exceeding £2,137,750, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883, viz.:—

  CIVIL SERVICES.
  CLASS I.—PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDINGS.

  Great Britain:—

  £

  Houses of Parliament

  4,000

  Monument to Earl of Beaconsfield (Re-Vote)

  Public Buildings

  15,000

  Furniture of Public Offices

  1,000

  Revenue Department Buildings

  20,000

  County Court Buildings

  4,000

  Metropolitan Police Courts

  1,000

  £

  Sheriff Court Houses, Scotland

  New Courts of Justice, &c.

  10,000

  Surveys of the United Kingdom

  25,000

  Science and Art Department Buildings

  2,000

  British Museum Buildings

  1,000

  Natural History Museum

  4,000

  Harbours, &c. under Board of Trade

  1,000

  Rates on Government Property (Great Britain and Ireland)

  50,000

  Metropolitan Fire Brigade

  Ireland:—

  Public Buildings

  20,000

  Science and Art Buildings, Dublin

  1,000

  Shannon Navigation

  500

  Abroad:—

  Lighthouses Abroad

  1,000

  Diplomatic and Consular Buildings

  2,000

  CLASS II.—SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF CIVIL DEPARTMENTS.

  England:—

  £

  House of Lords, Offices

  3,000

  House of Commons, Offices

  4,000

  Treasury, including Parliamentary Counsel

  5,000

  Home Office and Subordinate Departments

  7,000

  Foreign Office

  6,000

  Colonial Office

  4,000

  Privy Council Office and Subordinate Departments

  3,000

  Privy Seal Office

  500

  Board of Trade and Subordinate Departments

  15,000

  Charity Commission (including Endowed Schools Department)

  3,000

  Civil Service Commission

  3,000

  Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commission

  2,000

  Inclosure and Drainage Acts Expenses

  500

  Exchequer and Audit Department

  5,000

  Friendly Societies, Registry

  600

  Local Government Board

  10,000

  Lunacy Commission

  1,000

  Mint (including Coinage)

  10,000

  National Debt Office

  2,000

  Patent Office

  2,500

  Paymaster General's Office

  2,000

  Public Works Loan Commission

  1,000

  Record Office

  2,000

  Registrar General's Office

  6,000

  Stationery and Printing

  44,000

  Woods, Forests, &c., Office of

  2,000

  Works and Public Buildings, Office of

  4,000

  Secret Service

  3,000

  Scotland:—

  Exchequer and other Offices

  1,000

  Fishery Board

  2,000

  Lunacy Commission

  500

  Registrar General's Office

  500

  Board of Supervision

  1,000

  Ireland:—

  Lord Lieutenant's Household

  1,000

  Chief Secretary's Office

  3,500

  Charitable Donations and Bequests Office

  300

  CLASS III.—LAW AND JUSTICE.

  England:—

  £

  Law Charges

  10,000

  Public Prosecutor's Office

  600

  Criminal Prosecutions

  26,000

  Chancery Division, High Court of Justice

  20,000

  Central Office of the Supreme Court, &c.

  10,000

  Probate, &c. Registries, High Court of Justice

  10,000

  Admiralty Registry, High Court of Justice

  2,000

  Wreck Commission

  1,000

  Bankruptcy Court (London)

  5,000

  County Courts

  30,000

  Land Registry

  500

  Revising Barristers, England

  Police Courts (London and Sheerness)

  4,000

  Metropolitan Police

  50,000

  County and Borough Police, Great Britain

  1,000

  Convict Establishments in England and the Colonies

  20,000

  Prisons, England

  40,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools, Great Britain

  35,000

  Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  2,500

  Scotland:—

  Lord Advocate, and Criminal Proceedings

  10,000

  Courts of Law and Justice

  10,000

  Register House Departments

  3,000

  Prisons, Scotland

  10,000

  Ireland:—

  Law Charges and Criminal Prosecutions

  30,000

  Supreme Court of Judicature

  10,000

  Court of Bankruptcy

  1,000

  Admiralty Court Registry

  250

  Registry of Deeds

  2,000

  Registry of Judgments

  300

  Land Commission

  5,000

  County Court Officers, &c.

  10,000

  Dublin Metropolitan Police (including Police Courts)

  20,000

  Constabulary

  100,000

  Prisons, Ireland

  10,000

  Reformatory and Industrial Schools

  20,000

  Dundrum Criminal Lunatic Asylum

  500

  CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.

  England:—

  £

  Science and Art Department

  30,000

  British Museum

  15,000

  National Gallery

  3,500

  National Portrait Gallery

  300

  Learned Societies, &c.

  3,500

  London University

  2,000

  CLASS V.—FOREIGN AND COLONIAL SERVICES.

  £

  Diplomatic Services

  30,000

  Consular Services

  40,000

  Suppression of the Slave Trade

  500

  Tonnage Bounties, &c.

  2,000

  Suez Canal (British Directors)

  200

  Colonies, Grants in Aid

  2,000

  South Africa and St. Helena

  2,000

  Subsidies to Telegraph Companies

  9,000

  CLASS VI.—NON-EFFECTIVE AND CHARITABLE SERVICES.

  £

  Superannuation and Retired Allowances

  100,000

  Merchant Seamen's Fund Pensions, &c.

  6,000

  Relief of Distressed British Seamen Abroad

  2,000

  Pauper Lunatics, England

  1,000

  Pauper Lunatics, Scotland

  20,000

  Pauper Lunatics, Ireland

  10,000

  Hospitals and Infirmaries, Ireland

  2,000

  Friendly Societies Deficiency

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Great Britain

  200

  Miscellaneous Charitable and other Allowances, Ireland

  200

  CLASS VII.—MISCELLANEOUS.

  £

  Temporary Commissions

  3,000

  Miscellaneous Expenses

  500

  Total for Civil Services

  £1,277,750

  REVENUE DEPARTMENTS.

  £

  Customs

  60,000

  Inland Revenue

  100,000

  Post Office

  400,000

  Post Office Packet Service

  100,000

  Post Office Telegraphs

  200,000

  Total for Revenue Departments

  £860,000

  Grand Total

  £2,137,750

  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he did not wish to take exception on the present occasion to the Vote on Account. He was perfectly well aware that it was necessary, from time to time, in the course of a Session, to provide the Exchequer with the means of carrying on the Service of the country; and, no doubt, there had been reasons which had, in the present Session, rendered it difficult for the Government to take Supply. He would only say that hon. Gentlemen who used to be critical on the conduct of their Predecessors when they had occasion to ask for a Vote on Account would bear in mind that there had been reasons in former years similar to those reasons which now existed. As he understood, the Government asked for a Vote of Credit for a month, and, under the circumstances, that was not an unreasonable request; they knew they had Business which it was most important they should get through. He was anxious to facilitate the progress of Business, and he hoped the Committee would assent to the present proposal.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he thought Supply was in a much better condition now than it was at this time last year, and with this system of constantly voting sums on account it was impossible to get anything like a discussion on the Estimates, and when at the end of the Session every Member was tired out the balance was taken without any discussion. How could they expect to get anything like a thorough and proper discussion if this system was to be allowed? The hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had twitted hon. Members below the Gangway with negligence in criticizing the Estimates, and was at some pains to rebut the accusations made; but the hon. Member, although one of the most constant in attendance in the House, was not present to-night, and it was unreasonable to expect men to be there at 1 o'clock on Saturday morning to discuss the Estimates. He thought the Committee had reason to complain at being called upon at the end of this night's debate to vote sums of between £2,000,000 and £3,000,000 without discussion, as must be the case now. It would probably be found that the Government could dispense with any further Vote until nearly the end of the Session, and then the House would be unable to give that

  1195
  amount of criticism to the Estimates which the Prime Minister had over and over again advocated. Under these circumstances, he thought the Committee might enter a general protest against this Vote. But there were certain items in this Vote which they might specifically protest against, and there was one against which he should protest on every occasion. That was the Vote for Secret Service. The Prime Minister had stated that this Fund was decreasing year by year, and had expressed his desire to see it disposed of. The Government had £10,000 for the Secret Service alone from the Consolidated Fund, and it was impossible that they could require £3,000 more for one month. He would not detain the Committee any further; but he should challenge this item.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he wished to ask, with regard to the Stipendiary Magistrates in Ireland, whether the Government could form any idea of the number of those gentlemen, and the amount paid to them? There was a strong feeling with respect to Mr. Baillie Hamilton, who had been appointed a Resident Magistrate, and had boasted that he was to have £2,000 a-year. That was the gentleman who had given instructions to Mr. Clifford Lloyd to tear down the placard issued by Messrs. Parnell, Davitt, and Dillon, asking the people of Ireland to discover the murderers of Lord Frederick Cavendish. Was that gentleman to be one of the new Stipendiary Magistrates; how many were there to be, and what would their salaries be? He would also like to know whether the Judges were to receive salaries under this Act, and, if so, to what amount?
  MR. GLADSTONE: With respect to the Judges, there is a provision in the Bill which has been read a second time this evening. With regard to the Stipendiary Magistrates, the hon. Member's information goes further than mine. I am not aware that any definite resolution has been taken with regard to the new Stipendiary Magistrates; but still it is possible that we may have some statement to make to the House upon that subject. At any rate, the House will feel that the importance of the duties to which the House may be pleased to appoint these Stipendiary Magistrates is such that some new provision will be required, because, undoubtedly, if there is to be any decision to in trust them
  1196
  with greater powers, it will be necessary to consider, as has already been stated by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary, what further provision should be made for the exercise of those powers. I am not in a position to make any statement on the subject at the present moment, and I rather think the statement of the hon. Member is premature. With respect to the remarks of the hon. Member (Mr. A. O'Connor) as to taking Votes on Account, the old system which enabled us to go from one financial year to another is not now practicable, and Votes on Account have now become absolutely necessary. I consider this matter an open question for the House to consider; but it ought to be perfectly understood that although I would not say the system of Votes on Account is altogether favour able to full discussion by the House, I think it has some points to recommend it. The hon. Member rather overstated the case when he said the House will have no opportunity of discussing the Estimates until the end of the Session, because the two Votes on Account will not take effect till the end of June; consequently, there will be the whole month of June—and I am afraid something more—in which to discuss them.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSSsaid, last year he had offered strong opposition to Votes on Account; but on this occasion he entirely agreed with the Prime Minister, although he hoped it would not be taken as a precedent that because they had taken Votes on Account in two years, therefore Votes on Account might always be taken, and that the Minister of the day should be able to put off discussion upon them simply to pass ordinary Bills.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he could not quite understand the Prime Minister when he said these Votes on Account had become a necessity, because it seemed to him that if the Government would only so arrange their Business as to be able to bring forward their Estimates in good time at the early part of the Session they might obviate this necessity. It was all very well to say that the Committee would have an opportunity of discussing these matters fully when the proper Estimates came on. That might, perhaps, be a sufficient answer to Members representing English constituencies, and who had not the same

