Sitting of 27 February 1883

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN—John Morley, esquire, for the City of Newcastle upon Tyne.
SELECT COMMITTEES—Standing Orders, nominated; Committee of Selection, nominated.
PRIVATE BILLS (by Order)—Second Reading—Alloa, Dunfermline, and Kirkcaldy Railway, debate adjourned; Barry Dock and Railway, debate adjourned; Exeter, Teign Valley, and Chagford Railway, debate adjourned; Hull and Lincoln Railway, debate adjourned; Oxford, Ayleshury, and Metropolitan Junction Railway, debate adjourned; Seafield Dock and Railway, debate adjourned; "Windsor, Ascot, and Aldershot Railway, debate adjourned.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Orders Confirmation * [87]; Patents for Inventions (No. 2) [83]; Patents for Inventions (No. 3) * [99].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  ALLOA, DUNFERMLINE, AND KIRKCALDY RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
    MR. CHAPLINsaid, he rose to oppose the second reading of the Bill, and to move as an Amendment, that it be read a second time on that day six months. By the Bill it was proposed to increase the rates and charges to be made in future in regard to certain commodities which were necessary in the successful conduct of agriculture. The rates and charges in question were to be imposed upon artificial manures. All Railway Bills dealt with this question; but, as a rule, it was provided that all manures should be carried at a certain rate. In this Bill the word "common" was inserted before the word "manures," and the effect was that exceptional charges were imposed in the case of artificial manures compared with what had hitherto been the practice. Unless he could secure an alteration in this respect he should certainly feel bound to oppose the second reading of the Bill. He hoped, however, that the promoters of the Bill would not persevere and insist on making this alteration in these charges. They must be perfectly well aware that the agriculturists felt strongly upon the subject, and that the rates and charges imposed upon agricultural commodities was already a matter of serious complaint, and inflicted great hardship upon those who were engaged in agricultural operations. He begged to move that

    955
    the Bill be read a second time on that day six months.
    Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Chaplin.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid, that he was one of the backers of the Bill, and he supported it not in the interests of the promoters, but on behalf of the public. He was quite as desirous as any other hon. Member could be that the public should make the best terms they could with the Railway Companies; but, at the same time, he wished to point out that this was not the extension of the powers of an existing railway. It was a Bill to authorize the construction of a new railway; and it seemed to him that the agricultural interest of the county of Rife would benefit very largely by the passing of a Bill of this kind, which brought a new railway into the district in competition with another railway which now enjoyed a monopoly of the carrying trade. Without saying whether the charges proposed to be imposed on chemical manures were right or wrong, he thought that the question raised by the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) was one that could be readily dealt with by a Committee upstairs. The House was aware that a Committee sat last year to consider the question of Railway Rates. One of the recommendations of that Committee was that the authorities in future should draw the attention of the House to any Bill which proposed an increase of rates. That recommendation, however, had not yet been adopted, and until action was taken by the House upon the Report of the Select Committee, he thought they must continue to trust to the Committees upstairs to which these Bills were referred. He understood that the words objected to in regard to the rates and charges were not, as a matter of fact, a part of the Bill; but it was proposed to insert them in Committee. Therefore, he thought the Committee would be the real and proper tribunal for dealing with the matter. He understood that some time ago the Great North of Scotland Railway Company applied for powers similar to those asked for in this instance; and, although
    956
    it was an existing railway, the question was referred to a Committee upstairs and decided there. He hoped that hon. Members, however reasonably and justly they might object to the proposed rates, would reserve their objections until the Bill was sent to a Committee, and that they would do all they could to facilitate the passing of a Bill which, by authorizing the construction of an entirely new railway, would afford new means of transit to the public, and enable a competition to be undertaken with another Company which now enjoyed a monopoly of the carrying trade. Under all the circumstances of the case, he hoped the House would pass the second reading of the Bill.
    MR. GREGORYsaid, that he had had the honour of serving upon the Select Committee upon Railway Rates last year, and this was one of the questions which came before that Committee. It was a very important question, and one which seriously affected the agricultural interests of the country. As it involved a principle which might become of very general application, he thought the safest course would be to stop the Bill in limine. It was contended on behalf of the Railway Companies that there was a distinction between artificial and common manures, and that the rates of carriage in the former case ought to be increased. He certainly failed to see upon what ground such a distinction was drawn. It was said that one class of manures was of a more valuable description than the other, and that it ought, therefore, to pay heavier rates; but he did not understand that the cost of carriage was in any way increased to the Railway Company. At all events, the Select Committee had made no recommendation in that respect. On the contrary, their recommendation only went to this extent—that where a Railway Company came to Parliament for new powers, parties objecting to the tolls proposed to be charged should have a right to be heard before the Committee, and that no such Bill should be entertained without a statement from the Board of Trade or some public authority, in the interests of the public, that the rates proposed to be levied were reasonable. He could not help thinking that the House was somewhat unfairly dealt with on the present occasion in not having received any assistance from the Board of Trade or

    957
    any of the public authorities. It was quite true that they received a general Report from the Board of Trade in reference to Railway and Canal Bills; but it was little more than a catalogue of the Bills which had been introduced. It was urged that this was a new Railway, and therefore that the promoters had a right to make these propositions in reference to tolls; but it had been settled over and over again, and was a perfectly well established practice, that all such proposals by Railway Companies should be reviewed. He believed that hitherto it had been usual in Railway Bills to insert all manures in one class; but what was sought by this Bill was to take artificial manures out of this classification and place them in another class by themselves. It established, in fact, a new principle, and he hoped the objection which had been taken to it would receive the careful consideration of the House. It was said that the objection ought to be taken when the Bill went before a Committee upstairs. It was all very well to say that it was a matter for the Committee, but see how it would affect the parties interested. They would be called upon to fee counsel, at a very heavy expense in order to bring their case before the Committee. It was a case of general principle and general application, and if the principle were now adopted it would eventually find its way into other Railway Bills, and it would be most difficult for the House to deal with it.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEthought there was a great deal of truth in what his hon. Friend the Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) had stated; but, so far as he understood the question, the case of this Bill was one upon which the House could not possibly decide, because the House was not the proper tribunal to settle a Schedule of Tolls in a Railway Bill. He did not say that the tolls proposed to be charged were fair or unfair; but with regard to manures it was very well known that there was unquestionably a wonderful difference between mere sweepings of the streets of a town, which the local authorities were only too glad to get out of the way under any terms, and chemical and artificial manures, which were worth £6, £7, £8, or even £15 a-ton. Chemical manures required a considerable amount of care; they had to be conveyed in covered vans, and to be carefully protected from the weather.
    958
    There was so much difference between the one class of manure and the other that in regard to the carriage it was only fair to the Railway Companies that they should charge a higher rate to the public. If the House once took upon itself to settle the Schedule of Tolls in every Railway Bill it would find itself involved in very great difficulties. It was all very well to say that it was a hard case upon people who desired to see that the tolls in the Schedule of a Railway Bill were right and fair to compel them to appear before a Select Committee; but it was only what the public had had to do from the very commencement of railway legislation. So far as he understood the matter, there was nothing very special or very peculiar about these tolls. The Bill proposed to charge a higher rate for the carriage of artificial manures than for common manures; but that was not a matter with which the House should be called upon to deal. It was a question essentially for the consideration and decision of a Committee upstairs. The great question would arise of what the services rendered by the Railway Company were. In the case of one class of manures it might only be necessary to remove them by direction of the local authorities for a few miles out of town at a low rate of carriage. The Railway Company would render hardly any service whatever beyond the carriage. In the other case, that of artificial manures, they would be required to warehouse them, to convey them under cover, and to warehouse them again at the other end. He hoped the House would allow the Bill to go to a Committee upstairs in the usual course.
    MR SCLATER-BOOTHremarked, that the Schedule of Tolls which the Bill proposed to impose involved important considerations of public policy; and, unfortunately, experience showed that Select Committees could not be trusted to safeguard the interests of the public in this respect. This was a public question, and not a local question at all; and, unless it was brought before the Committee in some authoritative shape, there was no security that that Committee would enter upon the subject at all. What was it that they had found out in the Select Committee on Railway Rates and Fares? They found out that clauses in Railway Bills against the interests of the public had crept in from

    959
    time to time, because the subject had not been brought specially forward by someone interested. As he had said, he did not think it was a local question at all. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir George Campbell) said it was in the interest of the county to have a second railway, and for the people of the district affected to say whether the tolls were properly charged or not. But that was not the question at all. The question was whether the matter was to be allowed to be passed over without a word being said about it. If it was, it might be that a precedent would be established which would be followed by other Railway Companies who would quote the precedent set up in the present case, and the result would be that artificial manures would be placed in a classification higher than other manures, and higher than the tolls already sanctioned by other Acts of Parliament. Eventually the sufferers from the precedent so established would be the public. Public attention having been called to the question, he thought it was necessary that the House should have, either from the promoters of the Bill or from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, an assurance that the matter would not be permitted to pass through the Select Committee without being thoroughly sifted, and without the attention of the Committee being specially drawn to it by the President of the Board of Trade. Whether or not this was in accordance with the usual practice of the Board of Trade he did not know. The general assent required from the Board of Trade to Railway Bills was, he was afraid, merely something of a perfunctory process. What was wanted was something more. Last year the President of the Board of Trade found himself unable to deal with the whole subject of the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Rates and Fares; and it was highly desirable, pending legislation upon that question, that the right hon. Gentleman should give an assurance that he would take on himself the duty of having brought under the notice of the Committees appointed to investigate Railway Bills every provision by which an increase of rates was proposed.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: There are two questions which have been raised in the discussion upon this Bill. One is
    960
    the local question which concerns the particular Bill under discussion. That is really a simple matter, although it may involve an important principle, and in reference to it I think I shall be able to make a proposal which will be satisfactory to the House. But there is also the general question which has been raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) and the hon. Member for East Sussex (Mr. Gregory) as to the action of the Board of Trade, or of some other Government Department, in reference to the provisions of any Railway Bill which proposes a change in the classification or amount of rates. Let me say, in the first place, that it was the custom of the Board of Trade, until the last few years, to make a Report on every Railway Bill brought before the House. These Reports were sent to the Committees upstairs; but they were treated by such Committees merely as a matter of form, and thus the practice came to be of not the slightest value. A great deal of unnecessary trouble and labour was caused to the Department, and last year they were finally abandoned. If it is considered desirable that the Board of Trade should make a Report upon these and similar Bills, I think it is necessary that the House should go further and give some sort of Instruction to the Committee that the Report of the Board of Trade should be taken into consideration. Even if the House is prepared to go as far as that, the subject will be a difficult and complicated one to deal with. In the first place, it must be understood that any Report of the kind applies to all rates, and not simply to the case of rates upon agricultural produce or manures. It will apply wherever a Railway Company proposes to increase its rates. Whenever an old Railway Company makes such a proposal, it is perfectly easy for the Board of Trade to call the attention of the Committee to it; but a difficulty arises in the case of a new railway which proposes new rates. In such a case there are two questions which the Board of Trade would have to determine, first, whether the rates are an increase of the ordinary and existing charge, and I will take by way of illustration this question of manures. It is a fact that the rates now in force on different railways vary, and it would be a very difficult thing to say whether the

    961
    particular rates and classification adopted in a new Bill could properly be called an increase or not, because there were precedents for exactly similar rates and classification in existing Bills. On the other hand, there are precedents follower rates and a different classification. And that is not all. The Board of Trade has to take into account the particular circumstances of the new railway. For instance, a new line of railway may be made at a cost double that of an existing line, and it would be perfectly fair for the promoters to demand a higher rate than in the case of a railway which can be more cheaply and economically constructed. I find, therefore, that the question involves a large amount of detail and consideration, and I am not certain that any tribunal can be found to deal with it so good or so competent as a Select Committee of the House of Commons, with power to call evidence and sift the matter thoroughly. The only improvement which I think can be made upon the existing practice is in the nature of a suggestion which has been thrown out already, that there should be on all occasions some sort of Report from the Board of Trade. That we should be willing to undertake if the House would accompany the request with some kind of Instruction to the Board to report with regard to the Bills now before the House. There are a number of precedents for such a course. As regards the question immediately before the House, there are 11 Bills in which this altered classification and these increased rates have been adopted. I do not say whether that precedent ought to be followed in the present case; but it is clearly a matter that ought to be discussed upstairs. In order to meet the objection that the Select Committee may overlook the alteration in the classification, or the increase of the ordinary rates proposed by the classification, I shall be quite willing to undertake, in this particular case at all events, that a special Report shall be made by the Board of Trade, calling attention to the fact that an alteration of the rates has been made.
    MR. E. STANHOPEconfessed that he was disappointed at the speech which had just been delivered by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade. The attention of the Board of Trade had been specially called
    962
    to this question by the Report of the Select Committee on Railway Rates; and he had hoped that when the right hon. Gentleman rose he was about to lay before the House some distinct policy upon the matter, and to tell them how the question was to be dealt with. But the right hon. Gentleman had, after all, only suggested to them that the way in which the difficulty might be met was by laying before the Select Committee on these Bills Reports from the Board of Trade, to which Reports the right hon. Gentleman told them, with great truth, Select Committees in former years had paid no attention whatever. That might be a satisfactory course in the view of the right hon. Gentleman; but it was not at all satisfactory to the House, and especially to those who represented the agricultural interest. Their reason was this—they felt that Select Committees could not be altogether trusted in the matter. The question of rates upon manures might be one of no particular interest to any of the parties who went before the Committee, and the questions which the agricultural interest desired to raise might not be brought prominently under the notice of the Committee, who would consequently pay no attention to the complaint. But the question was one in which the general public was interested, and in which the agricultural public was specially interested; and, so far as he could test the feelings of Members who represented county constituencies, it was their determination not only to oppose this Bill, but every Bill of a similar character which attempted to increase the rates upon manures. The right hon. Gentleman told them that certain precedents had already been established. He was very sorry that was so, and that such a precedent should have been allowed to have been created. The real truth was that it was extremely difficult for a private Member to observe the clauses of all the Private Bills that came before the House, and some of them invariably escaped notice. He was not disposed to deny that there might be in this Bill some provisions which would benefit the general public, and would not hurt the agricultural interest in any way. It was not their desire to prevent those portions from becoming law; therefore, he would suggest to the House that as this question had now been raised in a manner