  1197
  grievances as Irish Members to bring before the Committee on the consideration of the Estimates; but they were asked to vote sums on account for various Services in Ireland, and these Votes were used in support of an Administration in Ireland which was in every Department characterized by cruelty, and what he might even call brutality. They were asked to vote this money for the balance of the Secret Service Fund, and for Criminal Prosecutions. He should be willing to postpone to a future date the consideration of their grievances, if it were not that in the meantime men were suffering terrible injustice in Ireland. Under the head of Constabulary and Public Prosecutions in Ireland, money was asked in support of a system carried out by proceeding against people under obsolete Statutes—one of the time of Edward III. for instance—without any evidence to prove that they had been guilty of crime. Under these circumstances, he thought it was their duty to protest against the allocation of money to those purposes.
  MR. HEALYwished to ask the Government whether, before the Bill at present before the House came on in Committee, or before it left Committee, they would be able to state what amount would come in course of payment in consequence of this new legislation? There was a provision in the Bill as to Judges, and he should like to know what was to be done for the Stipendiary Magistrates? The Attorney General for Ireland made a pledge the other day that the question of the prisoners in confinement would be reconsidered; but there were other gentlemen than the three "suspects" who had been released from Kilmainham a fortnight ago, who were not more guilty than those three Gentlemen, but were still in prison. The Secretary of the Land League, Mr. Brennan, was still in prison.
  MR. CHAIRMAN: Questions do not come into this Vote respecting Stipendiary Magistrates. They do not come under this account at all, and the other point to which the hon. Member refers is quite outside the Question before the Committee.
  MR. HEALYsaid, he had disposed of the first question; but under the head of "Prisoners (Ireland)" there was an item of £150,704, and he presumed he might discuss prisoners; and, if so, he pre-
  1198
  sumed he could discuss the case of a particular prisoner; and he respectfully submitted that he was not out of Order in asking a question respecting Mr. Brennan. His question was whether, in reference to the continued confinement of that gentleman, the Attorney General for Ireland could afford the Committee any information as to the probable course the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and the Chief Secretary would take in that case, especially as Davit had been released?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant has devoted a considerable amount of consideration, among his multifarious duties, to the examination of the case of some of these persons; and many of them, as any hon. Member can see for himself in the daily papers, have been released. The case of each one is examined carefully by the Lord Lieutenant himself; and I am sure there will be no unnecessary delay in examining into the case of Mr. Brennan.
  MR. REDMONDasked whether the cases of persons detained under the Statute of Edward III. were also being examined by the Lord Lieutenant?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): His Excellency has no like control over that matter. It is a case of this kind. Security is required from these people, and if they refuse to give security they are committed to gaol; but all they have to do to get out of gaol is to undertake to behave them selves and give the required security.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, the question was whether there was any power under the Statute whereby they could be released without conditions.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): If a person is not well-behaved, and will not undertake to be well-behaved, he is sent to prison. The Prerogative of Mercy can open the prison doors, and the Prerogative of the Queen is vested in the Viceroy; but it is entirely a matter for His Excellency whether he will exercise his power in such cases.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANobserved, that this Vote contained the salaries of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, Mr. Blake, and Major Bond, and other magistrates, who were doing so much to create disaffection and disloyalty in Ireland; and he inquired

  1199
  what was the amount of extra pay to be allocated to those gentlemen by the Government?
  THE ATTORNEY GENEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)replied, that he was not Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and hardly knew what this Vote covered.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, it appeared to him an extraordinary thing that when the Committee was asked to vote millions of money there should be absolutely no one prepared to answer questions relating to financial matters. Anyone taking up the Paper would see that there were a number of points upon which it would be reasonable to address questions to the Government. Under the head, for instance, of "Pauper Lunatics," he found an item of £90,000; but the Government had said they required £75,000 up to a certain date, leaving only a balance of £15,000 on that Vote; while for England, where the total Vote was £433,000, they appeared not to have required 1d., and had asked for only £1,000. If the Government could carry on their business with regard to pauper lunatics in England with £1,000 up to the end of June, how was it they required so much for Ireland? It was evident that these Votes were drawn up in a haphazard way; and he believed most of the money was not wanted, and that the Prime Minister was right when he said, with regard to Supply, that the Government were well off this year. He wished to ask the Government whether there was any necessity for this extra £3,000 for Secret Service. To his own knowledge—and that was going a long way—the Government did not require this amount, for the very good reason that they had a considerable balance of Secret Service money in hand from last year, and also had sufficient means of drawing from the Consolidated Fund without taking anything in the Estimates. He challenged the Government to show any ground for questioning the accuracy of that statement, or for alleging that there was any reasonable expectation of spending that £3,000; and he begged to move the reduction of the Vote by £3,000, that being the amount of the item for Secret Service.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,134,750, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or
  1200
  towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, the payments for pauper lunatics were made as soon as the accounts were made up.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, with regard to the Secret Service money, was not the old system still maintained by which the Departments in which it was used kept a balance in hand from year to year, instead of paying it into the Exchequer? Was there not last year a balance in the hands of the Secretary of State?
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, he was unable to say whether there was a penny in hand at the end of last year.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he wished to know whether they were here asked to vote any portion of the salary of Mr. Clifford Lloyd? because, if they were, he must oppose it. This person was at the present moment engaged in the persecution of 40 evicted families. He had arrested two carpenters for no other offence than, at the expense of the Ladies' Land League, erecting wooden houses for the shelter of these unfortunate people; and these two carpenters were men with families depending on them. He imagined Mr. Clifford Lloyd's salary would come either under "Law Charges in Ireland," or "Constabulary." At any rate, if they were paying anything to this man, he (Mr. Dillon) should move to reduce the amount of the Vote by £500, or some sum that would include his salary.
  MR. COURTNEYsaid, that, as this Vote covered all expenses for one month, the salary of the Irish magistrates for that period was included. No doubt, one month's pay of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was included. He could not give the amount of that gentleman's salary.
  MR. HEALYsuggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn and a division taken on this question of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's salary.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, that with regard to the amount for pauper lunatics in Ireland his only wonder was that the charge made was not more, because he considered the policy of the British Government in Ireland eminently calculated to make the people both paupers and lunatics. The Secret Service money, so far as it was expended in Ireland,

  1201
  was paid to informers. It was not spent to good purpose. What was the use of paying informers if they did not inform of anything at all?
  Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 113: Majority 96.—(Div. List, No. 89.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he would move to reduce the Vote by £125, which would be about the amount of a month's salary to Mr. Clifford Lloyd. He (Mr. Dillon) was in receipt of numerous letters and telegrams from the county of Tipperary, descriptive of the outrageous conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd; but the particular thing for which he sought to deprive this person of a month's salary was his having engaged himself in the heartless work of preventing the erection of shelter for 40 families who had been evicted under circumstances of great cruelty. In one case a priest had written to him to say that his own father, a man of 80 years of age, had been evicted. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been on the spot and had aggravated the hardship by every kind of insolence and harshness. Attempts were made to find shelter for the evicted people on a farm two miles from their old dwellings; but Mr. Clifford Lloyd proceeded against the man who had been employed to build the shelter. No notice was taken of the statement that the two carpenters who had been sent down from Dublin had no connection with any political movement, and the men were arrested and charged with an intention to misbehave themselves in some way that no one could understand. These carpenters were now lying in Limerick Gaol. What he wished to know was, whether or not this kind of thing was to continue? for it must be understood that so long as Mr. Clifford Lloyd and others of his class were allowed to ride roughshod over the people of Ireland there could be no question at all about a policy of conciliation. He could answer, he believed, for the people of Limerick and the people of Tipperary that it was no use talking about having initiated a policy of conciliation whilst Mr. Clifford Lloyd and people like him were allowed to act in the manner he had described. This priest to whom he had referred had
  1202
  informed him that whilst he was standing on the threshold of his father's house during the eviction Mr. Clifford Lloyd had approached him and told him in a threatening manner that if he did not know how to behave himself he would quickly teach him how to do so. Such language as this was eminently calculated to bring the law into contempt in Ireland. It was no use framing laws for the prevention of disorder and keeping the peace in Ireland so long as the magistrates were hateful to the people. The only way to give the law a chance was to remove all people who were regarded as enemies of the poor—those men who made themselves the tools and agents of evicting landlords. There was not a tenant or a poor man in Clare, Tipperary, or Limerick who did not consider Mr. Clifford Lloyd an enemy, and there was not a person who was not a landlord who believed he would get justice from him. There was not a person who did not look upon him as a tool of the landlords.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,134,625, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883,"—(Mr. Dillon.)
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he did not think it was fair or reasonable for the hon. Member for Tipperary, on an occasion of this kind—he would not say at this time of night—to spring a debate on a particular subject on the Committee. The hon. Member was in possession of information which had not reached him; therefore, as would be readily imagined, he was hardly able to give a satisfactory answer. If the hon. Member wished to bring a charge against the magistrates, let him do it in such a way that hon. Gentlemen might have an opportunity of making themselves acquainted with the facts, and that the magistracy might be able to meet the attack made upon them. So far as he (the Attorney General for Ireland) was concerned, he considered that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was performing a service of great danger, and performing it with a great amount of personal courage. He was brought into conflict with tenants evicted from their holdings, who were

  1203
  smarting under their grievances, and who were in a state of mind in which they were not likely to look upon the magistrates who were protecting the sheriffs from injury with anything but harsh feelings. It was possible that Mr. Clifford Lloyd might be blameless in the matter referred to by the hon. Member; but the Committee had not the facts before them. He trusted the hon. Member would not press his Amendment to a division, because he did not think one could be fairly taken. They had no means of controverting the statements made in a debate which, as he had said, had been sprung upon them by surprise.
  MR. EDWARD SHEILsaid, Mr. Clifford Lloyd's name had not been brought up for the first time in the House to-day; so that when the Attorney General for Ireland accused Irish Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House of springing a debate upon them and unfairly attacking a man who was absent, it seemed to him that the right hon. and learned Gentleman very much exaggerated the state of the case. Mr. Clifford Lloyd's name was perfectly well known to everyone. It had, unfortunately, attained great notoriety in Ireland; consequently, when the right hon. and learned Gentleman said they had sprung a debate on the Committee, he was not stating the fact. Everyone who had listened to the debates which had taken place in the House recently must know that Mr. Clifford Lloyd's conduct had been brought in question over and over again. It seemed to him that his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon) had seized a very favourable opportunity for raising a debate on the matter; and he, for one, trusted the hon. Member would go to a division on the Vote.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, that, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland was not in possession of information to enable him to meet the charge of his hon. Friend (Mr. Dillon), the proper way to enable him to do so would be to postpone the Vote. Whenever he (Mr. Leamy) had an opportunity—whether it was on the question of reducing a Vote or not—of protesting against the conduct of such a man as Mr. Clifford Lloyd he should avail himself of it. It was not so long ago since the hon. and learned Member
  1204
  for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) stated in the House that crime had greatly increased in Clare, and that within the past four or five months it had become as extensive as it was during the corresponding period of last year. Well, the period during which crime had increased, singularly enough, was the period during which Mr. Clifford Lloyd had been a special magistrate in the district. These matters were not considered worth attention by some Members; but the Irish Representatives considered it their duty to avail themselves of every opportunity of protesting against the conduct of such men as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, especially when they knew there was at the present moment a Bill before Parliament that proposed to increase the duties of that gentleman. The Irish Members would be failing in their duty if they did not carry on this work. When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was Chief Secretary they had endeavored to ascertain the amount of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's salary, but had not succeeded. This gentleman received, first of all, a salary as a magistrate, then traveling expenses, expenses for being away from home, expenses for clerks, &c.; so that there could be no doubt he was one of the best paid officials in Ireland. Whenever money was sought to be obtained for the payment of magistrates like Mr. Clifford Lloyd there should be such a debate as this, and a division should be taken.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVANsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland had complained that the Irish Members had sprung a debate on the question of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd on the Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman forgot that the Government had "sprung" a demand for money upon the Committee. That was why the debate had arisen. He (Mr. Sullivan) was listening in the House during the last Session of Parliament when the hon. Member for Drogheda (Mr. Whitworth)—who was no opponent of the Government, but one of their most consistent supporters—had the candor to say that wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd was sent to in Ireland he would cause a rebellion. That was the opinion of a Gentleman who was a magistrate, who was not an opponent of the Government, and was no

  1205
  disturber of their peace. And that opinion was a sound one. Wherever Mr. Clifford Lloyd had gone he had got up a rebellious spirit; and if there had not been actual rebellion, it was because Her Majesty's Forces, who had been sent to support him, were in overwhelming strength. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was to Her Majesty's Government a very costly luxury. Wherever he went, morning, noon, or night, he had to be watched, protected, and defended. He (Mr. Sullivan) had been credibly informed that in the house in which Mr. Clifford Lloyd resided, on every landing, and on every staircase, there was a policeman. Mr. Clifford Lloyd could not pass from one house to another or through the street without having a policeman with him. Why was he retained in that position? It was because he had won the heart of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) when he was Chief Secretary. They had read in romances stories of wonderful attachments; but anything to compare with the love and affection subsisting between these two gentlemen he had failed to meet with in his reading of either history or romance. The Irish Members were bound to oppose this Vote. It was not necessary for the preservation of the peace of Ireland; on the contrary, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whom it maintained in his present position, was doing a great deal to defer the pacification of the country. He (Mr. Sullivan) had no doubt that if they appointed a wiser man in the place of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, they would be doing a great deal more for the pacification of that part of Ireland over which that gentleman presided than they were doing at present.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he thought it unreasonable to ask the Committee to vote public money at such a time as this, more particularly as the Government were confessedly not prepared to give them any information; therefore, he would move that the Chairman report Progress, and ask leave to sit again. If his Motion were adopted, it would enable the Government to obtain the necessary information, and to be prepared, at the proper time, to give such explanation as the Committee thought desirable. The case against the Government was unanswerable—in the first place, they were unprepared to give the
  1206
  information; and, in the next place, it was too late an hour to go on with the Vote. If right hon. Gentlemen who formed the Cabinet were on the Treasury Bench, he would appeal to them whether it was not desirable that the present system of magistrates in Ireland should be re-modeled, and that no gentlemen who had not had legal training should be appointed to the magistracy in Ireland. As long as the present system was continued, there must be continued complaints as to the conduct of the magistrates. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was rather an exaggerated case of Resident Magistrate; but, after all, it was only a question of degree. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not very much worse than many others—he was only one of a class. They should agree to Progress being reported, in order that the Chief Secretary for Ireland, or the Prime Minister, might give them an opinion as to what Resident Magistrates should be appointed.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Biggar.)
  MR. HEALYsaid, that before the Chairman put the Vote he would put it to the Government that, in view of the cordial and general co-operation that was understood to exist between the two Parties—the Irish Party on the one hand, and the Ministerial Party on the other—there should be a cordial co-operation between them on this matter. He would advise the Attorney General for Ireland to make a searching investigation into the character and conduct of the magistrates of Ireland before the Coercion Bill came to be considered. It did not appear as though the Government were going to pass the Bill as rapidly as they expected. Perhaps it would accelerate its passage if the Government, when information on such matters as the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was asked for, were in a position to give it. He should, however, if necessary, raise every one of these points in considerable detail.
  MR. GIBSONsaid, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) had moved the reduction of the Vote on the narrow ground of—as he had himself said—making a protest against the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Hon. Members

  1207
  had said it was desirable to have a short debate in order to emphasize their objection to that official, and upon the subject they had had a few short observations in reply from the Attorney General for Ireland. As he had anticipated, the hon. Member for Tipperary had not rested his objection to Mr. Clifford Lloyd on any particular case, but used a particular case as an illustration of a broader objection; therefore, he could not see how, if the observations of the Attorney General for Ireland had been longer, they would have destroyed the objection of the hon. Member. He (Mr. Gibson) thought it right to say, as he was on his feet, that, although his acquaintance with Mr. Clifford Lloyd was slight, from what he knew of him and what he had heard of him, he thought him a highly capable, efficient, and courageous gentleman. It would be wrong and cowardly on his part, if, being present; he did not make that statement. He would put it to the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) whether, as the hon. Member for Tipperary had challenged the Vote on the question of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, it would not be better to make any protest it was thought desirable to make in the division on that challenge, rather than in a division on reporting Progress?
  MR. DILLONcontended that Irish Members were in every respect entitled to receive information from the Government as to their intentions with regard to the evicted families. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) had put the case very plainly, although he had not stated his (Mr. Dillon's) views exactly. Still, he wished to express his willingness to withdraw the Motion for the reduction of the Vote, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland would give some assurance that the 40 families should not be left in their present deplorable and houseless position. His objections to the whole course of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's administration, of course, remained the same, and would form the subject of future debate in that House; nevertheless, if a guarantee were forthcoming that the police interference would cease in the present case, he was certainly inclined to yield something in return.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he thought the hon. Member for Tipperary could not
  1208
  have heard what the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland had said. His right hon. and learned Friend had distinctly stated that he was not in possession of information which would enable him to discuss the question raised by the hon. Member; but that he would be ready to go into the matter fully, and meet the charge preferred against Mr. Clifford Lloyd as soon as that necessary information was obtained. To these remarks the right hon. and learned Gentleman merely added one or two observations with regard to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, which were received with the general approval of hon. Members in the House. The hon. Member for Tipperary was, of course, perfectly within his right in taking a division on his Motion if he deemed it necessary to do so. Still, he was bound to point out that the course adopted in this case was most unusual, and at the same time inconvenient, because if, when a Vote on Account was asked for, it were the practice to raise and discuss at length questions on each particular item, it would be practically impossible to carry on the Service of the country. He repeated that if the hon. Member wished to take a division it was perfectly competent to him to do so; but his right hon. and learned Friend had given so full an assurance that the case should be gone into as soon as information was received, that he hoped the Vote would be allowed to be taken without the Committee being put to the trouble of dividing.
  MR. DILLONsaid, after the observations of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, he should be willing to withdraw his Motion, if that right hon. Gentleman or the Attorney General for Ireland would name a time at which he could bring the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd under the notice of the House. The difficulty he labored under was that if he allowed the present opportunity to pass, he should be in ignorance as to when another opportunity would offer for again bringing this particular case forward. In the meantime, the 40 families would remain houseless and homeless.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Member for Tipperary had asked a fair question, and was entitled to an answer. The hon. Member could raise the point as to the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd by way of question, or in the form of a

  1209
  Motion on going into Committee of Supply. In either of these ways, if he would give Notice of his intention on the Notice Paper, he would have the opportunity which he desired.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War that the hon. Member for Tipperary should proceed by question was not satisfactory. From his own experience, he found that course to be perfectly useless, for he had already brought this matter forward by way of question, without any effect. It was a most astonishing circumstance that the Attorney General for Ireland was ignorant of the facts of this case, because they were perfectly notorious, and a considerable time, moreover, had elapsed since they occurred. He, therefore, felt bound to say that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not in possession of them, he ought to be. Several weeks had passed since he had addressed the Question to the Attorney General for Ireland on the subject of these unfortunate families. He had referred to the man who died of an attack on the lungs, the consequence of exposure resulting from being turned out of his house. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not to blame for that. He (Mr. Sexton) said that he was. The right hon. and learned Gentleman also stated that Mr. Clifford Lloyd was discharging a service of danger to himself; but the service he was engaged in was really one of danger to the unfortunate people who were evicted. As to putting down Questions with regard to the conduct of officials in Ireland, this was well known, as he had already pointed out, to be perfectly useless. He had again and again called the attention of the Government to the fact that the lives of innocent persons were being daily sacrificed in Ireland in consequence of the action of officials, without producing any result.
  MR. CHILDERSpointed out that his suggestion to the hon. Member for Tipperary was not only that he could proceed by Question, but by Motion on going into Committee of Supply. If the hon. Member objected to the former course, he would have every opportunity for discussing this subject by the alternative indicated.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, that the alternative which the Secretary of State for
  1210
  War had suggested to his hon. Friend as affording an opportunity of a full discussion of the conduct of Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not a practical one. Upon what occasion, he asked, between that time and Whitsuntide, for instance, could a subject of that kind be brought forward? It was not a matter which would brook delay. A single week's inaction might result in the death of another unfortunate man from exposure and want; and, therefore, he said it was monstrous that such an answer as they had listened to from the right hon. and learned Gentleman should be given by a responsible Member of the Government. The answer of the Attorney General for Ireland that he knew nothing of the facts of the case to which the hon. Member for Tipperary had called his attention was a complete justification of the Motion of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) to report Progress, which, if it did nothing more than mark their disapprobation of this want of knowledge on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in a matter of such importance it would be essential that it should be pushed to a division. Some hon. Gentlemen smiled at that remark; but did they consider it a subject for smiles that the families of 40 tenants were unsheltered and homeless, on the roadside, in a single district, in consequence of the action of this magistrate? The consequence of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's action was that protection and house shelter had been denied to these unfortunate families. He said Irish Members were bound, by every consideration of their duty, to press this question to an immediate issue; and, therefore, from that point of view, the alternatives offered by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War were useless. If Irish Members asked Questions as to the conduct of Irish officials, it was well known that they did not receive satisfactory answers; if, in consequence of that, they used the Forms of the House to raise discussion they were denounced as Obstructionists; and further, if, in the present instance, they were to put down a Notice on going into Committee of Supply there would be no opportunity for a fortnight, at least, of discussing the question. In the meantime these families were perishing on the roadsides. Under the circumstances, he sincerely hoped his hon. Friend the Member for