    963
    which would call the attention of the public to the important issues involved, they should now adjourn the debate until a future day, and take it up at a time when it could be thoroughly discussed and understood. He begged to move the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. TOMLINSONseconded the Motion.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. E. Stanhope.)
    SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONasked the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade if it was his intention to secure that all the Railway Bills should be referred to the Board of Trade, or only those which involved this particular question of an increase of rates?—because he (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) wished to point out to the House that although there were only a certain number of Bills which raised this particular question, there were before the House this Session Bills which involved the principle, he believed of some 480 miles of new railways. He believed that many of them were on all-fours with the Bill they were now discussing, and would come under this special proposal. Therefore, he wanted to know, if the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was adopted, whether it would only apply to this Bill, or whether he intended it to apply to all Bills coming under a similar description? He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) hoped the House would agree with the proposal of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), unless they got some assurance from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade that he would take charge of these Bills in order that the question of rates should receive proper consideration.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: In answer to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Sir Baldwyn Leighton), I may say that I intended to make it quite clear that what I propose is this—that the Report of the Board of Trade, which I have suggested, should apply to all Bills falling within this category, which have been introduced in the present Session, and which propose an alteration in the ordinary classification of the rates affecting agricultural manures. I pointed out that the principle of such a Report would apply to all rates whatsoever; but I am not prepared at this moment
    964
    to propose to the House that the Board of Trade should be called upon to report upon all Railway Bills. My only object was to get over the present difficulty, and to insure that this particular matter was specially inquired into. The Board of Trade will be quite prepared to make a Report upon any changes which have been made in the classification of agricultural manures.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that his name appeared upon the Paper as opposing the second reading of this Bill, and he wished to apologize to the House for not having been in his place when the Bill was called on. Unfortunately, when he was coming down to the House there was an accident to his carriage, which prevented him from reaching the House in time. With regard to the general question, he did not gather from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade—
    MR. SPEAKER: The noble Viscount must confine himself to the Question of the adjournment of the debate.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he only desired to make one observation. He did not gather from what the President of the Board of Trade stated that his answer to the question addressed to him would be satisfactory to those who opposed the second reading of the Bill. He therefore trusted that the House would consent to the proposition of the hon. Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. E. Stanhope), and agree to the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYexpressed a hope that the House would agree to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Stanhope). This was an important question, and it was desirable that it should receive some consideration in the country, and by those who were interested.
    VISCOUNT FOLKESTONErose to Order. He wished to know whether the hon. Member was confining himself to the Motion before the House?
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must confine himself to the Question of the adjournment of the debate.
    MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that he was suggesting that the proposal which had been made for the adjournment of the debate was a very proper one, for the purpose of giving the promoters of the Bill an opportunity of stating whe-

    965
    there they were prepared to adhere to the proposition contained in the Bill now before the House. He thought that the debate ought to be adjourned, not only in regard to this Bill, but also in regard to the other Bills which raised the same question. It would be most inconvenient to adjourn upon one and not upon the other; and it was quite possible, if they were to refer any of these Bills to a Select Committee, without the Report which the President of the Board of Trade had promised to make, that the whole of the leading features of the objectionable clauses might not be dealt with.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, lie hoped the promoters of the Bill would agree to a short adjournment, in order that the Board of Trade might consider whether, pro hâc vice, they would send a representative from that Department to consult with the Committee.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: Perhaps I may be allowed to point out what I understand to be the state of the case. What we are asked to do is really to take care that we do not pass these Bills without attention being called to any changes proposed to be effected in the classification of the rates. What the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth) suggests is, that I should do much more in the matter, and express the opinion of the Board of Trade whether the change is desirable or not, and have our opinion represented before the Select Committee either by counsel or otherwise.
    MR. SCLATER-BOOTH: Evidence might be given by someone deputed to represent the Department.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I presumed that to be what the right hon. Gentleman meant—namely, that a representative of the Board of Trade should attend the Committee and give evidence. Of course, that is the only position in which he could appear before the Committee at all. Now, I do not think I should be quite prepared to take that course. My desire is that the Committee should have the matter brought under their notice; but I do not desire that the Board of Trade should express an opinion, and advocate that opinion before the Select Committee.
    MR. TOMLINSONdesired to say one word before the matter was disposed of.
    966
    He wished to suggest a reason why it was desirable they should adjourn the debate, and that was in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade an opportunity of considering further whether, in pursuance of the fourth recommendation of the Railway Rates Committee, some provision might not be made affording Chambers of Commerce and others interested on behalf of the general public a locus standi to appear before the Select Committee.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLremarked that, in the interest of the promoters of the Bill and of the public, he saw no objection to the adjournment of the debate, if it were understood that it would be only a short adjournment for not more than one week.
    Motion agreed to.
    SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked to what day it was proposed to adjourn the debate?
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL: To this day week.
    Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

BARRY DOCK AND RAILWAYS BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he had placed upon the Paper a Notice for the rejection of the Bill. The opposition to the Bill was precisely the same as that against the previous Bill, and it was convenient that this Bill should be postponed in the same way as the other one. No arguments could be adduced in favour of the second reading of the Bill other than those which had been adduced in the case of the Alloa, Dunfermline, and Kirkcaldy Railway Bill. He did not know who was in charge of the Bill; but he should like to have an assurance that the Bill, and some of the others which followed, would be postponed.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, there were several Bills which came under the same category—the Exeter, Teign Val-

  967
  ley, and Chagford Railway Bill, the Hull and Lincoln Railway Bill, the Oxford, Aylesbury, and Metropolitan Junction Railway Bill, the Seafield Dock and Railway Bill, and the Windsor, Ascot, and Aldershot Railway Bill. All of them contained the same differential clauses in regard to manures, and therefore they ought all of them to be postponed.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, that if he was in Order, he would move that the consideration of the Barry Dock and Railways Bill be postponed until the same day as the Alloa, Dunfermline, and Kirkcaldy Railway Bill. He wished to add that he should oppose these Bills to the utmost extent in his power, unless the objectionable provision were taken from them before they appeared in the House on the next occasion. He had received a letter from somebody that morning, whose signature, however, he could not read, informing him that he was going to consult with the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means upon this Bill before the House met. He gathered from that that there was some hope of effecting a satisfactory compromise upon the question. But even if that satisfactory compromise had not been arrived at, he hoped that in the course of next week the promoters of the Bill would see their way to the elimination of these objectionable clauses which he had taken the liberty to oppose.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned.''—(Viscount Folkestone.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

EXETER, TEIGN VALLEY, AND OHAGFORD RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  MR. J. W. BARCLAYsaid, that, for the same reasons as those which had been stated in regard to the two previous Bills, he would move that the debate upon the present Bill be also adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. W. Barclay.)
  MR. HICKSasked if this was the Exeter Bill?
  MR. J. W. BARCLAY: Yes.
  MR. HICKSsaid, there was a Notice for the rejection of the Bill standing in his name on the Paper, and he should like to occupy the attention of the House for a few moments while he explained the reasons which had induced him to support the Motion for Adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House is the adjournment of the debate. That Motion having been made, the hon. Member must confine his observations to that Question.
  MR. HICKSsaid, that he would confine himself to it. He thought it must commend itself to the House that the whole of the so Bills ought to be treated in the same way. He ventured, however, to indorse the hope which had been expressed by the noble Viscount the Member for South Wilts (Viscount Folkestone) that when they met again to consider these Bills, after the adjournment, the promoters would be ready to come forward with an assurance that these most objectionable clauses had been struck out.
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

HULL AND LINCOLN RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. NORWOOD,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that, so far as he could learn, the only objection which had been raised against this very important Bill—which comprehended the construction of a bridge across the Humber, and a means of communication between Hull and North Lincoln—had reference to two items in the Schedule, by which it was proposed to impose certain differential rates upon the carriage of common and artificial manures, which were said to be of an exceptional nature. Now, he ven-

  969
  tured to say that a very proper distinction was drawn in charging a higher rate for the conveyance of artificial manure, such as the best Peruvian Guano, which was worth £16 a ton, and which required to be conveyed in covered carriages and warehoused, instead of being exposed to the atmosphere, than for common manures, which were of very little value indeed, and the conveyance of which required no extra care whatever. Artificial manures were highly charged with ammonia, and unless great care was exercised in their conveyance their value became considerably deteriorated. It was not customary to oppose a Private Bill introduced in the interests of the public at this stage, and such a course was particularly inconvenient now, seeing that the Session was already much advanced, and it was necessary to get these Private Bills before Select Committees at once. The course now taken by an isolated interest of adjourning the second reading of Bills of this nature was a monstrous thing, and not only inconvenient to the promoters, but to the House itself. He should certainly divide the House against the adjournment of the debate, because he had no wish to be dictated to by eminent agriculturists on the other side of the House. He begged to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Norwood.)
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down objected to be dictated to by an isolated interest, whom he accused of opposing the Bill. Now, the agriculturists of the country—
  MR. NORWOODsaid, he had alluded to the manure merchants.
  VISCOUNT FOLKESTONEsaid, he had understood the hon. Gentleman to refer to the agricultural interest. The hon. Member seemed to think it was a monstrous thing that certain persons should oppose the Bill, because they objected to differential rates being charged upon artificial manures. It might be a monstrous thing, but he wished to explain to the House that it was a matter which had already been determined by the House itself. In the year 1881 the Great North of Scotland
  970
  Railway Company brought forward a Bill by which they endeavoured to put a higher rate upon artificial manures than common manures. The question was brought under the notice of the House, and the House decided that the Company should not be allowed to charge these rates. If, then, it was a monstrous thing, the House had already decided to do it; and if it was right in 1881, he maintained that it was also right in 1883, and more especially in 1883 than in 1881, because the agricultural interest had suffered since that time two years more of agricultural depression, and was therefore less able to afford to pay these extra rates. If the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) persisted in going on with the Bill, he should oppose the second reading.
  MR. J. HOWARDsaid, the question was rather more important than it appeared to be on the face of it, because if these powers were granted to new Railway Companies to raise the rates upon manures, the existing Railway Companies would have good reason for seeking to raise their rates also. Upon that ground he should most strenuously oppose the Bill. Further, he thought that the Board of Trade ought not to have allowed Bills to slip through Parliament last Session containing these objectionable clauses. The Board of Trade existed for the public interests, and not in the interest of Railway Companies.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he thought the House would agree that it would be a monstrous thing if this Bill were allowed to be read a second time, when other Bills containing similar provisions had been postponed. He, therefore, hoped that his hon. Friend the Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood) would not press the second reading of the Bill, but would consent that it should be deferred, with the others, for future consideration. Without making further remarks, he would move the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Sir Walter B. Barttelot.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

OXFORD, AYLESBURY, AND METROPOLITAN JUNCTION RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. J. R. Yorke.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

SEAFIELD DOCK AND RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

WINDSOR, ASCOT, AND ALDERSHOT RAILWAY BILL (by Order).

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Dodds.)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Viscount Folkestone.)
  Motion agreed to.
  Debate adjourned till Tuesday 6th March.

MOTIONS.

  PARLIAMENT—STANDING ORDERS.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYmoved that the following Members constitute the Select Committee on Standing Orders:—Sir JOHN MOWBRAY, Sir EDWARD COLEBROOKE, Mr. CUBITT, Mr. FLOYER, Mr. MONK, Mr. MULHOLLAND, Mr. DENIS O'CONOR, Mr. PLAYFAIR, Lord ARTHUR
  972
  RUSSELL, Mr. WHITBREAD, and Mr. YORKE.
  Motion agreed to.

  PARLIAMENT—COMMITTEE OF SELECTION.
  Standing Order No. 98 read, as followeth:—
  "There shall be a Committee, to be designated 'The Committee of Selection,' to consist of the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standing Orders, who shall be ex officio Chairman thereof, and Fire other Members, who shall be nominated at the commencement of every Session, of which Committee Three shall be a quorum."
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, that, in rising to move the appointment of the Committee of Selection, he wished to explain why he brought forward the Motion in its present form. On the first day of the Session, in conformity with established usage, he had placed a Notice on the Paper for the nomination of the Committee of Selection. The proposal then made was that the Committee, as in former years, should consist of five Members; but, knowing at the time that the attention of the House was about to be called to the question, instead of giving the usual Notice he gave five days' Notice. It was then represented to him by several hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House that it was desirable a little further delay should take place, and he had acquiesced in that desire. He now came forward to move the appointment of the Committee, and in deference to the opinions entertained in many quarters of the House he proposed to increase the number from five to seven. There could be no doubt that new and important duties would be imposed upon the Committee by the Resolution passed by the House upon the 1st of December; and it was considered desirable, having regard to these new duties, that there should be an addition to the strength of the Committee. At the same time he was sure that the Committee, whether it was large or small, would be prepared loyally to discharge whatever duties the House might impose upon them. There could be no question that the duties of the Committee of Selection would not be lightened by the decision arrived at by the House in December last; but, a additional duties had been thrown on them, the Committee would be quite prepared to discharge them. The only