  1211
  Cavan would press his Motion for reporting Progress to a division; and, in concluding his remarks, he could not but express surprise that the Attorney General for Ireland should have declared himself to be in absolute ignorance of the facts connected with so well-known a case as the eviction of these 40 families—this notorious case of severity on the part of an Irish magistrate, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, who had refused to allow charitable people to provide these unfortunates with shelter.
  MR. HEALYsaid, this was a very simple matter, and could be dealt with at once if the Government would only look at the facts of the case. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister had told them that day that he was in favour of justice being done to Ireland; and, therefore, he felt no hesitation in further appealing to right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench. Here was a case of some 40 people who had been turned out on the roadside; and he asked what was there to prevent the right hon. and learned Attorney General for Ireland saying he would instruct Mr. Clifford Lloyd not to interfere with the erection of huts for the purpose of giving them shelter? There was a very good precedent for doing so, because when Mr. Clifford Lloyd, acting on instructions from the Under Secretary at the Castle, gave orders that the manifesto relating to the recent murders should be torn down wherever it was placarded, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had given Mr. Clifford Lloyd a rap on the knuckles, so to speak, by telling him not to tear down the manifesto. Could not the right hon. and learned Gentleman then do the same kind of thing with regard to the huts? They were told that the Government desired to co-operate with Irish Members; but, for his part, he repudiated co-operation if it was to be carried out as it seemed likely to be. There were in one district of Ireland 200 people homeless through eviction. Would the Government allow homes to be erected for them or not? He thought it would be well to make that question a test of the feeling of the Government with regard to doing justice to the people of Ireland. Again, were they prepared to release the carpenters, who only earned three days' wages in erecting the huts? The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War
  1212
  said they had an opportunity of proceeding in this matter by Question, and by a Motion on going into Committee of Supply. That was quite true; but Irish Members had a better opportunity than either of these, and this was one of them. He assured right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench that, until this matter was settled, there would be no getting on with the Estimates. This was a much better way of raising the question than either of those suggested by the Secretary of State for War, because it would probably lead to the removal of men whose conduct was known to be bad, if the Government found the Estimates blocked as long as their services were retained. He told the Government frankly that the object was to make it inconvenient for them to employ swashbucklers like Mr. Clifford Lloyd in Ireland.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the hon. Member who had just spoken was under a misapprehension in supposing that he had administered any snub or rap on the knuckles to any official in Ireland. When in Dublin he had seen a police report, from which he learnt that the police, on their own responsibility, had torn down the placards referred to by the hon. Member; and upon this—perhaps exceeding his responsibility a little—he sent a telegram suggesting that the placards should not be interfered with. He did not know that Mr. Clifford Lloyd had given any directions in connection with what had taken place. so much for that point. With regard to the request of the hon. Members for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) and Wexford (Mr. Healy), that an assurance should be given that the huts would be allowed to be erected, that was not in his power. He had no control whatever over any magistrate in Ireland in the discharge of his duty. He had no power even to offer an opinion on the conduct of a magistrate, who, if he understood his duty, would in such a case demand by what authority he volunteered his advice.
  MR. DILLONsaid, they were in this position. The Committee were asked to vote an enormous sum of money for State purposes, and there was no one in the House who knew anything about the position of an official whose salary was included in the sum asked for.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he thought he could shorten the discussion by stating that there was nobody in Ireland who had any legal authority over a magistrate in the exercise of the functions of his Office except the Court of Queen's Bench. If a magistrate decided erroneously his conduct must be reviewed in regular and due course. So far as he was aware, the only power which the Government possessed over a Resident Magistrate in the exercise and discharge of his duties was that he might be directed to go from one place to another; but they could not control his judicial action in the exercise of his functions as a magistrate.
  MR. DILLONsaid, they had succeeded in drawing from the Attorney General for Ireland one of the most extraordinary statements he had ever heard in that House. It amounted to this—that the Irish magistrates were allowed to do pretty well what they liked, and were subject only to the Court of Queen's Bench. It seemed to him that this answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman would render it necessary for Irish Members to raise the whole question relative to the magistracy in Ireland. Their complaint was not against the local magistrates at that moment, but against those magistrates who were paid by a money Vote of that House, and who held an entirely different position from the magistrates in England. Of course, if the Irish magistrates confined themselves to judicial action, the statement which the right hon. and learned Gentleman had just made concerning them would be intelligible enough, and might be accepted. But they did things of a far different character. They exceeded their judicial functions, and went about the country acting in the same spirit as had been shown by Mr. Clifford Lloyd. That gentleman had, in fact, tried on a system of his own, which was entirely apart from and altogether overstepped the judicial functions of a magistrate. He acted as if he were placed in charge of a district in a state of siege; and if an outrage occurred, his practice was to gallop into the district, and sweep in all the farmers' sons within a certain radius without any investigation at all, upon the general principle that farmers' sons were sure to be implicated in these out-
  1214
  rages. He had been assured by men who had been brought before this tyrannical magistrate that they had actually been afraid to say a word in their own defense, lest they should be committed to gaol for contempt of Court. He was also informed that Mr. Clifford Lloyd unfairly questioned the accused men, and that he browbeated and bullied them by calling them murderers, assassins, and ruffians. The use of such language by a magistrate on the Bench ought to cause his instant removal. The Resident Magistrates in Ireland were going about doing what he had described, and, further, laying down certain laws of their own, and harshly enforcing them. Mr. Clifford Lloyd went to the farmers, and said—"You shan't allow such and such a man to erect a hut on the land;" and if no notice was taken of his interference, he pounced upon the unfortunate carpenters from Dublin engaged in erecting the huts, and cast them into Limerick Gaol under an obsolete Act passed in the Reign of Edward III. Mr. Clifford Lloyd brought the law into utter contempt, and he treated the people of his district as he would treat uncivilized beings. They were told by the Attorney General for Ireland that he had no right to interfere with the action of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell them who had authority over Mr. Clifford Lloyd? Had anybody in England authority over him, if no one had in Ireland? Who had the power to dismiss him? Where were they to look for satisfaction for any outrage that this man might commit in the name of the law?
  MR. T. A. DICKSONsaid, if he remembered correctly, the question of the erection of huts was before the House some days ago, and then arranged. He understood that directions had been given to Mr. Clifford Lloyd not to prevent the erection of huts where they were being put up for the purposes of shelter, and not for the purpose of intimidation. He was under the impression that the matter was settled amicably, and that a Member on the Front Bench, on the part of the Government, had undertaken that no obstacle would be placed in the way of the erection of huts intended for shelter.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, they had not received a complete answer from the

  1215
  Government. The huts in the case of these 40 families had not been erected, and one unfortunate man had actually died from exposure. He would like to ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland whether any order had been sent to Mr. Clifford Lloyd; and he would further like to ask him, in reference to his statement that he had no power over Mr. Clifford Lloyd, whether this official did not, in fact, owe his appointment to the Executive? Surely, if that were so, the Executive had power to censure or to dismiss him.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was not aware that any order had been sent to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, although one might have been sent without his knowing it; but he certainly did not send one. With reference to the second question of the hon. Member for New Ross (Mr. Redmond); he had to say that, of course, the Government appointed Resident Magistrates, and they had power to dismiss them. Two workmen, who had been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen, had been committed to gaol for not entering into surety for their good behavior. If they had been improperly committed they would be entitled to discharge, and if they were discharged they would be entitled to bring an action for damages. If they did bring such an action, and succeeded in their suit, he need not remind the Committee they would receive sufficient and ample damages.
  MR. HEALYsaid, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sincerely to be commiserated with, for he had to stand up in the House to answer questions from Irish Members on matters on which he told them he knew absolutely nothing. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was in a position in which he deserved their sincerest sympathy; and he (Mr. Healy) would suggest to the Government that next time matters affecting Ireland were brought up for consideration, they should arrange for the presence of someone able to answer any question that might be addressed to him. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew nothing of the matter before them, and seeing there was no possible object in keeping him here, he might be dispensed from service in the House. They desired information which at pre-
  1216
  sent they could not obtain. He would suggest to his hon. Colleagues that they could not do better than, on a future occasion in Committee, get up a breezy discussion on the character of the men who were carrying out these unjust laws. They had to-night learned the startling fact that when Government had appointed a man no one had any control over him in the future. When the new Stipendiary Magistrates were to be appointed, it would behove them to be chary as to who they appointed. They would like to make some inquiry as to the previous conduct of the new officials. Unfortunately, he was not willing to admit that the statement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman was precisely accurate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know very well that these Resident Magistrates were being used not exactly as magistrates, but as a sort of political, as a sort of military rough riders, employed by the Government to do as they pleased and reduce the country to subjection. Mr. Clifford Lloyd was not appointed to carry out any Common or Statute Law, but to strike fear or terror into the people of Clare. No good purpose could be served by the right hon. and learned Gentleman evading the position that Mr. Clifford Lloyd held with regard to the Executive Government. Mr. Clifford Lloyd had some superior; there was someone to whom he reported, and he thought that superior would be a person for whom Mr. Clifford Lloyd entertained a great amount of respect. There must be someone to whom this man was responsible, and he and his hon. Friends wanted to know who was the spokesman for that superior? If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had not, had the Solicitor General for Ireland anything to do with Mr. Clifford Lloyd? If the Solicitor General for Ireland had no control over the gentleman, had the Lord Advocate for Scotland anything to do with him? Perhaps the Secretary of State for War would be able to say who had any authority over this warlike magistrate, who, so far as they had yet learned, appeared to be above the House of Commons. In his opinion, the House of Commons ought to be above voting the gentleman £125 as a month's salary.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, the hon. Gentleman put the matter in the right light.

  1217
  Let the Committee decide at once whether the amount should be made.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, they had heard that this semi-military magistrate conducted many of his proceedings in private. There was a certain amount of advantage in discussion of this kind at such an hour as the present, because the Press was practically excluded. The eyes and ears of the public were closed to their proceedings at half-past 2 o'clock in the morning; and, therefore, they could speak frankly; they could express themselves freely. Apart from all Party feeling, he appealed to hon. Members to say whether the spectacle which the Committee now presented, not to the public, but to itself, was not one which was at once monstrous and scandalous? The House of Commons was asked by the Government to vote upwards of £2,000,000. That sum was made up of no less than 142 separate items, and of that number only two had been touched upon—namely, the items for the Secret Service and the Irish Constabulary. With regard to the Secret Service money, the Secretary to the Treasury had had to admit he really knew nothing. With respect to the Vote for the Irish Constabulary and the magistrates provided for by that Vote, the Attorney General for Ireland admitted that he did not know anything; on every point on which any challenge had been made the Government had had to admit that they knew nothing. One Minister after the other had answered that he knew nothing about the matter. Was that a proper position for the House of Commons to be put in? It was a very great pity that the public were not likely to know what was going on. ["Hear!"] It was all very well for hon. Members to say "Hear, hear!" in a sarcastic tone; it was their duty, and it was the duty of every man in the House, to exercise a surveillance over the public money. Hon. Gentlemen were supposed to be the protectors of the public purse. The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that another occasion should be taken for raising the question. They were prepared to do so if the Government would meet them in a reasonable way. It was in the power of the Government to afford them an opportunity for discussing the subject; and if the Secretary of State for War would, in the absence of the Prime
  1218
  Minister, take a bold step and give an assurance that a proper opportunity would be given them for discussion, or that the Estimates would be brought on at an early hour, he felt persuaded that his hon. Friends would be satisfied.
  MR. BIGGARsaid, he would like to make one or two observations with regard to what had been said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Tyrone (Mr. Dickson) as to the erection of huts. The other day he (Mr. Biggar) understood the Attorney General for Ireland to say that in cases where intimidation was evident it was illegal to put up huts; but in cases where no intimidation was visible it was clearly the duty of the magistrates not to interfere. No pledge, as he understood, was given. It was perfectly idle for the Attorney General for Ireland to say that the Executive had no control over the magistrates, for it was preposterous to suppose that these officials were not continually directing communications to Dublin Castle. Seeing that Dublin Castle communicated with the magistrates day by day, that it instructed them upon all sorts of subjects, and seeing that Dublin Castle had full power to dismiss them, it was idle for the Attorney General for Ireland to tell them that no authority could be exercised, or was exercised, by the Castle over the magistrates. Of course, such a thing as direct influence with regard to decisions could not be had, except through the Court of Queen's Bench; but, at the same time, there was a power in the hands of the Executive to influence the conduct of these men. What he would suggest to the Attorney General for Ireland was that he should promise them that he would represent to the new Chief Secretary what his opinion was in regard to the question of law involved in the erection of the huts. Whether it was exactly within the right hon. and learned Gentleman's technical right, it was within his practical right to represent to the Chief Secretary what were the duties of a Resident Magistrate; it was right the right hon. and learned Gentleman should suggest to the Chief Secretary the desirability of teaching Mr. Clifford Lloyd what was his duty under the circumstances described.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he would convey the opinion, which he