  973
  question now for the consideration of the House was, what was to be the number of Members to constitute the Committee of Selection. There appeared to him to be, on the part of several Members on both sides of the House, a desire to enlarge the number. Speaking for himself, and from the experience he had had in connection with the Committee of Selection for the last 10 years, a small Committee would work together better than a large one. But he had no objection to a moderate addition. His hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) had proposed the addition of three Members, but he thought that an addition of two would be quite sufficient. He, therefore, proposed to increase the Committee of Selection from five Members to seven. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) proposed 10, but he thought that number would be too large for the discharge of the duties which the Committee would have to perform. It was undesirable to enlarge the number to any considerable extent. In the debate in December last it was urged that the Committee consisted of Gentlemen who were too exclusively devoted to the Front Benches. Personally, he was not conscious of any such devotion, and he had certainly never seen anything in the nature of partizanship exhibited in the proceedings of the Committee. On the contrary, the Committee had invariably devoted themselves to the simple discharge of their duties. He might say that he had come to an understanding in regard to the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), and he had placed the present Motion on the Paper. If his proposal were agreed to, the Committee of Selection would virtually consist of eight Members, because the Chairman of the Standing Order Committee was always a Member also of the Committee of Selection. What he proposed now was to add the names of the junior Member for Bradford (Mr. Illingworth) and the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drum-mond Wolff), who were Gentlemen of independent character, and could not be said to be animated by partizan views. He hoped that the experiment of appointing Standing Committees, which was sanctioned by the House last year, would work satisfactorily; and one important duty which would fall to the lot of the
  974
  Committee of Selection was the appointment of the Chairmen who would have to preside over the Standing Committees. He begged now to move to amend the Standing Order by leaving out "five" and inserting "seven." If that were adopted, he should then move the names of the seven Gentlemen whom he proposed to nominate upon the Committee.
  MR. DILLWYNsaid, he rose for the purpose of seconding the proposition of his right hon. Friend. This was, to some extent, a continuation Committee. He admitted that the Committee had very important duties to perform, and that they would be much heavier under the New Rules. It was, therefore, more desirable now than ever that the House should adhere to its old practice of appointing, as far as possible, those who had acquired a special knowledge of the work to be performed. Under the New Rules the duties would be very much enlarged, and the powers of the Committee would be very much altered and extended. Under the old state of things it was only necessary to appoint the Committee of Selection with special reference to the Private Business of the House; but they would now be called upon to select a very large Committee, which would have very important functions to perform. He believed there was a general feeling that the Committee should, therefore, be increased in number, and the proposal now made was intended to satisfy the feeling of the House. So far as he was aware, there had never been any dissatisfaction on the part of the House as to the manner in which the old Committee had done its work. For his own part, he thought the results which had been brought about showed that they had done their work very well. He had certainly never heard any complaint of the Committees which had been appointed for investigating Private Bills. The duties imposed upon the Committee of Selection were now very largely increased, but he had no doubt the Committee would still continue to give the utmost satisfaction. The Order as to Grand Committees was temporary only. Perhaps, if it had been other than an experiment, and if the Grand Committees were to be appointed permanently by a Standing Order of the House, it might have been desirable to take a different course. He did not

  975
  think the House would have been satisfied to grant these very large new powers, if they were intended to be permanent, without some further addition to the number of the existing Committee. As, however, the experiment was only temporary and for one year, he thought his light hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) had done well to confine the addition to two. If his right hon. Friend had proposed to increase the number largely it would have taken up much of the time of the House to settle and arrange not only the numbers, but the duties. That inconvenience would, he thought, be avoided by the plan of his right hon. Friend. He was satisfied that the names which had been added would be accepted by the majority of the House; and, therefore, the delay would be avoided which would have been involved if a larger addition had been proposed. His hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Bylands) proposed to increase the number to 11. As a rule, a large Committee was not a desirable Committee for the performance of such very delicate work as this Committee would have to perform. He certainly preferred the number which had been suggested by his right hon. Friend. It was quite a sufficient number for trying the experiment; and if at the end of the year it was found that the experiment was successful, and it was resolved to continue the Standing Committees, the House would have some experience before it of the manner in which the Committee of Selection had done their work. He thought the number proposed by his right hon. Friend was a better number than that which they now had; and he had, therefore, great pleasure in seconding the proposition.
  Amendment proposed thereunto, to leave out the word "Five," in order to insert the word "Seven,"—(Sir John Mowbray,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Five' stand part of the said Standing Order."
  MR. RAIKESsaid, he must confess that he had heard with some disappointment the statement which had been made by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray), because he had rather hoped that the House would have received from
  976
  him a little information as to his views in regard to the functions to be discharged by the Committee of Selection under the new Order passed last year. It was recognized that some change in their functions was contemplated, because it was proposed to enlarge their number, and that in view of extended duties. What he thought the House would like to know was, whether the Committee of Selection intended to confine themselves strictly and entirely to the mere duty of selecting the names of the Members to serve upon the Standing Committees, and the cognate duty of selecting a Chairman's panel to act as Chairmen of such Committees, or whether they intended to take any steps, such as he gathered from the answer of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) the other day, the Government were rather disposed to throw upon the Committee of Selection. Were they to have from the Committee of Selection or from the Chairman's panel any suggestion as to the regulations which were to prevail in these Standing Committees? He should be told, he supposed, as he had been told already, that the House had decided that the procedure of these Standing Committees was to be the same as that of the Select Committees of the House. Perhaps he might be forgiven if he reminded the House that there were, at least, three different sorts of Select Committees known to the House, and that the procedure in each of those different Committees varied more or less from that adopted in other Committees. They had Select Committees on Private Bills; and those Committees had a practice of their own, which was largely concerned in the examination of witnesses by counsel. Then they had Select Committees to whom Public Bills were sometimes referred; and they had Select Committees to whom particular questions were sometimes referred. In all of these Committees, as far as his experience went—and he had served on more than one of such Committees—the practice was simply adopted to suit the convenience of the Chairman of the day. He remembered serving once on a Select Committee where an important question arose as to a clause in the Bill referred to the Committee. It was a question upon which he and another Member entertained opinions adverse to those of the Chairman. They

  977
  reached the clause upon which there was a difference of opinion at one Sitting, and then adjourned the Committee; but when the Committee re-assembled he was told that there had been an informal gathering of the other Members of the Committee behind the Chair, and that they had gone through 24 clauses of the Bill. Now, he did not suppose that that would be practicable in a Standing Committee; but it indicated the loose view which a Chairman of a Select Committee, who happened to be a leading Member of the Government of the day, had been known to take as to the mode of procedure. He was anxious to know, and he hoped his right hon. Friend would be able to explain, whether the Committee of Selection could by themselves, or jointly with the Chairman's panel, create or formulate any Rules with regard to Standing Committees and submit them to the House. No doubt, there were some points of no great importance which might occur in regard to Standing Committees which might be settled by the Standing Committees themselves after they had gained experience he believed, however, that there was more than one important point that had not yet been determined; he might, perhaps, suggest one—whether any Member of the House would be eligible to serve on both of the Standing Committees, or whether the fact that a Member was appointed to serve on one was to exclude him from serving on the other. He did not think it would be fair to call upon the Committee of Selection to determine an important point like that by themselves in their room upstairs; and it was desirable that they, or Her Majesty's Government, should submit some scheme for the regulation of the procedure of these Committees to the judgment of the House. It was quite possible that there were many Members in the House who might be well qualified to serve on Committees relating to matters of commerce, and also relating to the amendment of the law; and such Members might be appointed on both Committees, unless the House was told that one Committee was to be exclusively confined to merchants and the other to lawyers. There were many merchants who were well acquainted with questions of law; and, no doubt, there were some few lawyers who knew something about questions of com-
  978
  merce. He therefore presumed that it ought not to be an insuperable bar that a man's knowledge of one subject should exclude him from acting upon a Committee with the Business of which he had more or less knowledge. He hoped, therefore, to hear, if not from his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray), who had already addressed the House, at least from the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), who was well acquainted with the conduct of Business by the Committee of Selection, whether it was intended by him, or any other Member of the Committee, as was now proposed, to take any steps to obtain the sanction of the House to any Rules for regulating the procedure of Standing Committees?
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he believed that it would now be a convenient time for him to move an Amendment to the proposal of the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) which he had placed upon the Paper—namely, to amend the Standing Order No. 98, by leaving out "five," and inserting "ten." The effect of his Amendment would be that, instead of having a Committee of eight, the Committee of Selection would consist of 11. He dismissed at once any argument of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Dillwyn) as to the policy or impolicy of appointing a large Committee. They could not, if they so wished it, have a large Committee; but it appeared to him that the Committee of Selection were about to undertake work very different from that which they had performed hitherto, and, therefore, that the House might properly consider whether there ought not to be some material alteration in the constitution of that Committee. He would remind the House that the Committee of Selection appointed in former years was appointed simply in connection with Private Bills. It would be observed that the Standing Order they were about to modify was a Standing Order relating only to the Private Bill Business of the House; and the Committee of Selection was, no doubt, very properly and efficiently constituted for the purpose of dealing with Private Bill legislation. But it was now proposed that this Committee of Selection, instead of being a Private Bill Committee, should be a Committee of Selection

  979
  that would affect very considerable interests in that House; and it was, therefore, desirable that the opinion of the House should be represented upon it as far as possible. However indefatigable they were in the discharge of their duties, it could hardly be expected that five or six Gentlemen would represent the general view of the House—at any rate, as well as a Committee consisting of a larger number. It appeared to him that the argument of his hon. Friend below him (Mr. Dillwyn), in which he proposed that they should have a small Committee because it was only an experiment, was an argument that scarcely deserved the consideration of the House. What they had to do in making this great experiment of the appointment of Grand Committees was, that they should start with every possibility of their successful working; and one of the first steps they should take was to take care that the Committee of Selection fairly represented every section of feeling in the House. In order to do that it was necessary, in his opinion, that there should be a larger Committee than that proposed by his right hon. Friend. The Committee on Standing Orders, which had just been agreed to at the instance of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir John R. Mowbray), consisted of 11 Members; the Public Accounts Committee also consisted of 11 Members, and he did not see any reason why this Committee should not follow that precedent and consist of 11 Members also. He begged, therefore, to move the Amendment he had placed upon the Paper to amend Standing Order No. 98 by leaving out "five" and inserting "ten."
  MR. SPEAKER: I wish to point out to the hon. Member that the Question before the House is that the word "five" stand part of the Question. When the House negatives that proposition, then the Question will be put that "seven" be inserted, and the hon. Member will then be in Order in moving his Amendment.
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, he was glad to think that an Amendment which he had placed upon the Paper, immediately the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) gave Notice of his intention to move for this Committee, had received such general en-
  980
  dorsement from all sides of the House. He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, in making successive postponements of the Motion, and now presenting it with an alteration of its terms, had never done him (Mr. O'Connor) the honour of communicating to him in any way that it was his intention to alter the original proposal. When this Motion was first put upon the Paper, it occurred to him (Mr. O'Connor) that it was absolutely indispensable that some alteration should be made in the constitution of the Committee of Selection. That Committee was charged, and always had been charged, with very important duties. Every Private Bill was referred to them, and they had to nominate the Members of the Committees, both upon opposed and unopposed Bills. They had also to nominate the General Committee upon Railway and Canal Bills. To them was referred every Provisional Order Bill which was not sent to the General Committee on Railway and Canal Bills. Those Bills, affecting very varied and very important interests, were properly committed to a number of Gentlemen of very great experience and of high character, whose names would at once secure the acceptance and respectful recognition of every quarter of the House. They were the names of Gentlemen who had been up to this time Members of the Committee of Selection, and he should be very sorry to say one single word in disparagement of any one of them; but the duties of the Committee of Selection from this time forward, in consequence of the Standing Order of December, 1882, would be very much more important, and very much more delicate than they had ever been before. As the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken (Mr. Rylands) remarked, their duties had been taken from mere Private Bill legislation, and made to apply to matters of a public character. What were those duties? From a House consisting of 650 Members it would be the duty of the Committee of Selection, hitherto numbering only five with the Chairman, of whom three form a quorum—it would be their duty to select some 160 Members, or something like one in every four of the Members of the House; and, having made that selection, they would have to proceed with the distribution of this selected body into two smaller

  981
  bodies; and, in making that distribution, they would have to consider not only the constitution of the House, but the personal and professional qualifications of every single one of the Members constituting the Committee. But that was not all. They would have to consider the nature of the Bills to be submitted to the two new Standing Committees; and, seeing that those Bills were of more than usual importance, it would be at once perceived that they would be entrusted with a very delicate and difficult duty. Even that was not the entire extent of their duty; but they might be called upon to select 15 special Members to be placed upon each Standing Committee, in order to supplement the normal strength of the Committee in exceptional cases. And that was not all; the Standing Committees were not to be allowed the right of selecting their own Chairman; but the Committee of Selection was to appoint a small panel of four, five, or six Members from among whom the Chairmen of the Standing Committees must perforce be taken. Well, the selection of the Chairmen and Members of the Standing Committees, in the manner he had described, appeared to him to be a duty so important and so delicate, not to say invidious and undesirable, that he could very well understand many Members naturally shrinking from undertaking so serious a responsibility. Indeed, he thought that the Members who consented to serve on the Committees now appointed were well entitled to the thanks and grateful recognition of their fellow Members; but in future it would not be sufficient that the Members of the Committee of Selection should be men of weight, high character, and experience. If their Standing Committees were to work successfully, if their Committee of Selection was hereafter to escape criticism and observations, it was indispensable that the Committee should be enlarged so as to secure a varied and representative character, which, with all respect to the present Members of the Committee, it did not possess. Since he had placed his Amendment on the Paper, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray), who had moved, the appointment of the Committee, had adopted his suggestion and had altered the original Motion so as to include a Resolution for
  982
  the enlargement of the Committee. The right hon. gentleman had also adopted, at the suggestion of the noble Lord the Leader of the Party below him (Lord Randolph Churchill), the name of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). He was sorry that the right hon. Gentleman had overlooked one considerably larger Party which sat higher up on those Benches, and which was desirous of placing on the list of Members the name of Mr. Justin M'Carthy. When he (Mr. O'Connor) placed his Amendment on the Paper, it was neither his desire nor his duty to propose more than one name, and the Members who sat on those Benches were not desirous of asking the House to give them more than one place on this Committee; but they did respectfully and hopefully ask that they should be at least allowed one Representative upon a Committee of such signal and unusual importance. In order that they might be able to move the insertion of that name he had proposed his Amendment, which would have enlarged the Committee by a single Member. Of course, it might not be desirable that the enlargement should be so limited. All he could say was that the Irish Members would be satisfied with one Representative upon the Committee, but they would not object to an increase to the extent of 10, 11, 13, or even a larger number. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) now proposed two new names, those of Mr. Illingworth and Sir. H. Drummond Wolff, one representing one side of the House and the other the other; and the Irish Members were told that they were represented by the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry). Now, personally, he had no hesitation in saying that he had the most implicit reliance upon the candour and intelligence, the information and the impartiality of the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); but he had no hesitation also in saying that the Irish Members did not consider that by reason of that hon. Member's presence on the Committee of Selection they who sat upon those Benches and had generally acted together would be adequately represented. They felt that they would be adequately represented by the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy), and