  1219
  had repeatedly given in the House with respect to huts, to the Chief Secretary; and, having given that assurance, he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw his Amendment.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, he thought this discussion had not been without advantage, for it enabled the Irish Members to tell the Government something of the mind of the Irish Party, and gave the Government an opportunity of displaying something of their intentions. They were now face to face with a Government which expressed its desire to reverse some of the proceedings of the administration in Ireland. One part of that administration was the action of the Stipendiary Magistrates. The action of the Government on the question whether they would allow those magistrates to remain in Office, and continue the sort of proceedings they had been undertaking for some time past, would show whether their intentions were sham intentions or real intentions. So long as the late Chief Secretary was Secretary for Ireland there was hope for any British blackguard in British Burmah, or anywhere else, who was ready to take his part in Bashi-Bazoukism over the Irish people. They had present a Member of the Cabinet, and he thought the right hon. Gentleman would do service to his Colleagues, and to the Government generally, if he conveyed to them to-morrow the result and the temper of this debate; because that would show that so long as Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and gentlemen like him, were retained in Office, and allowed to carry on proceedings as they had hitherto, there must remain a chasm between the Government and the Irish Members upon any measures they might submit to the House. He thought it was an advantage to the Committee to have been afforded an opportunity of stating what they really meant.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, it seemed to him that the undertaking given by the Attorney General for Ireland was worth very little.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON): It was what I was asked for.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he at once acknowledged the courtesy and readiness with which the right hon. and learned Gentleman answered the question of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar);
  1220
  but he did not consider the undertaking worth very much, because, if carried out, he did not believe it would have any effect on the actions of Mr. Clifford Lloyd. Mr. Clifford Lloyd must have become aware of the opinion the Attorney General for Ireland had expressed when he was asked about the erection of these huts; but that had not prevented him from intimidating, and, under those circumstances, it was immaterial what opinion the Attorney General for Ireland held on the subject. He hoped his hon. Friend would persist in his Motion, until they had some information from the Government in reference to it.
  MR. DILLONsaid, he was not at all satisfied with the answer of the Attorney General for Ireland, and therefore he must go to a division, for he would not rest until he got permission for huts to be erected for every evicted tenant in Ireland.
  MR. BIGGARalso thought the reply of the Attorney General for Ireland did not amount to very much. They all knew what was the conduct of the Stipendiary Magistrates, and under the régime of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) they were encouraged to act in the most outrageous manner. If the promise of the right hon. and learned Member was kept only in the word, and not in the spirit, the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Dillon) would from day to day be forced to ask questions, and criticize in every kind of way the conduct of the Executive, and the result could be very well foreshadowed. With these remarks he should be satisfied with a less full promise than he otherwise should have been, and he would ask leave to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again," by leave, withdrawn.
  Question put,
  "That a sum, not exceeding £2,134,625, be granted to Her Majesty, on account, for or towards defraying the Charge for the following Civil Services and Revenue Departments for the year ending on the 31st day of March 1883."—(Mr. Dillon.)
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 14; Noes 83: Majority 69.—(Div. List, No. 90.)
  Original Question again proposed.
  MR. REDMONDsaid, he wished to put a question to the Attorney General for Ireland with regard to the recent occurrence at Ballina. A few days ago, as probably every Member of the Committee knew, charges of buckshot were fired by the police at Ballina at a crowd of children. Some of the children were wounded, and some were now in danger of losing their lives. The hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) had asked a Question about the matter, and the answer he had received was that the Inspector of Police who was in command of the men who fired upon the children—and whose conduct had, on a previous occasion, been made the subject of comment in the House, but without the slightest effect—had received leave of absence——
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Sub-Inspector had been relieved from duty.
  MR. REDMONDwished to know if the Government had ordered any inquiry to be made into the circumstances of this firing upon the people, and whether they had come to the conclusion that the Sub-Inspector should be dismissed the force?
  THE ATTOENEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, the Government were now engaged in investigating the matter; and he would ask the hon. Member, in the public interest, not to press for a further answer.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that when the conduct of the magistracy in Ireland was next under discussion he should expect an answer as to the legal right of these gentlemen to hold private Courts. In one case a lady—Miss Kirk—was tried privately and alone, although she requested that the clergyman of the parish might be present, and that she might have the assistance of a solicitor. The magistrate, in a rough manner, refused her request, and Miss Kirk was committed to Limerick Gaol, where she was now lying. The Court of Queen's Bench refused to hear any legal point on appeal, unless it came from the Court below, and that rested on the dictum of Mr. Justice Fitzgerald. In the case of Mrs. Moore, if it had been gone into, it would have been found that she was a married woman and could not be asked to give bail, and she would not have
  1222
  been detained. He should also ask whether the evicted tenants, for whom shelter was provided, would be allowed to take advantage of it?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, that, for the satisfaction of the hon. Member, he certainly would inquire into these two points. He was under the impression that he had seen it stated in the newspapers that Miss Kirk's case had been decided on by the Court of Queen's Bench.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the Court of Queen's Bench had decided that the right of appeal was killed unless the case had come from the Court below.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he would press on the hon. Gentleman the Secretary to the Treasury the propriety of giving an answer to the question he had raised, as to whether it was likely or unlikely that the Government would find themselves compelled to come to the Committee again this year for a Vote on Account?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, his right hon. Friend at the head of the Government had already answered that question this evening. No Minister, no one, above all, who knew Treasury Business, could like Votes on Account; but they were inevitable in certain cases. He was not in a position, nor was his right hon. Friend in a position, to say that they would not have to ask for another Vote on Account. It depended on the progress made with Business. If the hon. Member wished the Government to go on with Supply, instead of the Arrears Bill, of course, he (Mr. Childers) would communicate that desire on the part of the hon. Member to the Prime Minister; but he hardly thought that was seriously wished.
  MR. CALLANsaid, that the other day four young men were arrested in county Louth. On the following day they were committed, bail being refused. On the 7th of March, 10 days after their imprisonment, they were liberated, Captain Cooke, the presiding magistrate, saying that there was not a scintilla of evidence against them. It was manifest that the evidence that had been given was a piece of concocted perjury; but from that time no step had been taken to prosecute the two informers for that perjury, although they still resided in the country. In another case, a number

  1223
  of respectable men, some owning 400 acres of land, were arrested on a charge of having entered into a conspiracy to murder Sub-Inspector Callahan, of Drogheda, and subscribed £100 for the purpose. The attention of the Attorney General for Ireland was drawn to the case, and the informer was taken to live in Dublin. Well, it was ultimately proved that the informer had sworn falsely; but yet he was not committed for perjury. He was taken back to Dublin Castle a fortnight ago. Was this man still in the country, and, if so, was he to be prosecuted for perjury? What length of time would the Attorney General for Ireland take to make up his mind whether or not he would prosecute an informer for perjury? He was not slow to order any other kind of prosecution.
  THE ATTORNEY GENEEAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he had already stated in the House the circumstances connected with the case, and he could only repeat them now. The hon. Member had said there was an investigation before the magistrates. Well, of that he (the Attorney General for Ireland) had seen nothing but a newspaper report, and he could not undertake to order a prosecution on the strength of that report. He had asked for an authentic report of the trial at the Petty Sessions, and until he received that he could not act in the matter. The parties against whom it was said false evidence had been given were in a substantial position—one of them owned 400 acres of land, and was a richer man than he (the Attorney General for Ireland) himself—and they could prosecute the man for perjury. He was not sure that they had not had advice on the subject. The magistrates might have explained that they did not think it wise to recommend that a charge should be preferred against the man for perjury.
  MR. CALLANsaid, he asked whether the man was still in the country, and could be made responsible? Was he still detained as a resident in the Castle or in the purlieus thereof?
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. W. M. JOHNSON)said, he was quite sure the man was not in Dublin Castle and never had been. What the hon. Member meant by "the purlieus thereof" he could not say.
  Original Question put.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 57; Noes 13: Majority 44.—(Div. List, No. 91.)
  MR. HEALYasked when the Government intended to take the Report of the Vote?
  MR. COURTNEY: On Monday.
  MR. HEALYsaid, in that case he trusted the Chief Secretary for Ireland would be present in the House, because, although they all admitted the courteous character of the replies of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland, his want of information upon certain Irish questions was much to be regretted.
  Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.
  Committee to sit again upon Monday next.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, as all the remaining Business on the Paper was blocked, he would move the adjournment of the House.
  MR. HEALYasked whether that Motion could be put? It was not the case that all the remaining Business was blocked.
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, he was now informed that there was one Motion which was not blocked; and he would, therefore, not make the Motion.

  CIVIL SERVICES.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 3) BILL.
    On Motion of Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, Bill to confirm certain Provisional Orders of the Local Government Board for Ireland relating to the City of Dublin and the Poor Law Union of Bally money, ordered to be brought in by Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
    Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 172.]
    House adjourned at half after Three o'clock till Monday next.

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Law relating to the Protection of Young Girls, The Lord Penzance added.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Arklow Harbour* (98); Cathedral Statutes Amendment* (99).
Second Reading—Places of Public Worship Sites Amendment* (77); Local Government Provisional Order (Highways)* (82); Commons Regulation Provisional Orders* (88); Public Health (Scotland) Act Amendment* (84).
Committee—Elementary Education Provisional Order Confirmation (London)* (56); Elementary Education Provisional Orders Confirmation (West Ham, &c.)* (55); Petty Sessions (Ireland)* (89).
Committee—Report—Documentary Evidence* (87); Military Manœuvres* (86).
Report—Militia Storehouses* (76); Commonable Rights* (73–100).
Third Reading—Married Women's Property* (83); Payment of Wages in Public-houses Prohibition* (41), and passed.
Royal Assent—Consolidated Fund (No. 3) [45 Vict. c. 8].

IRELAND—IRISH POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT—RELEASE OF MR. PARNELL AND OTHERS.