  983
  he trusted that the House would be prepared to accept the addition of his hon. Friend's name, which, at the proper time, he should venture to move.
  MR. W. HOLMSwished to call attention to the fact that the Chairman of the Committee of Standing Orders had proposed that in future the Committee of Selection should consist of eight Members the right hon. Gentleman's proposal was that the number of the Committee should be increased from five to seven; but the Chairman of the Committee of Standing Orders (Sir John R. Mowbray) himself would, as before, by virtue of his Office, be a Member of the Committee, thus making eight. The Committee would therefore be composed of four Conservatives and four Liberals. It had hitherto been the practice to appoint Select Committees with a majority on the side of the Government of the day. Now, this Committee of Selection was a very important one, and would have much more important functions to discharge than it had ever discharged before, and he thought that it ought to have at least a majority of one on the Government side. He should, therefore, at the proper time, propose that the name of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) be added.
  MR. WHITBERADsaid, he did not intend to detain the House at any length, but some of the questions raised in the course of the debate were of considerable importance; and, as his right hon. Friend, who knew the alteration of this Standing Order, and who was himself the Chairman of the Standing Order Committee (Sir John R. Mowbray) was unable to reply, he would ask the House to give him its attention for one or two minutes while he endeavoured to do so. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Raikes) asked if it was the intention of the Committee of Selection, should they be appointed that evening, to suggest, or to frame any Rules for the procedure before the Grand Committees. Now, he confessed that it appeared to him, as the labours already imposed upon the Committee of Selection were of a sufficiently onerous and grave character, it was undesirable to underrate the difficulty and delicacy of the additional task the House was imposing upon the Committee. It was a task of great difficulty and of the utmost
  984
  delicacy, and would require the bearing in mind of numerous and complex considerations, which of themselves would be almost enough to dazzle any Committee. Then he would ask his right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University not to begin by attempting to tie the hands of the Members of the Committee. He should imagine that the ordinary and uniform course would be this that when the Chairmen were appointed, being—as no doubt they would be—men of great experience and weight in that House, they would naturally meet together and consult among themselves whether they would suggest any course of procedure or any Rules for the government of these Grand Committees. The House was not about to commit to a body of total strangers the duties which the Grand Committees would have to perform. The Members of the Grand Committees would all be Members of the House, all of them accustomed to the course of procedure in Committee of the Whole House, and of the procedure before Select Committees; and surely it was not necessary to suppose at the outset that bodies of men so constituted would not be able, if the necessity should arise, to come to the House and suggest some Rules for their own guidance. His right hon. Friend said there were several very difficult questions which the Committee of Selection could not decide for themselves, and he had instanced two; one was whether it was competent for the Committee of Selection to appoint the same Member upon both Committees. In reply to that he had to say simply that there was nothing in the Resolutions passed by the House, so far as he could see, to prevent the same Member being nominated upon both Committees. But he should like to go further, and he thought that unless strong cause arose for it, such a practice would be highly inconvenient, and for this reason—the two Committees would probably be both sitting at the same time; and it would be obviously inconvenient, and a waste of power, to appoint one hon. Member to attend the two Committees. He could conceive it possible, under special circumstances, to appoint a Member upon both bodies; but it would be a very rare and exceptional occurrence. His right hon. Friend asked if one Committee was to be composed entirely of merchants, and the

  985
  other entirely of lawyers. Now, the composition of these Grand Committees was largely gone into when the Resolutions of the Government were introduced; and it was pointed out then that it never was the intention, either of the Resolution or of the House, that these Committees should consist entirely of experts. The very terms of the Resolution showed that that was not the intention of the House, because hon. Members would observe that after the General Committee had been appointed, bearing in mind the composition of the Committee and the Bills to be brought before it, there was even after that a power given to the Committee of Selection to add 15 Members to any one Committee. What he understood to be the wish and intention of the House was that the great body of the Committee should be representative of all the Parties and sections of the House; but that in regard to particular Bills which might properly be brought under the notice of a Committee the Committee of Selection should have the power of adding 15 Members who were specially acquainted with the subject to be discussed. Now, one word about the odd and even number which had been referred to by his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms). With regard to the question of number, it was an invidious task for any Member, when a name was proposed of any Member of the Committee, to raise an objection to the name of any particular Gentleman being on the Committee, and he hoped the House would clearly understand that in any remarks he was about to make he had no such intention. He could have no personal feeling in the matter, and what he would say to hon. Members who advocated an extension of the Committee was this—it was very desirable that the Committee of Selection should not be a Committee of divided opinion. Up to the present time, in all the years that he had been a Member of that Committee, he never remembered that there had been a division among them; and he thonght it was of great importance, if it were possible, that they should continue to keep out of the Committee anything in the nature of a division. It would be remembered that in olden times a very important Committee was appointed in that House—namely, the General Committee upon Elections, which selected the Members to serve,
  986
  and try Election Petitions. Well, that Committee consisted only of six; and what to his mind was a wise rule in the working of that Committee was this—that no decision should be come to unless four were agreed. That absolutely prevented the possibility of any partizan decision being arrived at either on one side or the other. On the Committee of Selection the same number of six had been previously the rule. His own opinion was that if they could get a common agreement among a small number of men, it was useless, in matters of this kind, to nominate a large number. Every one added to a Committee would make it, of course, more and more difficult to arrive at an agreement. With regard to the number which the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) proposed to add to the Committee, he would suggest to his hon. Friend that it would materially facilitate the presence of a division, and that it would be far better to leave the matter as it stood. They would go into Committee and consider each other's opinions and arguments, and not with any preconceived views, and there was always this safeguard that the Chairman himself would never vote except when the numbers were equal. He hoped that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) would not press the Amendment of which he had given Notice. He certainly failed to see how 10 men would be better able to judge of the selection of Members of that House than eight. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) had fairly met the wish of the House by increasing the Committee from five to eight; and he hoped the House would be content with that, unless it could be shown that the feelings and wishes of every section of the House had not been fairly considered in the appointments which were made to the Grand Committees. If such a case were to happen it would most certainly be taken notice of by the House. He had taken great interest in the question of these Grand Committees, and he was anxious to see them work successfully. He was not without the hope that if the House remitted the duty of nominating the Members of the Grand Committees to the Committee of Selection they would be able to persuade even the hon. Gentleman the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) that, in common with

  987
  all Parties in the House, those who acted near him would receive full consideration, and that the appointments would be made without fear or favour.
  MR. SCLATER-BOOTHsaid, he hoped the House would be persuaded, by the speech they had just listened to with so much interest, to acquiesce with the Chairman of the Standing Orders Committee in adding only two Members to the old number of the Committee of Selection with which they were familiar. He agreed with all that had been said as to the great importance of leaving the Committee of Selection email and select; but beyond this he had taken this objection at the time when the matter was discussed, and he had put it to the Prime Minister, who was then in charge of this question of the Grand Committees, whether they were to understand that it was to be the old familiar Committee of Selection with which they were acquainted, or whether anew Committee of Selection was to be appointed or arranged—he would not say packed—for the purpose of nominating the Grand Committees. The Prime Minister replied that it was the intention of the Government, so far as they were concerned, to submit the matter to the Committee of Selection. It would certainly complicate the understanding then arrived at if a large enlargement of the Committee of Selection was now to be made, in order that all quarters of the House should find representation upon it. He believed that all quarters of the House would have due consideration given to them, and he earnestly hoped the House would be content with the alteration proposed by the Chairman of the Committee of Standing Orders, who was certainly better informed upon the whole matter than the House could be. He trusted that the House would not insist upon going further, but would be content with the two names which his right hon. Friend proposed to add.
  SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOTsaid, he quite agreed with the observations which had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for North Hampshire (Mr. Sclater-Booth). His right hon. Friend on his right, the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray), had filled the Office of Chairman of the Committee of Selection for nearly 10 years, and not one single complaint had ever been made in
  988
  regard to the formation of that Committee. There had never been a dispute brought before the House with regard to an appointment which had been made by the Committee, and that was the best and surest guarantee that the Committee had endeavoured honestly and faithfully to discharge the duties entrusted to them. He would go one step further, and would appeal to hon. Members in all parts of the House whether a small Committee on delicate subjects of this kind would not do their duty far better, far more efficiently, and far more satisfactorily to the House than a large Committee. The very remark made by his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), that they had done their work without any division, clearly showed that they had taken into account all the different phases of which the House was composed, and that they would continue to do so. [An hon. MEMBER: No, no!] An hon. Gentleman said "No!" Now, he (Sir Walter B. Barttelot) ventured to say they would. The House had never been able to impugn any of their decisions before, and he was satisfied that no hon. Member would come there and impugn them in future. But, be that as it might, they had a guarantee, at any rate, now that the duty would be well and properly performed. His right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) had agreed to the addition of two names. That would raise the number to eight, and if the names proposed by his right hon. Friend were accepted by the House he was quite sure that they would satisfy every requirement of the House. He was satisfied that a small number would be best; and they would have a guarantee for the future, as in the past, that the new duties imposed upon the Committee would be efficiently performed.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, he was quite sure that the House and the country would scout even the possibility of the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) being inspired by any offensive or hostile intent towards the Irish Party or towards the Tory interests. He was quite certain that they would not take the possibility into consideration. But there was a possi-bilit3r that the House ought to take into consideration—namely, the possibility of

  989
  persons outside the House, and interests outside the House, and constituencies and millions of men outside the House, taking strongly into their consideration the possibility of this Committee of Selection having been proposed without any regard to the interests of the Irish people. The hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just spoken said they possessed a guarantee for the future in the fact that in the past there had been no complaint made against the action, of the Committee of Selection. Now, the fact in this case supplied no analogy whatever to guide the House in regard to the future. There was all the difference in the world between the Private Bill Business which had hitherto alone been the subject of the supervision of the hon. Members composing the Committee of Selection, and the Public Bill Business which was, to a large extent, to be committed to their care in the future. For instance, the Bills that were to be brought before Standing Committees would include questions relating both to commerce and the amendment of the law. He wanted to know what interest, public or private, was not touched by so vast a measure as the codification of the Criminal Law? Above all, it was of importance to the Irish nation, threatened as they were threatened, with all kinds of pains and penalties in future, even after the expiration of the present Coercion Act, that they should know that some safeguards were in existence for the selection of the Members who would deal with the all-important Committee stage of the consideration of the Bill for the codification of the Criminal Law. Last night they heard appeals made by the Government to the Irish Members to assist in forwarding the despatch of Public Business. Surely that appeal from the Government Benches must sound very strangely when it was compared with this entire ignoral of the claims of the Irish Members to supervise the despatch of one of the most important branches of the Public Business. If they were to be excluded and outcast from such important branches of the Public Business there could be but one conclusion. He altogether left out of consideration the intention of the right hon. Member who had introduced this Motion, because it was for the House to consider, after they had heard all that could be said on the subject, in what
  990
  light their action would be regarded outside the House, and it was that aspect of the question that he ventured to impress on hon. and right hon. Members. If he were to lay stress upon the subject-matter of the Bills to be put before the Grand Committees, he might remind the House that in most important branches of penal legislation, and legislation connected with the penal law in such matters as the Prisons Act and the form which the military law should assume, most important Amendments had come from the Benches of the Irish Party. Nevertheless, they were omitted on the present occasion, and all assistance from them discarded. Literally speaking, there was no Representative for Ireland upon the proposed Committee. He was perfectly aware that the hon. Member for the County of Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was included in the list of Members proposed to be nominated by the right hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John E. Mowbray). Now, the hon. Member for the County of Galway had not even addressed a meeting of his constituents for some years, and he believed that the hon. Member had not addressed a meeting of his constituents for very sound political reasons. And yet the hon. Member was the only Gentleman even nominally connected with Ireland who figured in this most extraordinary proposal. As he had said before, the procedure of the Committee of Selection in relation to Private Bill Business offered no guarantee whatever in connection with the Business now before the House. Members of the Committee of Selection would have to choose out of the 650 Members of the House some 160 Members to sit upon the Grand Committees. It was to be presumed that some Irish Members would be chosen by the Committee of Selection among the 160. He wanted to know how the Members of the Committee of Selection, when the Irish Members were excluded from it, were to know or to decide? By what test of capacity or convenience were the Members of the Irish Party to be selected to serve on the Grand Committees, if the Committee of Selection were to act without regard to the convenience of the Irish Members? And if they acted without regard to the wishes of the Irish Party as to what Members were to represent the Irish Party on the Grand Committees, it

  991
  would undoubtedly be in their power to commit a serious injury to the interests represented by the Irish Party. There was only one possible guarantee, or approach to a guarantee, and that was the introduction of some Member in the interests of the Irish Party who would act in conformity with the policy of the Irish Party, and give that assistance as the real position of such a Member in Irish politics would enable him to give. He regarded the question now under consideration as one of the most important parts of the Business of the whole House—as one vitally affecting the rights of Ireland—as one which, if it were decided in a wrong manner, would most seriously affect the interests of Ireland, and most seriously injure those interests. He could only regard this proposal, if it were passed in its present unamended position, as the beginning of that threatened disfranchisement of Ireland which had been so often held out as a terror to the Irish National Party. At a later stage they might make objections to individual names; but at present it was evident that, except in a purely technical sense, there was no Representative of Ireland, North, South, East, or West, proposed to be nominated on the Committee of Selection. He said that with the greatest possible respect for the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry); but as a politician the hon. Member in no way represented the opinions of the Irish people, and he might add that it was quite impossible to leave out of consideration the fact that a Committee of Selection of this kind ought, above all things, to consist of Members who had not taken a distinctly hostile part towards that section of the Irish Party sitting on that (the Opposition) side of the House. If they had any power of choosing, they would certainly not select the most aggressive and unpopular Irish Member to act for the Irish people on a Committee of this kind. It was a matter within the public knowledge that on every possible occasion the hon. Member went out of his way to attack, in the most prejudiced and hostile spirit, the Members of the Irish Party in that House. Of course, if the Committee of Selection was to be based upon its present constitution, the Irish Party could only regard it as an insult to their requirements, and a deliberate challenge to them to be guided by principles and
  992
  motives which they desired to avoid. The proposed composition of the Committee of Selection showed an apparent confederacy on the part of the two Front Benches, and he could assure the Government that the proposal was not calculated to further or promote the despatch of Public Business in that House. He observed that, apparently in compliance with the suggestion of the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill), one of the intimate supporters of the noble Lord was to appear upon this Committee. Well, he did not grudge the hon. Members who sat below the Gangway on the Front Bench their share of recognition. It was only due, if not to their number, at least to the manner in which they had led the Conservative Party. In his conscience he certainly thought that that regard to the Members of the Fourth Party contrasted very strangely with the total disregard shown towards all the Members for Ireland. If he were not mistaken, even the tried services of the Ulster Liberals had been totally neglected on the present occasion, and all their faithful devotion to the Government had only been rewarded, as usual, with calm indifference and total oblivion. He was sure the Irish Members of that House would not be doing their duty to their constituents, but would be neglecting and sacrificing the interests of Ireland, if they lost a single legitimate opportunity of opposing this deliberate exclusion and partial disfranchisement of the Irish vote on one of the most important stages of the Public Business—namely, the Committee stage in the discussion of Public Bills of supreme importance.
  MR. NORWOODsaid, that, while he agreed in the main with the remarks of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), he regretted that the queries which had been put by his hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) had not been answered. What he now understood to be thrown out was the suggestion that the General Committee of Selection, or some other authority in the House, should frame Regulations, and submit them to the House for its approval. Last year the House, with every formality, decided that in regard to certain Bills, the stage known as the Committee stage should be relegated to a Committee sitting upstairs, which

  993
  should be very much larger than an ordinary Select Committee. He certainly thought that a great deal of confusion would be created, unless some understanding were come to with respect to the Rules which were to regulate the proceedings of the Committee, when a Bill went before them upstairs. He had himself served on large Committees appointed to consider important questions of public interest, and there was no order and no regularity of procedure whatever. Very frequently half-a-dozen persons were speaking at the same time. If similar disorder prevailed in the Grand Committees, when they came to the consideration of important public measures, he thought the result might be most lamentable. Then, who was to settle the hours at, and during which, the Committees were to sit? Was the hour of meeting to be settled by the small rump of a Committee, after a protracted sitting of three or four hours? Was it to be possible for the customary hour to be changed in order to suit the convenience of the Chairman, or some other prominent Member of the Committee? If that were done, the Members of the Committee, and the persons most interested, might not attend, and certainly the public would have no opportunity of attending. If Her Majesty's Government, for very good reasons no doubt, thought it right that the old course of procedure upon the Committee stage of a Public Bill should undergo so great a change, he did think that either they or some other body should take the trouble to draw up some simple Rules, and submit them for the approval of the House. He wished distinctly to know whether these Grand Committees were to be conducted in the same form as ordinary Select Committees? If they were to be conducted in the conversational tone, and informal manner, in which Select Committees usually discharged their business, he thought the result would be highly unsatisfactory. The legislation would not be the legislation of the House at all, but the legislation of a mob upstairs. He quite approved of the Questions which had been put to the Government by the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms), and hoped that an answer would be given to them.
  MR. CUBITTsaid, he did not wish to prolong the debate. He had simply
  994
  risen to explain one matter connected with the Committee of Selection, as one who had served on that Committee, which he thought was misapprehended by hon. Members in various parts of the House. They had heard a good deal in the course of the debate about the duties of the Committee of Selection being limited to the nomination of Members to serve upon Private Bill Committees. No doubt, that was the original purpose for which the Committee of Selection was appointed; but hon. Members who had studied the Votes of the House and had attended to its proceedings, would be well aware that the Committee of Selection had another and even more important duty to perform, and that was to nominate the special Members of any important Committee appointed by the House. That practice had been adopted for some years and had worked satisfactorily even in regard to questions which had occasioned considerable excitement in the House and the country. This he conceived, if possible, to be a much more difficult duty to throw upon the Committee of Selection than that now proposed to be imposed upon them in the appointment of the Grand Committees. He, for one, felt that the new duty would be a difficult and delicate one; but he agreed with his hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Whit-bread), that if he (Mr. Cubitt) had the honour to be upon the Committee he would have no right to shirk the duty thrown upon him. With reference to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hull (Mr. Norwood), he thought they had already been mainly answered by the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread). As far as the Committee of Selection were concerned, he (Mr. Cubitt) thought they would be going beyond their powers if they attempted to lay down any Rules for the guidance of the Grand Committees. As his hon. Friend had stated, it would be for the Chairman's Panel to make regulations if they thought it necessary to do so, or for the Chairman of the Grand Committees to make a proposal to the House. For his own part, he did not think that any new Rules were wanted, because the Rules for the ordinary guidance of Public Business would be in the main and on the whole adequate for the procedure of the Grand Committees.
  MR. LEAMYsaid, he did not agree with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Cubitt), that the duties of the Committee of Selection were formerly as important as they would be now. It was proposed that the new Committee should consist of four Conservatives and four Liberals, and the complaint of the Irish Party was that there was no Irish Member nominated upon the Committee who would really represent the interests of the people of Ireland. He knew very well that Englishmen and Scotchmen always thought they were better judges of the legislation suited for the grievances of Ireland than Irishmen were. He feared there was a considerable chance of the Irish Members being ignored altogether upon the Committee. He did not know whether the counsel and advice of hon. Members sitting upon those (the Irish) Benches had proved altogether fruitless even to Her Majesty 's Government in the Committee stage of the Land Bill, and lie doubted if the Government would find that they would expedite the progress of Public Business by excluding them from Committees of this kind. Various attempts had been made in the course of the last two or three years to expedite Public Business, but all of them had assumed the form of a proposal to limit the influence of the Irish Members. Yet every attempt had failed. It might be said that the hon. Member for Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was an Irish Representative, but the hon. Member no more represented the Irish people than any English Liberal did. The hon. Member had always been opposed to the Irish Party, and had always been one of their bitterest enemies. Would anyone pretend to say that the hon. Member would be one whit more anxious to support the views of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) or the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. J. M'Carthy) than any other Member of the Committee? There ought to be some guarantee that the views of the Irish National Party should be fairly represented on the Grand Committees; but even at this very early stage the Government were showing their teeth. The course they were taking proved conclusively, that since the Irish constituencies of Mallow and other places had not been found willing to endorse the policy
  996
  of Her Majesty's Government, the Government were determined to exclude the Irish Members of the House from ail share in the work of legislating for their country. Well, they might exclude the Irish Members if they pleased; but he should like to know what would be the character of the legislation for Ireland which would come from these Grand Committees without any Irish Members upon them? He hoped his hon. Friend the Member for Queen's County (Mr. A. O'Connor) would persist in dividing upon the Question, although at the same time he must confess that he should view the result with perfect indifference.
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he was very anxious to hear what the opinion of the Government was with, regard to the views which had been put before the House by his hon. Friends sitting near him. He believed that this was the first time the position of the Irish Members sitting on that side of the House below the Gangway had been ignored in the selection of one of these Committees. He had certainly expected that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington), the temporary Leader of the Government, would have had something to say as to what ought to be done in regard to the omission pointed out by several of his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friends, who had spoken previously. The Committee of Selection appeared to be nominated by the Chairman of the Committee of Standing Orders, and, therefore, it did not fall properly within the list of nominations for which the Government were directly responsible; but, looking at the state of the Notice Paper, he could not help feeling almost sure that the Government Whips on both sides of the House were consulted by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray) with regard to the nomination of the Committee. [Sir JOHN R. MOWBRAY: No.] Then that was not so. He was glad to be told by the right hon. Gentleman that he had not consulted the Government Whips, or the Whips of the Opposition, and that fact strengthened his argument, because it rendered it still more desirable that they should have some declaration from the Government as to what their opinion was in regard to the proposed change which the right hon. Member for the University of Ox-

  997
  ford suggested by his Amendment. The change as it stood, if it were adopted by the House—namely, the extension of the number of the Committee from six to eight, would practically exclude the Irish Members sitting in that quarter of the House from any representation upon this most important Committee; and it ought not to be urged that, because the nomination on this Committee of Selection had not up to the present proved a subject of contention, that, therefore, it should still be nominated free from criticism and free from remark. By the Standing Order which was passed last Session, the duties of this Committee, which had been previously almost nominal, were enormously extended, and rendered of the utmost importance. They found that now the Committee would have intrusted to it the duty of nominating the Members of the Grand Committees, and also the Panel from which would be selected the Chairmen of these Standing Committees. Now, that alteration in the functions and duties of this Select Committee entirely altered the old position; and the strength of his argument was increased by the fact that, although, nominally, the House would have the supervision or the right of alteration or veto over the powers of nomination exercised by the Committee in respect of these Grand Committees, yet that power would only nominally exist, and would not be effective either for the purposes of criticism or debate. By an Amendment of the 18th February, 1879, to the Order commonly known as the Half-past Twelve Rule, it was provided that Motions for the appointment or nomination of Standing Committees should be exempted from the operation of that Rule; consequently, when they parted with the nomination of this Select Committee, they, practically speaking, parted with their last control over the proceedings of the Government and this Committee as regarded the nomination of Members composing these most important Grand Committees, because everyone knew that when the Government had the power of bringing on a Motion after half-past 12 at night, that, practically speaking, they were in a position to disregard everything except their own wishes and ideas, and to treat the House as though it were non-existent. He had said that the duties which these
  998
  Standing Committees would have to perform would be of vast importance, and it was most desirable that they should approach their task with the confidence of all sections of the House. They had been told that there would be committed to these Standing Committees the Committee stages of Bills regarding Bankruptcy, and the Codification of the Criminal Law, and other measures of considerable importance, and they were also told by the Prime Minister during the passing of the Rule under which these Standing Committees would have their power, that he (the right hon. Gentleman) looked upon this arrangement in the nature or light of an experiment from which he hoped to obtain great results. He looked upon it in the nature of an experiment in the hope that something greater and more important—some additional power or increase of power—under the Rule might, in a future Session, be added, by which the House would be enabled to cope with a considerable portion of the work which now oppressed it. Nothing that fell from the right hon. Gentleman, when he was asking the House to give this experiment a trial, would have induced them to believe that it was his intention to deliberately pass over the Irish Members sitting in that quarter of the House when the time for the nomination of this most important Committee of Selection came. He (Mr. Parnell) believed that if the right hon. Gentleman had been in his place during the days of this Session, he would have so directed matters as to have given them that which they claimed—namely, the addition of one Member of the Irish National Party as a Member of the Committee. That, he believed, was not an unreasonable request. They had always been accustomed to receive a proportion of one-seventh of the total number nominated upon the Committee as the proportion which should belong to them for nomination, and he did not see why the custom should have been disregarded on the present occasion. The explanation might, perhaps, be found in the statement of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford (Sir John E. Mowbray), that he had not consulted with the Whips on either side of the House. It was very much to be regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not done so, and he (Mr. Parnell) thought that if he

  999
  had taken the usual step—he did not mean to say the usual step as regarded the nomination of this particular Committee, but the usual step as regarded the nomination of other Committees of equal importance—the result would have been the saving of a considerable amount of the time of the House. He could not suppose that any section of the House desired to deprive the Irish Members of a right which had already been conceded. He would conclude his observations with the expression of a hope that the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington) would be able to dispel their apprehensions at once—this being the proper time to do so.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I had hoped that this discussion would have concluded without my being called on to take part it. It bas not been the general practice for the Government, or, I think, the Front Opposition Bench, to take part in the nomination of this Committee. It bas been thought desirable—and the practice has worked well—that the nomination of the Committee exercising such important functions should be left as much as possible to the judgment of the House, uninfluenced by those accustomed to lead it on political and Party questions; therefore I considered it unnecessary for me or any right hon. Gentlemen opposite to take any part in the discussion. But as the hon. Member who bas just sat down has appealed to me to know what view the Government take on the question that has been raised, I have only to say that the Government are of opinion that it is desirable they should—as they have done on past occasions—abstain from interfering in any manner whatever, direct or indirect, with the operation of this body. The Committee of Selection was appointed for the discharge of these new duties, because it was a body already in existence, and because it has always exercised its functions with great impartiality and great satisfaction to the House. It is not at all the practice, nor, indeed, bas such been alleged, that the duty of this Committee has hitherto been solely in connection with Private Business. Frequently, on very important questions, when the House has felt itself incompetent to discharge the delicate duty of the selection of Gentlemen to serve on certain Committees, the House has delegated that delicate duty to this
  1000
  very body; therefore we have some experience of the Committee's discharging duties analogous to those that will devolve upon it under the New Rules. The hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his Friends have complained that there is no representation on the Committee of the Party to which they belong. Well, I have to point out that if the Committee only consists of eight Members, no Party in this House of less than 80 are by right entitled to a Representative on the Committee; but what I would rather point out to the hon. Member is that the appointment of this body has not proceeded hitherto upon strictly representative principles. What, I think, the House has desired in the appointment of this Committee has been the selection of Gentlemen of great Parliamentary experience, of great knowledge and acquaintance with Members of the House—possessing knowledge of the particular class of Business which individual Members desire to apply themselves to, and the qualification of Members for considering a particular kind of Business. These, I think, are the qualities the House looks for in the appointment of this Committee; and we have not in past times, nor do I think it desirable we should proceed now, to give to every section or body of the House that exact amount of representation which, numerically, it might be entitled to. We have thought that the appointment of the Committee and its composition might, with great advantage, be left to the judgment of those Gentlemen who have already served with so much satisfaction to the House upon it. If they had desired that the number and composition should remain precisely that which it has hitherto been, I should have boon disposed to support their proposition. They have come forward, after due consideration, and have said that they believe they can discharge their duties with greater satisfaction to the House and themselves if a slight addition is made to their number; and I have no doubt that in that they are making a judicious recommendation that the House will do well to accept. I cannot imagine for a moment that there would be the slightest possible risk if the Committee is appointed as proposed, that the Irish National Party, or any Party in this House, will be ignored by them. I have no doubt that they will