  OBSERVATIONS. QUESTION.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: My Lords, seeing the noble Lord (Lord Carlingford) in his place, I wish to ask him a Question, of which I have given him private Notice, with regard to a paragraph which appeared in The Daily Telegraph, and which was afterwards copied in The St. James's Gazette—I myself think that probably it has no foundation; but perhaps the noble Lord, or some other Member of the Government, may not be sorry to repudiate having had anything to do with the late unsavoury transaction, the negotiations which have taken place with the criminals in Ireland. My Question is, Whether the following statement is true or not:—
  "The Dublin correspondent of The Daily Telegraph telegraphed last night that in Dublin society there was much talk of a visit said to have been paid to Kilmainham by Lord Carlingford during his recent visit to this country. It was openly stated the other evening that this visit had taken place, and surprise was expressed that during the discussion of the question of the so-called Treaty of Kilmainham no reference was made to that conference of a Cabinet Minister with the imprisoned suspects."
  LORD CARLINGFORD: My Lords, I do not desire to repudiate any part of the transactions in which I have taken a share with my Colleagues, as I think, for the good of Ireland. But as to the alleged fact about which the noble Lord opposite (Lord Oranmore and Browne) inquires, I see that a morning paper has been good enough to contradict it for me already. I am quite willing to state to the noble Lord that there is not the smallest shadow of foundation or excuse for such a story.

ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

  RESOLUTION.
  LORD NORTONrose to move—
  "That the Education Code for 1883 he referred to a committee to consider whether it might not he possible more effectually to carry out its professed intention of simplification of the Code, and remove the serious defects in the mode of distribution of the grants in aid, and prevent the perpetual changes against which complaints increasingly come from those engaged in the work of national elementary education."
  He said that, although simplification was stated in the front to be the main object of the New Code, he could not think it had been attained. At the outset, in the definition of the subject—a public elementary school—there was a complication of two definitions—first, as a school at which there was no higher fee paid than 9d. a-week, no matter what was taught or who received the instruction, so long as it was provided beyond that limit of payment at public expense; and, secondly, as a school where no religious teaching was required. There seemed nothing in this double definition of national elementary education—as anything, provided only it be eleemosynary and devoid of religious teaching—so desirable and creditable to the country that simplification of the Code should be sacrificed for its sake. A better definition of an elementary school in this country would be one in which, subject to statutory conditions, elementary education was offered to the working classes chiefly at the public expense. But this would not suit the official intention, unavowed, unauthorized by Parliament, and, as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) called it in a recent speech, a mischievous encroachment of elementary on higher education, which, for many important reasons, should be supported
  1068
  by those who want it, or won by exhibitions from the elementary schools publicly provided. But the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had, in a recent speech, plainly assumed to his Office the education of the middle classes, if not of the whole nation. His idea, generally, of national education seemed to be an education of the working classes into the middle class, and the middle class into the professional, rather than to bring up everyone to fulfil the duties of life, intelligently and honestly, whatever each one might be fit for. Another defect in this attempt to simplify the Code was the endless repetitions in it, which, though excusable during annual revision, were a blot in final consolidation. Scarce a chapter but had an article belonging to, and in, another chapter. For instance, the schools dealt with were again defined in the 4th chapter. As to intelligibility, urban schools must have been solely contemplated. The 109th Article would puzzle any country schoolmaster, seeking in that Article to know what the Code promised him in the way of earnings. It had an octave of sub-sections, A to G, three of which contained respectively five, nine, and eleven sub-sections.
  But it was more important to consider what was the cause of the hopeless complication of the Code, baffling even that last most honest and able attempt to simplify it. It was remarkable that not even the new French education scheme was nearly so elaborate in its details, and specifications of subjects as ours. Yet it was expressly meant to cover both primary and secondary instruction, and for all classes. It was strange that England should take the lead in Government prescription of popular instruction, the effect of which on national character elsewhere they had never coveted. The occasion of that elaboration of their Education Code was the disintegration of Government aid to national schools into a number of little payments; on so-called results of teaching, supposed to be ascertained by individual examinations. Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke) introduced this method in 1862; he thought that more general reports must be made in vague and abstract terms, affording no guarantee to the Treasury of a quid pro quo for its aid, and unreliable for testing

  1069
  in a crucial manner the teachers' work with the children. This reliance on individual examination was amusingly exposed some years ago in a Blue Book. It was said that if you multiplied the number of the Inspectors by the number of minutes in the year they had available for those individual examinations, and divided the sum by the millions of children to be examined, you would find the value of such examinations. But they were not left to arithmetical calculation on this point. Mr. Matthew Arnold said, in his Report of 1867, after five years' trial of the system—
  "A decline of intellectual life is distinctly due to the mechanical mode of examination the Revised Code has introduced. It is now found possible, by ingenious preparation, to get children through the examinations in reading, writing, and ciphering, without their really knowing how to read, write, or cipher. The idea of payment by results is just the idea to catch ordinary public opinion."
  Mr. Alington, in 1880, observed that the number of passes was increasing; but he said that, as it was owing to a "leniency of judgment" recommended by their Lordships, the figures offered no trustworthy test of real progress. Another Inspector described the terror of country children first confronted with Examiners, though of the gentlest temper, always in a violent hurry. Such a guarantee of real school-work was a delusion. But it was maintained that, at all events, payment in small detail was the only way to get accurate reports, because Inspectors would freely give judgments involving small consequences, but would shrink from any wider censure, as involving too much forfeiture. Mr. Alington, however, said—
  "As to the immense proportion of passes, Examiners, so far from finding judgments in detail easy, felt their minds, from the very minuteness of the points, so balancing and hesitating that the results were not satisfactory."
  It was not true, however, that more general reports would put more power or responsibility upon the Inspector. The proposed more general reports would likewise be under separate heads, to each of which grants in aid might be separately attached. The first head would be as to the instruction being given, which the Inspectors would test for themselves by casual examinations from time to time. Visits should be paid,
  1070
  not, as now, at stated periods of the year, but unexpectedly and frequently, as the Local Government Inspectors visited workhouses often in the year, and presented themselves at Boards of Guardians without notice; not as spies, but to see the ordinary working. Another head of report would be made on the discipline and order, which was one of the heads of this New Code, and would easily be given, from the appearance of the children and the conduct of the teachers. Another head of report would be on the subjects taught, and their suitability to the particular school and children. It was not to be expected that the same standard of instruction would suit the son of a Wiltshire ploughman and the son of a Manchester tradesman. As the Code stood, a large part of the Treasury aid must always be taken by the middle classes out of the reach of those for whom it was primarily intended.
  But it was said that making grants for individual results on specified subjects of teaching—that was, payment by piecework—was the only way to secure equal attention to all. Mr. Chadwick had strikingly shown that this supposed guarantee against the neglect of dull children had led to the clever being unfairly made to wait upon the dull. The bright child would obtain the same result in one year that another did in two. Why should he be subject to two years' attendances merely that the teacher might not lose the Code gradation of earnings, while the dull child was ostensibly advanced through successive stages for the same object, whether the pass had been secured or not?
  But another plea for the present system was that it fixed a standard of teaching below which the Treasury would not consent to waste public money. He must again refer to Mr. Chadwick's able paper, as to the injury inevitable to national education from fixed conditions being applied to widely-varying circumstances, and from any uniform Government gauge being applied to all parts and working classes of the country. Of course, those would always most easily come up to any fixed standard who, in the intention of Parliament, had the least, or no claim to any help. Mr. Baines, years ago, when a Liberal Cabinet Minister and Member for Manchester said, with regret, in debate, that—

  1071
  "Thousands who had no fair claim were helping themselves to what Parliament had voted for the elementary instruction of the labouring poor."
  A fixed standard of individual examination was, moreover, a positive strait-waistcoat to the great variety of teaching faculty. Mr. Arnold constantly said, "More free play to the teacher is wanted." It was no answer to say that this was only a minimum standard; for it, all the same, apportioned aid in inverse ratio to need, and lost all elasticity and comprehensiveness in a national system. What was the use of having Inspectors of so high a stamp, if the Treasury could not trust them to give a sufficient report of the apparent efficiency of schools in constant judgment on specified particulars? What more should the Treasury require before making its due contribution? The London School Board, doing everything in duplicate, had its own Inspectors, who made their reports to it, not on the Code plan, but on the general heads of inquiry, such as he proposed. That was their habitual mode of reporting. A Reviewing Officer reported generally to the Horse Guards on what he saw on a field-day of the Service he inspected, and not on every detail of drill. Counties paid half the cost of highways on their Surveyor's general report that they appeared to be efficiently maintained, not in instalments on every individual work executed. He might also ask what was the use of such highly-trained and certificated teachers, if they could not be trusted as to the details of conduct of a school, which might be generally tested by final examinations?
  But it was said there was general satisfaction with this Code. Alas! such was the degradation to which the grounds of satisfaction had fallen. Every deputation to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had discussed the Code mainly on its effects on what were called the "earnings" to be got out of it, or the "mulctings" from what were now getting claimed as established perquisites. The interests of education had rarely come into the discussion. All discussion was as to the effects of the proposed changes—not on the schools, but on the incomes. And now the noble Earl recommended his new edition, on the same mercenary cal-
  1072
  culation, as being equally lucrative to teachers as the former. But many leading Inspectors, though warned not to criticize, and associations, meetings, and individuals interested in national education, were expressing anything but satisfaction.
  It was altogether unfortunate that the adoption by the State of an originally voluntary foundation had made their national schools dependent for their necessary expenditure on a precarious contribution from the Government, according to its own official judgment of the work done during the previous year. That was scarcely a proper provision for national institutions. In the case of voluntary schools, there were no means to meet any deficiency so created, and debts already incurred. Board schools might get fresh rates; but the National Treasury could judge itself free as to its share in the national contract, though dealing with funds most nationally levied, and though ruining a national school. A national school should be secure, subject to audit, for its necessary current expenses. There should be an Education Minister; and he should be ready and able, subject to appeals, to call upon local managers to dismiss incompetent teachers, when any school's inefficiency seemed otherwise incorrigible, rather than ruin the school. It should not be allowed that teachers should devote their attention to making up their own salaries by specified Treasury pickings, instead of to securing, in the best way they could, the educational requirements of their very various pupils. In Germany, all teachers were paid by fixed salaries, sometimes with prizes added for special excellence. When "Treasury aid per results" was first introduced it was most unpopular in the country; and some remarkable speeches were made in that House, especially by the late Lord Derby and Bishop Wilberforce, strikingly anticipating the evils which had followed. Once adopted, the system was difficult to alter. Every year's revision of the Code had more or less departed from that mistaken mode of aid, and the noble Earl now recommended his new edition, on its further departure from it. The "special merit grant," introduced in this revision, was on the contrary principle, though even that was made to depend upon passes. It might some-