  1001
  discharge their duties with the strictest impartiality, and that they will consult the wishes of every section of the House in the selections they make. I do not know how far the Irish Party will desire to take a leading part in the deliberations of the Standing Committees; but I am quite certain that the body now proposed will give fair and adequate considerations, not only to their claims, but to the claims of every section in the House.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, they were about to confer on this Committee a more onerous task than had ever been conferred upon any Committee of Selection before, and he should consider it a grave omission if no Member from Ireland had been selected by the House to serve on it, increased and important as its functions had become. But the hon. Member for the City of Cork would forgive him for reminding him that, when he claimed representation for the particular section which he led, in a matter so deeply affecting the Order of the House, he should have recollected certain recent utterances of his own which, as his near neighbour, had, by accident, reached his [Mr. Newdegate's) ear. The hon. Member had declared, three or four nights ago, that he was not guided in his conduct by any reference to the opinions of the House, but only by the opinions of the particular section which he himself led. That was what the hon. Member had said. The passage had been erased from the reports; but he (Mr. Newdegate) had risen to say that he did think it absolutely necessary, considering the constitution of the House, which was representative, that some Irish Member who could command the general confidence of the House, and who was thought to deserve it, should be placed upon the Committee. He should, therefore, certainly vote for the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir John R. Mowbray.)
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, he should have thought the noble Marquess, with his great experience of the House, would have been able, even on this novel occasion, to suggest some way out of the difficulty which he confessed, as a Member returned by an Irish constituency, he felt. He did not in the slightest degree question the
  1002
  fairness and impartiality of any Member nominated for the Committee; but on this occasion it unfortunately happened that the only Irish Member nominated was abroad, and would not, probably, return to this country before the most critical stage of the action of the Committee of Selection had passed. The Irish Party would, therefore, be, so to speak, left out in the cold. Irish Members, personally, no doubt, would not object to that, as they would be saved a great deal of trouble, and, perhaps, disagreeable work; but it was necessary that the Irish people should see that they had a Representative on the Committee—someone who would watch over their interests. If his hon. Friend the Member for County Galway (Mr. Mitchell Henry) were at home, he should be glad to acquiesce in his nomination as one Member of the Committee, and perhaps it might follow from that that the Irish Party were not entitled to claim another Representative. But his hon. Friend was away; therefore, in appointing him to the Committee, they were—to use a well-known though, perhaps, not a very Parliamentary phrase—appointing a dummy to represent Ireland. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman who had made the Motion would consent to nominate, in the place of the hon. Member for Galway, some other hon. Member who was at present in the House.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Seven' be there inserted.
  MR. RYLANDSsaid, he would propose to substitute "Ten."
  Amendment proposed to the said proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "Seven," in order to insert the word "Ten,"—(Mr. Rylands,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the word 'Seven' be there inserted."
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, he did not wish to prolong this discussion; but there had been one or two things said in the course of it to which he felt bound to advert. First of all, the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. W. Holms) had suggested the addition of the name of the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn). He had known that hon. Member for 30 years in this House, and

  1003
  had often served on Committees with him. He knew him to have always acted for the public good, and no doubt his assistance would have been valuable on the Committee of Selection; but the hon. Member had declined to serve. As to the Committee being guided by Party considerations, if the hon. Member for Paisley could attend a meeting of the Committee of Selection he would find the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), who had always been a consistent Liberal, working most harmoniously with him (Sir John R. Mowbray); and he should doubt his own identity if he ever ceased to be a thorough going Tory. Since he had been Chairman of the Committee, and, so far as he could recollect, during the time of his Predecessor, there had been no acrimony or contention amongst the Committee. Everything was as fairly and as calmly considered as it could be; and that, he believed, was pretty generally known in the House. There was another point made as to the representation of Ireland on the Committee. The hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Leamy) had said that the hon. Member for County Galway did not represent the Irish people.
  MR. LEAMY: What I said was, that the hon. Member for County Galway does not represent these (the Irish Opposition) Benches.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYsaid, that all he could say on the matter was this—that some three years ago, when he moved the appointment of the Committee of Selection, it was suggested that another Irishman should be put on it, objection being taken to the Member proposed on the ground that his Liberalism was of too weak a type. It was on the suggestion of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the other Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan)—who at that time acted as one of the Whips to the Irish Party—that the name of his Colleague was added to the Committee. He (Sir John R. Mowbray) could not understand how the Irish Members could come forward now in 1883 and declare the hon. Member for Galway unfit to represent them when his fitness was so abundantly recognized by them in 1880. With regard to the hon. Member's (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) absence from the House on the first day of the Session, he had received a letter from him say-
  1004
  ing that he should be glad to continue to serve on the Committee if it was the wish of the House. The hon. Member begged him (Sir John R. Mowbray) to communicate with him if he were reappointed, and stated that a telegram would at once bring him home. If he were wanted he was to be telegraphed for, and he would instantly return to England. He (Sir John R. Mowbray) had written to the hon. Member twice; and, no doubt, if the House did him the honour to re-appoint him—and it could not do better, as he was a most efficient Member—a telegram would be at once despatched to him, and he would return. This it was only fair to say of the hon. Member in his absence. As to the action of the Committee, when appointed, in regard to the selection of Members to serve on the Grand Committees, of course he could not say anything with authority. He was not himself even a Member of the Committee until the adoption of the Resolution before the House; still, he could speak for himself, and, he thought, for the other hon. Members who might be appointed, that they would endeavour fairly and properly to carry out their duty in relation to the Resolution of last Session. They would have the advantage of all the light thrown upon the subject by the discussions which had occurred in the House; and it would, in the end, be for the House to say whether they had performed their duty satisfactorily or not.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNORsaid, that for himself, and he thought likewise for his hon. Friends who sat around him, he could disclaim any desire to cast a doubt upon the good faith and candour of the right hon. Gentleman who had just spoken in regard to the nomination of the Committee of Selection. And the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Hartington) had clearly shown on the part of the Government that they had taken up a neutral attitude in this matter; therefore, he trusted the question would be discussed without anything of personal or political acrimony on the one side or the other. The noble Marquess had pointed out that the Front Opposition Bench, no more than the Government, had ever taken an active or prominent part in the nomination of the Committee of Selection; but he (Mr. O'Connor) wished to draw the attention of the House, and especially of the

  1005
  Front Opposition Bench, to this, that when, during the Autumn Sitting, these Standing Committees wore under discussion, the Conservative Leaders laid stress on the fact that Committees on Public Bills as they were before, and as they would be under the Grand Committee Rule, were totally different. They laid stress upon the fact, that hitherto the work of the Committee, of Selection had been mainly the selection of Members to serve on Select Committees, and that, of course, in that matter, there was not much likelihood of anyone being charged with being actuated by Party considerations. But the Front Opposition Bench were careful to explain that in the selection of Members to serve on the Grand Committees, the Committee of Selection would have a far more onerous and important duty to perform. He would respectfully point out to the House how the Irish Party would be affected. He had asked the Prime Minister during the Autumn Sitting whether an Irish Fisheries Bill would come before the Grand Committee, and the right hon. Gentleman, without hesitation, replied in the affirmative. He (Mr. O'Connor) had refered to another Bill which he believed he was correct in saying the Government intended to refer to the Grand Committees—namely, the measure dealing with a Codification of the Criminal Law. Now, any Bill having for its object the Codification of the Criminal Law would embrace the consideration of a large number of existing Statutes in Ireland upon which the Irish people entertained very strong opinions. For instance, the Committee on the Criminal Code had recommended that the Whiteboy Acts should be removed from the Statute Book, and that prisoners who would otherwise come under those Acts should be tried by Common Law under some other Statute. It was clear, then, that Bills might come before the Grand Committees in which Members sitting on those Benches took the very greatest interest. What was the composition of the Committee of Selection at present? The right hon. Gentleman (Sir John R. Mowbray) had referred to the hon. Member for the County of Gal way (Mr. Mitchell Henry), and had pointed out that his hon. and gallant Colleague in the representation of that county (Colonel Nolan) had recommended him for nomination to the
  1006
  Committee. Well, he (Mr. O'Connor) would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether it was not a fact that the hon. and gallant Member's recommendation was so far back as 1880? [Sir JOHN E. MOWBRAY: Yes.] He thought that was so. Surely the right hon. Gentleman had been a sufficiently careful observer of affairs in that House to know that very great changes had taken place in the relations between the hon. Member for the County of Galway and Gentlemen belonging to the Irish Party. He (Mr. O'Connor) returned thanks to the noble Marquess for his remarks that evening relative to the position which the Irish Party held in the House. The noble Marquess had referred to it as "The Irish National Party." It was gratifying to see that the noble Marquess recognized the fact that the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) represented, not a section of Ireland, but the national feeling and aspirations of that country. What did the hon. Member for Galway represent? It had been said that Members of the Committee of Selection were appointed because of their large Parliamentary experience, of their weight, and Parliamentary influence. Well, although the hon. Member for County Galway was unfortunately absent, he (Mr. O'Connor) could not refrain from saying this with regard to him, that if he were asked to select a Member of the House whose Parliamentary weight was in an inverse proportion to his pretensions, he should select that hon. Member. As a matter of fact, he (Mr. O'Connor) did not know who in the world the hon. Member—at present airing himself in Algiers, and destined, as far as they knew, to air himself there as long as it might suit his taste—represented. He did not represent the Liberal Party in that House; he did not represent Ireland; he did not represent the House generally, if they might judge by the fact that no hon. Member was so successful as he in despatching the House into abuzz of general conversation whenever he attempted to address it. Who or what did the hon. Member represent? He represented no one but himself, and only on the ground that one individual could claim to be represented on a Committee of seven, taken from the Whole House, had he a right to the present nomination. What connection had the hon. Member with the

  1007
  Irish Party? There was not one Member of the Party who was on even speaking terms with him. All the conversation he (Mr. O'Connor) had ever had with him had been across the floor of the House. That conversation had been of a character that could hardly be called amicable; and he hoped that before long, when the Government submitted its position to the verdict of the constituencies, he would have another conversation with the hon. Member in County Galway, which was very likely to be more agreeable to him (Mr. O'Connor) than to the hon. Member. The Irish Members asked that they should be represented on the Committee. Said the noble Marquess—"The Committee is not representative of the numerical proportions of the House, for, if it were, 80 only would have a right to be represented." But who did the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir H. Drummond Wolff) represent? Did he represent a Party of 80? He (Mr. O'Connor) had heard it said, over and over again, especially from the Treasury Bench, that the Party to which the hon. Member belonged at the most could only rally four of its Members—and sometimes the four were so divided that it was hard to know which was the head and which was the tail. So that, if they went on the principle of the representation of Parties, or of proportion, the Party of 40 which followed the lead of the hon. Member for the City of Cork had a much greater right to be represented than the Party to which the hon. Member belonged, which sometimes followed and sometimes disobeyed the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill). He (Mr. O'Connor) was sorry to say that this matter would be understood in Ireland in a very different manner to that represented by the noble Marquess. It would be regarded there as very much like an insult to that country to keep as far as possible from the deliberations of this House the views of those whom the noble Marquess himself had called the Irish National Party.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 213; Noes 54: Majority 159.—(Div. List, No. 12.)
  MR. AETHUR O'CONNOR MR. AETHUR O'CONNOR rose—
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Cubitt be one other Mem-
  1008
  ber of the Committee."—(Sir John Mowbray.)
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: Before you put the names, Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a further Amendment to Standing Order—
  MR. SPEAKER: The House is now engaged in considering the names of the Members to be on the Committee. Does the hon. Member object to the name of Mr. Cubitt?
  MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: No, Sir; but though you did not observe me—though I was not fortunate enough to catch your eye—I rose to move an Amendment before you had actually put the Question. Having risen to address the House before you put the Question, I submit that I am entitled to move a further Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: The House has affirmed by the vote just now taken that the Committee of Selection shall consist of seven Members. No further Amendment can be moved except to the names as put to the House.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Sir Charles Forster be one other Member of the Committee."—(Sir John Mowbray.)
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question proposed," That Mr. Mitchell Henry be one other Member of the Committee."—(Sir John Mowbray.)
  MR. PARNELLsaid, he wished to move, as an Amendment, to leave out the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry and substitute that of the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justice M'Carthy). He regretted that the House, in its wisdom, had not seen fit to agree to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands), which would, probably, have had the effect of saving them from the necessity of objecting to the name of an hon. Gentleman representing an Irish constituency. Such a duty was, of course, an odious one, and one which he, personally, should be very glad to be excused from; but, as the matter now stood, the only way in which the Irish National Party could possibly secure a Representative on the Committee of Selection was by objecting to the name of the Member whom they con-