  1073
  times be due in inverse ratio to the number of passes, and of extra subjects taken up, where teachers had to slave with dull country bumpkins, and merited the more for the unmanageableness of their work. He (Lord Norton) knew that the noble Earl was constantly pressed by theorists to add more and more subjects to the Code. He had heard him admitting to those so pressing him that there were many subjects under heaven worth studying; but deprecating the introduction, at any rate, of more than one at a time into elementary schools for the working classes. Not near so much was attempted for the upper classes; yet the children of parents who had had the means of higher mental cultivation should generally inherit more mental capacity than a navvy's child, who would generally inherit, on the other hand, more physical endurance of continuous daily labour. "But by the action of the Code," said Mr. Alderson, in his Report of 1877—
  "The choice of a specific subject was often determined, not by any special fitness or aptitude, but regarded as a possible streamlet from the Parliamentary milch cow, towards which a teacher is guided by an intelligent forecast of its grant-yielding capability."
  The proof of the system was, however, in its general result. Its author complained, when he introduced it, that so few children were reported on the previous system to leave school able to read at all intelligently. What said he, in a recent debate in that House, on the 4th Schedule, of the result of 20 years of his improved method? That he had tried often to get a top Standard boy from a London school who could read intelligibly to him, and he had never been able to get one. That might come from the prevalent mistake of only making children read, and not letting them also hear good reading. Good reading was caught by the ear. Still, the system must be radically at fault which ended in one of the most eminent Inspectors saying that—
  "While subject after subject was being added to the programme, far the greater number of children did not really learn what they were supposed to learn."
  The schools were seeking for paying results, and for paying pupils; and were not content to plod on with the elementary grounding of children of the working class.
  1074
  He allowed that the new edition of the Code was an advance in the right direction, and an amendment of the more glaring defects of its precursors. They had their choice, whether to go on so advancing by yearly changes, increasing complication, and retaining the mercenary against the educational aim of teachers; or to appoint a Committee now, to inquire in time, to prepare a simpler, a sounder, and a final system after 1883. The first part of such simpler Code, that was the part relating to elementary schools, would only need four clauses—a definition of the schools, of the teachers to be recognized, of the subjects generally to be taught, and of the rate of Treasury aid. With such a Code, the public elementary education of the poor would soon, no doubt, conform again much more with the intention and authority of Parliament. The State standing out of the way, higher schools would soon be found to meet the demand. Exhibitions from elementary schools should be publicly provided to offer a free ladder to all the children of the working class who could really go on to these higher schools. Other children would not be kept from a timely apprenticeship to their work, that teachers might earn a grant or two more by making them repeat a few terms of science. If they really meant the State to undertake the education of the middle class, it would be better to avow the intention, and alter the law accordingly. A Government groove, and elimination of religious teaching, would then, unfortunately, attach to middle-class schools also; but nothing could be worse than trying to slip the middle, slily and unreally, into elementary education. When that pretence was gone, the children most dependent on public aid would also find their place recognized in the Public Education Ministry, who were now stowed away in the Police and Poor Law Departments, brought up as criminals and paupers, and not reckoned in the Education Estimates at all.
  He had said nothing on the financial view of the subject, and the gross wastefulness of the present half-and-half system. Whatever might be thought of extra and special subjects of elementary instruction, there was an extra and special expenditure now growing dangerous to the endurance of national education altogether, irrespectively of proved defects

  1075
  and devoid of any sound results. He had said nothing on pupil teachers and Training Colleges; he had simply dealt with the first part of the Code. He asked, however, for a Committee to inquire into the whole Code, and into the ultimate issue of its shiftings and changes during the last 20 years, with a view to some settlement, at least for a time, and that they might have a simple and intelligible regulation of Government aid to be given to all such public elementary schools as were reported on stated points to be efficiently and suitably conducted.
  Moved, "That the Education Code for 1883 be referred to a committee to consider whether it might not he possible more effectually to carry out its professed intention of simplification of the Code, and remove the serious defects in the mode of distribution of the grants in aid, and prevent the perpetual changes against which complaints increasingly come from those engaged in the work of national elementary education."—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD CARLINGFORDsaid, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton) had found great fault with the system of education in this country, and desired very radical changes; but he (Lord Carlingford) was glad to find that he did not make any attack on the New Code, as such, or as compared with its predecessors, because, if he had, he should have had reason to regret the absence of his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), by whose care and labour, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), the New Code had been brought to its present condition. The objections of the noble Lord to the present system of elementary education in England turned partly upon what he thought to be the excessive complication of the Code, and the undue and unfair amount of money given under it for the higher branches of education. As to the want of simplicity in the Code, he (Lord Carlingford) confessed that he was not convinced by the argument. He believed that his noble Friend's Code of four Articles was a pure dream—an ideal quite beyond the attainment of practical men. When they found that they had a system which had to deal with a great variety of schools, with different kinds and ages of children, and which, above all, had to control and protect and safeguard the spending, year by year, of some-
  1076
  thing like £4,000,000 of public money, he could not think that a Code of Rules and Regulations for such purposes to be effectual could be a short and simple one. Therefore, he could see nothing wonderful in the fact that it was necessarily somewhat complicated. The noble Lord himself knew that strenuous efforts had been made in that direction by the Government, and that the present Code, although far indeed from his noble Friend's beau-ideal of four Articles, was the simplest which had yet been issued. As to the teaching of higher subjects, and the excessive amount of public money expended on those subjects, he could not think, so far as he had had time to look into the matter, that these fears, which, he believed, were shared by some others besides his noble Friend, had much foundation. It appeared that out of 4,000,000 scholars on the roll of the registered elementary schools of Great Britain at that moment, there were only 45,000 above the age of 14; and it was only children above that age who were likely to be engaged on the higher subjects. The number of those who had passed through all the ordinary Standards was only 9,400. But if the noble Lord's fears were at all well grounded, what remedy did he propose, by the main part of his Motion and speech, which was evidently directed against one of the foundations of the present system of education—namely, payment by results? How the noble Lord could connect that system with what he thought to be the exaggerated amount of higher instruction in common schools passed his (Lord Carlingford's) comprehension. His belief was that that system was the great security for the essential elements of primary education; and it must have a most important effect in preventing the teacher from devoting an undue amount of effort to the higher subjects. The Motion of his noble Friend was an attack on the principle of payment by results. He must, in replying to that attack, remind their Lordships how the system came about. The noble Lord said that it was adopted in the teeth of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1861. But, so far from that being the case, it was built up and founded by two noble Lords near him (Viscount Sherbrooke and Earl Granville) on the Report of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, which was appointed by the

  1077
  late Lord Derby. The main point in that Report was the discovery of neglect in the primary and essential elements of ordinary education. Nothing could be stronger than the language in which the Report asserted that they found that only a quarter of the children were well taught, and that the rest were so imperfectly taught that they forgot all they learnt as soon as they left school. They said—
  "There is only one way of securing this result, which is to institute a searching examination by competent authority of every child in every school to which grants are to be paid, with the view of ascertaining whether the indispensable elements of knowledge are thoroughly acquired, and to make the prospects and position of the teacher dependent, to a considerable extent, on the results of this examination."
  He (Lord Carlingford) had searched the records, and he was unable to find any educational authority who had complained of the working of this system. He would not say that all the evils had been cured, but, at any rate, they had been, to a large extent, remedied; and he failed to see how the revolutionary proposal of the noble Lord would in any way improve the condition of affairs. A few figures would show what an improvement had taken place in recent years. The Inspectors in the year 1863—the first year of their Report after the adoption of the results system—stated that no less than 86 per cent of the children above 10 years of age who were presented for examination failed to reach the Standard in which they ought, according to the Code, to have been presented. In 1881, it was reported that only 48 per cent had failed to reach that Standard, so that, while 14 per cent reached the Standard in 1863, in 1881 52 per cent reached it; so that it would be seen that no inconsiderable progress in elementary teaching had been made. It was quite clear, therefore—and he hoped it would be equally clear to their Lordships—that, at all events, they were on the right road in this matter, and ought not to be seduced from it by his noble Friend. Some years ago, when he (Lord Carlingford) held the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the system of payment by results was introduced into that country. All persons who had watched its working would admit that it had given an im-
  1078
  mense stimulus to education there. Sir Patrick Keenan, the permanent head of the Education Department in Ireland, made a very interesting statement in regard to this matter at the Social Science Meeting at Dublin last autumn—
  "It would be the sheerest fatuity," he said, "to ignore the enormous improvement in the education of the people which this results system, as a system of tests, has produced. It has been in operation only nine years. In that period the average attendance has increased 32 per cent. The local emoluments of the teachers have increased 119 percent. The percentage of children in the higher classes, before the results period, never quite reached eight; last year it was nearly 24 per cent. The centesimal proportion of the proficient to the total number examined in each branch is the best indication of the merits of a school. Selecting the published Educational Returns of 1870 (before the system of results had been decided upon), and comparing them with those of 1880 (when the system was in full operation), I find the following remarkable contrasts:—In 1870—reading 70·5, writing 57·7, and arithmetic 54·4; in 1880—reading 91·4, writing 93·8, and arithmetic 74·8 per cent."
  Sir Patrick Keenan went on to say that the system had emancipated the younger children from the terrible stagnation in which they had been allowed to remain under the former system. The New Code held to the system of payment by results; and if it were thought that too much stress were placed on that, and too little stress placed on the general merits of the teaching and mental development of the children, he would point out that several provisions of the New Code were distinctly aimed as a corrective of any error that had been made in that direction. But what did the noble Lord expect from getting rid of the principle—the original sin, as he called it—of the system of 1862? The noble Lord had said boldly that examination was a great blunder, and that we must fall back upon a system of intelligent inspection. The noble Lord had suggested that there should be a sort of casual examination of a child here and there, dependent upon the discretion or the caprice of the Inspector. But if the Government were to propose this system of casual examination in place of the regular examination now in force, what would be said by those who were interested that £4,000,000 sterling should not be annually wasted, and by all managers of schools? It had been proposed lately by the Council Office that there should be a system of sample

  1079
  examinations; but how had that proposal been received by the country? Why, it was heard only to be denounced. The National Society, the British and Foreign School Society, the Union of Teachers, and all other scholastic Bodies, met to protest against the adoption of such a system. One great objection to the system of payment by inspection was that it would be impossible to carry it on in connection with the compulsory education system, and with the Statutes in restraint of the labour of children. If this system were to be adopted, how was a child to be certificated as a whole or a half-timer, and how could the Factory Acts be worked? What, moreover, would become of the voluntary schools of the country under a system of that kind? The noble Lord proposed that, instead of the voluntary schools being kept in order by a system of payment by results, they should be subjected to a most tremendous penalty, because any falling-off in the efficiency of the schools was to be punished by the loss of the half or the whole of their grant. In these circumstances, he could not do otherwise than oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. The proposal of the noble Lord, if persisted in, would unsettle everything, and pull up by the roots the growth of education which was covering the land more widely year by year; and, therefore, he trusted the House would not follow the advice given by the noble Lord, or grant an inquiry, which was totally uncalled for, and which would lead to disastrous results.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDONsaid, he could not conceive that any good could result from the appointment of a Committee such as that suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Norton) upon the New Code, and he could not imagine how any Government could consent to it. In what useful direction could the Committee which the noble Lord asked for carry on its inquiries? Having been for six years at the head of the Educational Department under the late Government, he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) took a deep interest in this subject. He regretted the absence of the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), for, although he did not wish to express any disrespect for the noble Lord who had stated the views of the Government (Lord Carling-
  1080
  ford), it was desirable, on the ground of public convenience, that in a discussion of this nature the Head of the Department should be in his place. As he gathered from the observations of the noble Lord himself, the results of the system which had grown up under the Revised Code had given general satisfaction, because he had pointed to the depth to which public opinion had sunk to be in favour of a system which had been in operation for the last 12 years. He was quite ready to admit that the greatest labour and attention had been bestowed upon the Revised Code for next year, and that the Department had endeavoured to make it as perfect as possible. Its form was to some extent improved, and its administration, if not interfered with, would be simplified, though he doubted whether the omission of the cross references would render the Code as intelligible and as easy for reference as it was now. Out-of-doors this Code for 1883 was called an Inspectors' Code, because of the excessive power which it conferred on Inspectors. This power was larger than it was wise to accord. He deprecated granting excessive powers to Inspectors, although he did not object to giving them some larger powers than they at present possessed; and he also approved of giving local authorities power to deal with educational matters in their districts instead of referring everything to the Central Government. The two principal portions of the New Code related to the payment by results and the extension of the inspection system. Now, payment by results had been before the country many years, and had given universal satisfaction; but, with regard to the extension of the system of inspection, he could not help thinking that that might be a little over done. With few exceptions, the proposed changes were not important; but he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) objected to the appointment of an army of Sub-Inspectors chosen from among the teachers, because he thought it extremely doubtful policy to choose Inspectors from among teachers. Of course, the noble Lord was aware that that plan had been condemned by the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, the Report of which was signed by the best educational authorities of the time—namely, the Duke of Newcastle, John Taylor Coleridge, William Charles Lake, William Rogers,

  1081
  Goldwin Smith, Nassau Senior, and Edward Miall—
  "Schoolmasters not fit for office of Inspectors.—As to the specific complaint that they are not made Inspectors, we think that they would not be fit for the office. It is absolutely necessary that Inspectors should be fitted by previous training and social position to communicate and associate upon terms of equality with the managers of schools, and the clergy of different denominations. It is one of the alleged grievances of the schoolmasters that these persons do not recognize them as social equals; and that state of things, with which no public authority can interfere, is in itself conclusive against the suggestion that they should be made Inspectors."
  With that opinion he cordially agreed, and he was astonished to hear of the present proposal. His noble Friend's Motion implied that changes and variations were undesirable in themselves; but he could not take that view, as he believed that many most useful variations had been adopted, and that, at any rate, the power to vary the Code was necessary. It would be unwise to say that the Code should be incapable of any alteration which experience from time to time suggested as proper. He wished to add a word or two as to a matter personal to himself as the Head of the Department under the late Government. He observed that the Vice President of the Council, in a speech made at the conference of elementary teachers at Sheffield in the present year, had said—
  "Let me commend to you, when you have a kindly word to say, or a kindly thought to express of the Department, let me commend to you the name of my noble Friend Earl Spencer, who has voluntarily put aside all the advantages of his high position, and all the patronage that belongs to it, and who will not for the remainder of our term of Office, whether it be long or short (and we are setting an example to our successors), appoint gentlemen to the Inspectorate, because they are political allies, or casual acquaintances, to mete out the awards of the State to the teachers of the country. Such conduct as that is, I think, worthy of all laudation and commendation."
  He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) considered that that was an insinuation against the late Government; and, if it were intended to imply that they had made appointments from such motives, he could give the statement his most unqualified contradiction, and he must enter his most strenuous protest against such insinuations as those made by the right hon. Gentleman at Sheffield. He had never appointed a single Inspector for either private or political reasons; but had chosen for the office the best men he could find, without reference to other
  1082
  considerations. In one case only had he known by sight the Inspector thus chosen, and in no case had he any acquaintance with his political views. With regard to the Motion before the House, he advised his noble Friend (Lord Norton) to withdraw it.
  THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEsaid, he wished to repudiate the suggestion that the deputation of the National Society was chiefly concerned with the monetary question. The Archbishop of Canterbury apologized for going into it, saying that, after all, it could not be avoided, because to voluntary schools it was a matter of life or death. That the pecuniary question was the only one they looked at he totally denied; the deputation dealt with the whole Code, and only with the monetary question as necessarily a part of the whole. As to the New Code, it had generally been accepted by the great bulk of those interested in education as an immensely more intelligible document than any that had gone before; and, as far as he could judge from conversations he had had with the schoolmasters of the poorer classes of schools, he inferred that the better class of masters were not at all afraid of it, and would work their schools well under it. Speaking generally, he believed the Code was accepted throughout the country as a considerable step in advance.
  EARL FORTESCUEsaid, that he concurred with his noble Friend who had moved for the Committee in thinking it very largely desirable, but not altogether, on the same grounds. He objected to the New Code, as he had to many previous ones; not because he was an opponent of education—for he had, for more than 40 years, taken a deep interest in the education of all classes, the highest, the middle, and the wage class, and had spent much time and labour and several thousands of pounds in its promotion and improvement—but because he disapproved of much in those Codes. Their Lordships had been told that the New Code was generally acceptable. He could not agree there. It was disapproved of by a large proportion of the school teachers. Mr. Sykes, the President of the General Conference of Elementary School Teachers, in his address—which was warmly applauded—described it as being quite dissimilar to the system pursued in higher schools, where, he said, the masters—

  1083
  "Are not pained and worried throughout the year by the sight of bright, intelligent pupils doomed to idleness and stagnation, and the weak and dull goaded to efforts beyond their physical strength and mental powers, by the demands of a cold, cruel, and exacting system of education."
  The teachers said that, if left to choose their own methods, they could save more than a year's time to their scholars; and it should be remembered that the opinion pronounced by the teachers against the New Code would be naturally mitigated a little by the long-desired concession just made to them by the Education Department, in recognizing their admissibility henceforth to Inspectorships, which had just been so much deplored by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). He (Earl Fortescue) did not complain so much of payment by results, as of the system on which those results were ascertained—namely, by the annual examination of every child in the "three R.'s,"—and some in much more—at an enormous expense to the State, and with very injurious effect upon the children. It was like boys who, after planting a plant, could not resist taking it up again from time to time to look at its roots and see how it got on. It was testing the article during each stage of its manufacture instead of when finished. In Germany, where education had been much considered, it was stated that they had a leaving, instead of an annual, examination of each child, like ours.
  But he further objected not less to the long hours of schooling under these Codes. Mr. T. Morrison, Principal of the Free Church Training College, declared the opinion of the teachers in Scotland to be that the pressure brought to bear upon the children, particularly on the lower thousands, by the Code was injurious—morally, mentally, and physically. Some noble Lords seemed surprised at the word "morally;" but the sense of injustice, restraint, and misery in children longing to be earning something for their families, but kept at school till 14, if they had not passed the Fourth Standard, was such as not unnaturally to cause a re-action in their feelings, and to incline them to break out into those acts of ruffianism and lawlessness which were becoming increasingly prevalent, he found, in the lads of the present day, many of whom must have had the benefit of schooling under the
  1084
  Act of 1870. The testimony, old and recent, as to the mental and physical consequences of the long school hours, was overwhelming. In 1860, Mr. Chadwick stated to the British Association—
  "That in a large public establishment, with 600 children, the girls, who were first provided with industrial work for half the day, beat the boys, who were kept in school the full time, at the general examination; but afterwards, when the boys, too, had work found them for half the day, they resumed their previous slight superiority over the girls."
  And the physiological explanation of this was given on the same occasion by Professor Owen in striking words, which, however, there would not be time to quote here. That eminent physician and most popular lecturer, Dr. Richardson, had cited a letter from Mr. Charles Roberts, stating that after the children had been emancipated by the Factory Acts from the injurious effects of excessive physical labour, the result had now been merely to transfer them from one taskmaster to another—from the manufacturer to the schoolmaster. The Doctor had then described what he himself and trustworthy witnesses had seen of the general unhealthiness of children attending many elementary schools in London, partly natural, but much aggravated by over mental work, without the physical training which alone could have maintained or restored their health. Not only medical men, but The Schoolmaster, the recognized organ of the elementary school teachers, expressed disappointment at the omission of all mention of all physical training from the Code. Ample time could be found for it, if grammar and spelling were less pressed. He felt satisfied that far too much importance was attached by the Education Department to both. Dr. Alexander Bain, Rector of the University of Aberdeen, in his Science of Education, already in its 3rd edition, earnestly deprecated the study of grammar at all before 10 years of age, and said—
  "Anatomists tell us that the brain grows with great rapidity up to 7 years of age; it then attains an average weight of 40 ounces in the male. The increase is much slower between 7 and 14, when it attains 45 ounces; still slower from 14 to 20, when it is very near its greatest size. Consequently, of the more difficult intellectual exercises, some that would be impossible at 5 or 6 are easy at 8, through the fact of brain-growth alone. This is consistent with all our experience, and is of value as confirming that experience."

  1085
  Mr. Langler, President of the Annual Conference of the National Union of Elementary Teachers in 1881, said, in his address—
  "There are many who hold—and I confess to be myself among that number—that the very valuable mental discipline which the proper study of grammar secures is too early introduced as a subject of examination. Children who must leave school for labour at the earliest possible age might much better employ their time by more extensive reading than in the grammatical classification of the few words of their limited vocabulary."
  Our ancestors thought very little about spelling; and, the main object of writing and speaking being to convey our thoughts in an intelligible manner, he could not but feel that perfection in spelling had not all the importance which was very often attached to it. Pope's Correspondent wrote that—
  "Though he might sometimes find too many letters in her words, she hoped he did not find too many words in her letters."
  A correspondent like her would certainly be far more instructive and amusing than correspondents all of whose words were accurately spelt, but which conveyed little but dulness to those who perused them. In order that the whole subject might be thoroughly investigated, he should be glad—though he feared he was taking too sanguine a view—if their Lordships decided to grant this Committee of Inquiry.
  LORD NORTONsaid, he was quite content with the discussion which had taken place; but feared that he must leave the Education Code to arrive by degrees at the point of simplicity to which he would have been glad immediately to bring it before it had hopelessly tainted teachers and managers with mere mercenary calculations on Government aid in the work of national education. He begged to withdraw his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP SITES AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 77.)
(The Lord Aberdare.)
PLACES OF PUBLIC WORSHIP SITES AMENDMENT BILL.—(No. 77.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD ABERDARE, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, ex-
  1086
  plained that it was intended to extend the powers of the Bill of nine years ago, and to give powers, subject to proper safeguards, to Corporations and parochial authorities, to grant sites for churches in the same way as private persona were enabled to do.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Lord Aberdare.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

IRELAND—LANDED PROPERTY— RETURN OF ARREARS OF RENT.

  WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION.
  THE EARL of BELMORE, who had given Notice of a Motion—
  "That a Return be made by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue of all rents and arrears of rent arising out of landed property in Ireland, and which had accrued due before and up to 1st November 1880, upon which probate duty has been paid by the executors of deceased owners since that date,"
  said, that difficulties as to arrears of rent often arose between the representatives of tenants for life and remaindermen as to arrears due before the death of the tenant for life. Remaindermen had in many cases purchased their arrears. He did not wish to refer to the Bill before the other House of Parliament, and as he was informed there would be difficulty in making the Return, he would not press his Motion.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  CATHEDRAL STATUTES AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to provide facilities for the alteration of Cathedral Statutes—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 99.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.