  1009
  sidered—having regard to all the circumstances of the case—the least entitled to serve on the Committee, and who would make the least serviceable Member of the Committee. There were many reasons, in the view of the Irish Party, why the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry should not be included on the Committee. In the first place, not a single Irish Conservative or National Member had been selected to serve, and it was a fact that by far the larger number of Irish Members sat upon that (the Conservative) side of the House. Why should the minority of Irish Members who sat upon the other side of the House have the hon. Member for County Gal-way to represent them, while the majority of Irish Members who sat on the Opposition side were deprived of any representation whatsoever? It would, in his judgment, have been much better if the number of this Committee had been extended. The functions of the Committee were of the most important character, and he should have thought everybody would have been struck—on the most elementary rules of common sense—with the fact that for the sake of ordinary convenience an Irish Member should have been nominated who was at least on speaking terms with the rest of his Colleagues in the House. But that was not the case with the hon. Member for County Galway, who was not even on speaking terms with any of his (Mr. Parnell's) hon. Friends. He himself was certainly not on speaking terms with the hon. Member. It would, therefore, happen, if the hon. Member for County Galway were appointed, that he "would be entirely deprived of the advantage of consulting with the Irish Members—42 in number—who sat on the Opposition side of the House in regard to the nomination of Members to serve on these very important Grand Committees which were to be tried for the first time this Session. He could not imagine anything of more importance than the due consideration of the feelings and wishes of every section of the House in the selection of hon. Members to compose these Grand Committees, and yet the last chance for the Irish Members making their wishes known would be gone if the name of the hon. Member for County Galway were included. Coming on after half-past 12 o'clock at night, as the nomination of
  1010
  these Grand Committees would come on, it would be practically impossible for the Irish Members to put their views before the House or to have any effective voice in the matter. He regretted, therefore, that the Government could not see their way to announcing an opinion in this matter, and following the rule which had hitherto been always observed of giving the Irish National Party proportional representation on Committees. He begged to move that the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry be omitted and that of Mr. Justin M'Carthy substituted.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. Member, that though he can move to leave out the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry—or can oppose the Motion before the House—he cannot move to substitute the name of Mr. Justin M'Carthy without Notice.
  MR. CALLAN: The Motion is on the Paper.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the name of "Mr. Mitchell Henry," in order to insert the name of "Mr. Justin M'Carthy,"—(Mr. Parnell,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That 'Mr. Mitchell Henry' be one other Member of the Committee."
  SIR JOSEPH M'KENNAsaid, that if the hon. Member for County Galway were in thi3 country now, and if he were satisfied the hon. Member would attend the Committee, he should be very sorry to vote for the hon. Member being left out. He had every faith in the hon. Member's impartiality; but he understood from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford that he had communicated twice with the hon. Member, but not to say that he had had any reply to the effect that the hon. Member would attend at once to the duties of the Committee. Therefore, as it was the earliest stage of the Committee that was the most important, he should, with great reluctance, be obliged to vote for the omission of the name of the hon. Member. These were circumstances which ought to weigh on other hon. Members as much as they did on himself. It was right that the Irish Members should be represented in some shape or other; but as to the hon. Member, they hail only evidence that two

  1011
  communications had been sent to him, and had received no intimation that he was likely to be back in time to be of service.
  SIR JOHN R. MOWBRAYregretted that he had failed to make himself clear. To remove the misapprehension in the mind of the hon. Member, he would repeat that the first communication which had passed between himself and the hon. Member for County Galway had come from that Gentleman he had forgotten on what day he received it, but, he thought, on the day Parliament mot. The hon. Member had informed him, that if he were put on the Committee, he should be quite ready to serve, and he had requested that after the appointments were made a letter or a telegram should be sent to him he (Sir John Mowbray) had, accordingly, written, telling the hon. Member that the appointment of the Committee had been put down for a week ago to-day, and then, when it was postponel till today, he had written again. As he had said just now, if the hon. Member for County Galway were appointed to the Committee to-night, he (Sir John Mowbray) should feel it his duty to at once telegraph to the hon. Member to acquaint him with what had taken place, and there could be no doubt he would soon be in his place—at any rate, on the 9th of March. In the last Parliament, he (Sir John Mowbray) had had the honour to serve with The O'Conor Don; but when that Gentleman lost his seat and was lost to the House, it became his duty to find another Member to servo in his place on the Committee. He had had a certain hon. Member in his mind, but on receiving an intimation from the hon. and gallant Member for County Galway (Colonel Nolan) that his Colleague (Mr. Mitchell Henry) would be a more fitting person, he had nominated that hon. Gentleman. All he could say about the hon. Member was that he had always performed his duty with zeal and fidelity, that he had been a constant attendant at the meetings of the Committee, and that there had never been anything like partiality in his action. He (Sir John Mowbray) thought he should not be acting loyally towards his Colleague if he did not put his name down again.
  MR. O'BRIENbelieved that the selection of the hon. Member for Galway
  1012
  would be accepted in Ireland as a clear proof of the intention which the noble Marquess a few minutes ago disavowed. He (Mr. O'Brien) was not sufficiently acquainted with the machinery of Business in the House, to understand the full importance of the functions of the Committee of Selection; but, after this discussion—however it might have been intended—nothing was more certain than that the selection for the Committee of Selection of the hon. Member for Galway would be interpreted in Ireland as part of the attempt—the gross and unscrupulous attempt—that was being made to take advantage of the prejudice of the moment, to ignore and discredit and disfranchise the Irish people and their Representatives. For himself, he did not greatly value privileges in that House; but if the attempt were made to deprive the Irish Party of a position on which so much depended, and, above all, if that position were handed over to a Gentleman—and he could wish that Gentleman were present, for it was a disagreeable thing to have to say this in his absence—whose selection, of all Irish Members, would be most offensive to the Irish people, and if this selection were enforced contrary to the obvious wish of the Irish Representatives, all he (Mr. O'Brien) could say was that he believed Her Majesty's Ministers would gain less in this House than they would lose in Ireland by their discreditable stratagem.
  MR. O'DONNELLsaid, they had heard from the right hon. Baronet (Sir John R. Mowbray) a very fair explanation of the manner in which it had been proposed to put the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry on the Committee of Selection. The right hon. Gentleman, though responsible for the nomination, though not responsible for the decision of the House, had explained that he had put on the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry three Sessions ago, because he understood that the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry was the one most pleasing to the Irish Party at that time. Since then, the only ground on which, on the showing of the right hon. Gentleman himself, the name of Mr. Mitchell Henry at all appeared on the Committee had been cut away by the hon. Member for County Galway himself. Since that time the hon. Member had distinguished himself on every possible occasion by attacks on

  1013
  the Irish National Party, and he had contrived to make those attacks of such a nature that it was not only a severance of political relations, but of social relations between him and that Party, which had resulted. The selection by the House of such an hon. Member, in the face of the knowledge of these facts, would, he had no doubt, be universally received in Ireland as the expression of a deliberate wish on the part of the House to make itself as offensive as possible to the Irish National Party. That was the issue which would go by the deliberate decision of the House before the Irish people. He might very much regret that such a decision should go before the Irish people; but the House would know, and did know, and the cheers that greeted the declaration that the hon. Member for County Gal-way had severed even personal relations with the Irish National Party, would entirely confirm the opinion of the Irish people—that it would be the conviction of Ireland that a true interpretation had been put on the vote of the House. As he had said, they had had a fair explanation of the manner in which the name of the hon. Member for County Galway had originally got upon the Committee of Selection. He had been placed on the Committee as being really the Representative of the Irish National Party; and they had also received with candour and fairness an explanation of the manner in which his name had now been put upon the list. The hon. Member had sent what was, under the circumstances of the case, a fishing telegram from Algiers to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir John E. Mowbray), declaring his readiness to go on the Committee of Selection again, although the hon. Member was fully aware, when he despatched the communication, that he no longer, in any sense, represented the Irish National Party. He (Mr. O'Donnell) could fully enter into the feelings of the right hon. Gentleman, who felt that, under the circumstances, it would be most ungenerous on his part to throw overboard an old Colleague who evidently was so anxious to be on the Committee, and, accordingly, they had the candid statement that as soon as the hon. Member knew that he was elected, he would hasten home to take part in the work of the Committee; and, no doubt, his enjoyment of the position to which the House
  1014
  would have elected him would be much increased by his knowledge of the fact that he had been elected in direct opposition to the wishes of the Irish National Party. The House would decide this matter presently; and he (Mr. O'Donnell) could only hope that its decision would be known throughout Ireland to-morrow, above all other places, in the borough, of Portarlington, where the voting was to take place. The selection made tonight would be taken as a crucial test of the feeling of the House towards the Irish National Party.
  MR. CALLAN(who arose amidst cries of "Divide!") wished to know whether hon. Members desired to delay the dinner-hour, because, if they did not, they would hear him without interruption? He was one of those who would not be put down by even before-dinner noises by Saxon Members on the other side of the House. He had a distinct recollection of the manner in which the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) became a Member of the Committee of Selection. He was nominated at a meeting of the Irish Party, and at his own special request. He canvassed individually the majority of the Members of the Irish Party, and asked that he should be nominated by them, and that his name should be sent in to the senior Government Whip as the nominee of the Irish Party. The hon. Member eventually went on to the Committee as the nominee of the Irish Party. There was a record on the Minutes of the Irish Party of the nomination of the hon. Member. There was a note made of the fact, that he was moved by one Gentleman and seconded by another, and named as the Representative of the Party. He (Mr. Callan) must say, in justice to the hon. Member, and in justice to the Irish Party, that the nomination was not made unanimously. He (Mr. Callan) had voted against the nomination. At any rate, the hon. Member was selected substantially as the Representative of the Irish Party; but he had now not only left that Party, but had made himself obnoxious personally, and politically, to every Member of it, by never losing an opportunity of attacking and traducing them. Whenever the hon. Member rose to address the House, the Irish' Party were almost as ever present to his mind, as Charles I. was to one of the characters in one of Dickens' celebrated

  1015
  novels. They found that hon. Member, far away in Algiers, still wishing to retain his seat on the Committee of Selection, just, no doubt, in the same way as he would wish to retain his seat in the House if there were to be a General Election. The hon. Member would have just as little chance of being elected by the Irish Party as their Representative on the Committee of Selection, as he would have of being elected again for County Galway. There was on the Committee a Scotchman—a genial Scotchman—one of the few genial Scotchmen—and a Conservative, whose political faith probably accounted for his geniality. The Committee had been enlarged. Why was that? Was it to keep the hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) on this refugium peccatorum? Did they wish the Irish Party not to be represented at all, while they allowed a representation to the Scotch Members? The hon. Member (Mr. Mitchell Henry) was a Representative of the English manufacturing classes, and he sat on the Ministerial side below the Gangway. He was an Irish proprietor—an Englishman—a chance visitant to Galway, having no other connection with the county than a summer residence in the wilds of Connemara. Was he an Irish Representative? The Irish Members emphatically answered "No." It was proposed to enlarge the Committee. Well, the Irish Party, however they numerically reduced it, were 40 men standing shoulder to shoulder. The House could not give them a Member to the Committee, and yet they added to it one of the Party of four (Sir H. Drummond Wolff). Talk of English fair play! Was that fair play? The hon. Member's (Mr. Mitchell Henry's) sole recommendation to the Committee was that he was nominated by the Irish Party; but would any hon. Member get up in his place and say they considered the hon. Gentleman a Representative of the Irish Party? His Sponsor might now come and do penance in sackcloth and ashes for having proposed him. Then, they put on the Committee a Member (Mr. Illingworth), whose only qualification was that he was a Colleague of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster). It was said that he was a very different kind of man to the right hon. Gentleman; but he (Mr. Callan) believed that there was
  1016
  six of one and half-a-dozen of the other.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 157; Noes 22: Majority 135.—(Div. List, No. 13.)
  Mr. ORR EWING, Mr. WHITBREAD, Mr. ILLINGWORTH, Sir HENRY WOLFE, and the CHAIRMAN of the SELECT COMMITTEE on STANDING ORDERS, nominated other Members of the said Committee.

  CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
  Mr. SPEAKER informed the House, that he had received, from Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Manisty, two of the Judges selected, in pursuance of The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, for the Trial of Election Petitions, a Certificate and Report relating to the Election for the City of Salisbury.

  SALISBURY ELECTION.
  The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868.
  The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1879.
  The Parliamentary Elections and Corrupt Practices Act, 1880.
  To the Right Honourable The Speaker of the House of Commons.
  We, the Honourable Sir Charles Edward Pollock, knight (Baron of the Exchequer), and the Honourable Sir Henry Manisty, knight, Justices of the High Court of Justice, and two of the Judges for the time being for the trial of Election Petitions in England, do hereby, in pursuance of the said Acts, certify that, upon the 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, and 26th days of February 1883, we duly held a Court at the Council House, in the Borough of Salisbury, in the County of Wilts, for the trial of, and did try, the Election Petition for the said Borough, between William Robert Moore, Henry Hale, George Medway, Charles Jewell, and Charles Massey, Petitioners, and Coleridge John Ken-nard, Respondent, which prayed that it might be determined that the said Coleridge John Kennard was not duly Elected or duly Returned, and that the Election and Return of the said Coleridge John Kennard were and are wholly null and void.
  And, in further pursuance of the said Acts, we report that, at the conclusion of the said trial, we determined that the said Coleridge John Kennard, being the Member whose Election and Return were complained of in the said Petition, was duly Elected and Returned, and we do hereby certify in writing such our determination to you.
  And whereas charges were made in the said Petition of corrupt practices having been committed at the said Election, we, in further pursuance of the said Acts, report as follows:—

  (a.) That no corrupt practice was proved to have been committed by or with the knowledge or consent of any Candidate at such Election;

  1017

  (b.) That the following persons were proved at the trial to have been guilty of the corrupt practice of bribery:—

  Briber.

  John Alfred Folliott.

  Persons bribed.

  Harry Skutt.

  Frank Moxham.

  (c.) We further report that there is no reason to believe that corrupt practices have extensively prevailed at the Election for the Borough of Salisbury, to which the said Petition relates.

  Dated this 26th day of February, 1883.

  C. E. POLLOCK.

  H. MANISTY.

  And the said Certificate and Report were ordered to be entered in the Journals of this House.

NOTICE.
  KILMAINHAM PRISON (RELEASE OF MR. PARNELL, &c.) (SIR S. NORTH-COTE'S MOTION).
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: Mr. Speaker, I beg to give Notice, with reference to the Question which I put to the noble Marquess yesterday, as to giving a day for the discussion of my Motion for the appointment of a Committee with regard to the release of certain Members, that I intend to renew the Question on Monday next, if the Prime Minister is in the House, and to address it to the Prime Minister.
QUESTIONS.

  EXTRA ORDINARY TITHE—LEGISLATION.
  MR. INDERWICK (for Mr. DANIEL GRANT)asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill this Session dealing with the question of Extraordinary Tithe; if not, will they afford facilities for discussion if a Bill be introduced by a private Member?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT,in reply, said, he had intended, in answering the Question of the hon. Member for Marylebone, to refer to the Bill on the subject which he understood had been introduced by the hon. and learned Member for Rye (Mr. Inderwick), and he was therefore surprised at that hon. and learned Member putting the Question.
  MR. INDERWICKsaid, it was true he had introduced a Bill on the subject.
  1018
  He asked whether the Government would give facilities for the discussion of the Bill?
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: Facilities are a commodity in which Her Majesty's Government do not deal.

  OPIUM SMUGGLING (HONG KONG).
  SIR JOSEPH PEASEasked the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the statement in the "Overland China Mail," which states that, at a meeting of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong, on the 13th of December last, His Excellency the Administrator, the Hon. W. H. March, admitted—
  "That there was much smuggling (in opium) going on, though not in heavily armed vessels,"
  and that His Excellency read a report from the police station which stated that—
  "The police detained the boats and opium, pending the instructions of the Administrator, but there being no police case against them, they were allowed to go, by order of the Administrator;"
  that the police report stated that this system of smuggling goes on regularly three, four, and even six times a month, the smugglers being always about one hundred strong, and armed; and, whether Her Majesty's Government have considered whether the present regulations at Hong Kong are sufficient, if properly carried out, to prevent opium smuggling from British into Chinese territory?
  MR. EVELYN ASHLEY,in reply, said, the attention of the Government had been called to the statements; but some of them were controverted at the next meeting of the Council. The Administrator at Hong Kong had apponted a Commission to inquire into all the
  "Circumstances of the smuggling of opium and other goods from Hong Kong to the mainland of China,"
  and when its Report had been received the Colonial Office would carefully consider it.

  STATE OF IRELAND—ALLEGED INTIMIDATION.
  MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that Mr. Robert Percival, bailiff on the estate

  1019
  of Captain Douglas, near Drumlish, in the county of Longford, was lately charged by two tenants on that estate with having used intimidating language towards them, and having produced firearms and threatened to shoot them if they attempted to prevent him from taking forcible possession of the land of Mrs. Campbell, a widow, who was then actually in possession of the land, having been restored to it; whether the two tenants tendered informations against Percival to the resident magistrate, Mr. Hill; whether Mr. Hill refused to receive the informations; and, whether he will take any steps in consequence of this refusal?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I have received a Report which shows that the facts are not quite correctly set forth in the Question. Mrs. Campbell had been evicted from her house and farm, and had been allowed back into the house under an agreement; but she was not restored to the farm, as, by the agreement, Percival, who paid the rent—£40—was to hold the land till next June. Mrs. Campbell appears to have afterwards repented of her bargain, and tried to get the land back, and two men went to plough it. Percival prevented thorn from doing so, when they threatened to come again next day and plough the land by force. Percival said he would not allow them, and stated that he was quite well able to take care of himself, at the same time drawing a revolver from his pocket, which he showed them. The two men then wont to Mr. Hill, the Resident Magistrate, and tendered information. Mr. Hill, knowing that Percival was a respectable man, and that an ill-feeling existed towards him on the part of one of the applicants, refused to take informations, and directed them to take out summonses. I have no intention of taking any step in consequence of Mr. Hill's refusal; both because he exercised a discretion which is expressly vested in him as a magistrate by the Petty Sessions Act, and because his action did not deprive the applicants of their legal remedy, if they really felt themselves aggrieved.

  THE PARKS (METROPOLIS)—REGENT'S PARK.
  MR. DANIEL GRANTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the Law Officers of the Crown have yet
  1020
  given their opinion respecting the in-closure in Regent's Park; and, if so, whether he will communicate the same to the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS): Yes, Sir; but it is not usual to communicate to Parliament the Opinions of the Law Officers of the Crown. The question of the inclosure in the Regent's Park has only recently come before me, and I have not yet completed the inquiries which appear to me necessary before arriving at a decision.

  POST OFFICE SAVINGS BANKS.
  MR. KENNARDasked the Post-master General, Whether any steps have been taken to inquire into the alleged maladministration of the Post Office Savings Banks, and whether he can now assure the House that that important branch of the public service is being re-organised with a view to the more efficient performance of work by the staff without recourse to the system of "over time," and with a due regard to the vested interests of the male staff?
  MR. SHAW LEFEVRE: The administration of the Savings Banks has engaged much of the attention, not only of the Postmaster General, but of myself, and I can assure the House that it is now in a satisfactory condition. Several beneficial changes have recently been effected by the officers now in charge of the Department; and now that additional and long-needed premises have been acquired, further changes will be made, and the amount of overtime will be considerably reduced. For many reasons it would be unadvisable to abolish overtime work, and with it overtime pay, altogether.
  MR. KENNARDsaid, that he would call further attention to the subject on the Estimates.

  PARLIAMENT—ELECTION OF MR. TIMOTHY HARRINGTON FOR WESTMEATH.
  MR. SULLIVANasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, If Mr. Timothy Harrington, who was on Saturday elected, without opposition, to represent the county of Westmeath in Parliament (and whose friends handed in for him four nomination papers, three of which were signed by

  1021
  farmers exclusively, amongst whom were some of the largest farmers in the county), is now undergoing a term of two months' imprisonment in the chief town of Westmeath, on a charge of having attempted to intimidate the farmers of that county; and, whether, if that be the case, he will direct the speedy release of Mr. Harrington?
  MR. TREVELYAN: Sir, Mr. Harrington is undergoing imprisonment under the charge to which the hon. Member refers. The newspapers report, doubtless truly, that he has been returned under the circumstances to which the hon. Member refers. The papers likewise state that on the occasion of Mr. Harrington's return, his nominator made a speech, in which, among other very strong observations, he stated his belief that the Government had supplied Carey with the daggers for the Phœnix Park murders. If hon. Gentlemen will read the speech, I think they will be satisfied that the circumstances attending the election of Mr. Harrington were not such as to call on the Government to take the very unusual step of remitting a sentence passed on account of a charge by the Crown.
  MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: In reference to that answer, I beg leave to ask the right hon. Gentleman, if Mr. Harrington, a prisoner in Mullingar Gaol, is to be held responsible, not only for language alleged to have been delivered by himself on a former occasion, but for speeches delivered by his nominee at an election?
  MR. TREVELYAN: The burden of the proof rests with others, not with us, to show that there was in the circumstances of the election of Mr. Harrington anything to cause the Government to take the step of letting him out of prison, where he is confined on a charge of intimidation, and where he now lies in common with a certain number of other people who are not Members of Parliament. I do not think that any such cause has arisen.
  MR. O'DONNELL: I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in the opinion of the Government, there may not be ground for repudiating the charge of intimidation, in the fact that the person charged with intimidation had been unanimously elected a Member of this House by a constituency of the very class he was alleged to have intimidated?
  [No reply was given.]
  MR. PARNELL: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary, whether Mr. Harrington, the Member of Parliament for the County of Westmeath, and convicted of a political offence, is compelled to associate with ordinary felons and criminals, and to do the same work, and subjected to the same treatment?
  MR. TREVELYAN: I will answer that question on Notice. I cannot admit that Mr. Harrington has been convicted of a political offence.

  LIGHTHOUSES OF THE UNITED KINGDOM—COMMUNICATION WITH THE EDDYSTONE LIGHTHOUSE.
  MR. STEWART MACLIVERasked the President of the Board of Trade, If his attention has been called to the unfortunate experiences of the men employed at the Eddystone Lighthouse, who were without food and fuel, and unable to communicate with anyone; and, whether he will take steps to avoid such a state of things in future, by providing a steamer to make visits at fixed dates, or by establishing a telegraph service to the lighthouse?
  MR. CHAMBERLAIN,in reply, said, the responsibility of looking after lighthouses round the coast rested with the Trinity House, and he was informed that they were investigating this case. Moan-while, he had learnt that, although some of the reports published were exaggerated, yet it was true that relief was delayed by the boisterous state of the weather. No signals for provisions were made, so far as were known, until February 19th, and on the following day the men were landed. With reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member, there was little use in providing a steamer to make visits at fixed dates if the weather was such as to make relief impracticable. Telegraphic communication would not have prevented the delay, because that delay had not arisen from any want of knowledge on shore as to the condition of the men in the lighthouse.

  SCOTLAND—THE HIGHLAND CROFTERS—THE ROYAL COMMISSION.
  MR. MACFARLANEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If he can state the extent and scope of the Royal Commission which is

  1023
  to be issued to inquire into the condition of the Crofters of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, if it will include the tenure upon which crofts are held, the rights to foreshores, the area of deer forests, and the amount of depopulation which they have caused; whether the Commission will visit the various localities and take evidence on the spot; and, if it will include in its inquiry the Shetland and Orkney Islands? The hon. Member added, that he hoped that the Home Secretary would be able to give him some explicit statement as to the scope of the Inquiry before the Report stage of the Address was arrived at.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: I stated yesterday that I could give no details in this matter. The hon. Member must be aware, that in the case of a Royal Commission, no statement can be made until the sanction of the Crown has been obtained.
  MR. MACFARLANE: In consequence of the unsatisfactory nature of the answer, I beg to give Notice that I shall move an Amendment with reference to the subject on the Report of the Address.

  SUPPLY—THE ARMY AND NAVY ESTIMATES.
  MR. PULESTONasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether early arrangements could be made for taking the Army and Navy Estimates?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON,in reply, said, that no arrangements could be made until the debate on the Address to Her Majesty was concluded. It was hoped to go into Committee of Supply on Thursday, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer would move some Supplementary Estimates. If that were so, it was hoped that the Army and Navy Estimates would be taken on Monday and Thursday next week.

  EAST INDIA—CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE—NATIVE JURISDICTION OVER BRITISH SUBJECTS.
  SIR TREVOR LAWRENCEasked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, prior to the approval of the Indian Government in England being given to the proposed change of Law relating to the trial of Europeans in India, any steps were taken to ascertain the opinion of the non-official European public on the
  1024
  subject; and, whether it is the case, as reported in the telegrams from India, that public meetings have been, or are about to be, held in the chief towns, and in the centres of European business, to protest in the strongest terms against the proposed changes?
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTalso asked the Secretary of State for War, Whether, in view of the widespread indignation which the alteration in the Criminal Law of India is arousing among the European population, and of the danger of arousing race antagonism, Her Majesty's Government will give opportunity to this House for discussing that measure before it becomes Law?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Before the Government of India proposed any change in the law on this subject, the opinion of every local Government was asked for and obtained. It is impossible to believe that those Governments are ignorant of the opinions or feelings of the non-official European public, although the advice which they would give to the Government of India would be given on their own responsibility, and on their own sense of justice and expediency in the case. I have no information with respect to the latter part of the Question beyond what I have seen in the newspapers. I may take this opportunity of answering the Question of the hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Ash-mead-Bartlett) on the same subject. The Secretary of State for India in Council is responsible to Parliament for the instructions which he gives to the Government of India, in legislative as well as executive matters; and he cannot divest himself of that responsibility by inviting the House of Commons to discuss questions of legislation which are pending in India. It is open to any Member to call in question at any time the advice which the Secretary of State for India has given, or may give, to Her Majesty; but I cannot undertake that he will refrain from exercising the power with which he is charged, pending any discussion which may take place in Parliament. I may add that the Correspondence on the subject will be presented, and is now being printed; and also that it is not the intention of the Government of India to pass the Bill finally till they return to Calcutta in November, so that the public may have full time for consideration.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETTsaid, he wished to explain that he put the Question down that day, because he had understood, from a reply given to a similar Question the other day, that it was not the intention of the Government to give an opportunity for discussing the matter in the House. He wished, also, to repeat the Question in order to ask the noble Marquess whether, in view of the fact that discussion on Indian questions generally could only take place at the close of the Session, and in view of the great importance of the question, he would give some assurance that the House should have a suitable opportunity of discussing those changes before they were passed into law, and before the mischief which some apprehended was done?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONintimated that he was unable to give the assurance asked for.

  THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE—THE NEW RULES OF LEGAL PROCEDURE.
  MR. J. STEWARTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether the Committee of Judges, now engaged in framing new rules of legal procedure, are to hold their final meeting to-morrow; and if he can state that they have agreed to make such alterations in the rule relative to the jurisdiction of English Courts over persons resident in Scotland as, in his judgment, are sufficient to remove the grievance complained of?
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR),in reply, said, that there had been draft amendments to the Rules proposed, which it was hoped would remove the grievances complained of; but he was not aware whether they had been overtaken by the Committee of Judges. He hoped to be able to answer that question shortly.

MOTION.

  IRELAND—THE KILMAINHAM "NEGOTIATIONS."
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONmoved—
  "That the Notices of Motions and the first six Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Motion for an Address to Her Majesty."
  MR. J. R. YORKEsaid, that he wished to avail himself of that opportunity to make a few observations on a subject which had already been before the House, and which would probably in a short time, if not before the end of the debate on the Address, again occupy its attention. He desired to say a few words on the remarks of the noble Marquess on the part which he (Mr. Yorke) had taken in endeavouring to obtain an investigation into the Kilmainham Treaty last Session, and to obtain from the noble Marquess some definition of his position as Leader of the House in the treatment which he proposed to extend to the Leader of the Opposition. The noble Marquess said the other day that his (Mr. Yorke's) connection with the matter was altogether a casual one, and that it had been very much against his will that he was induced to bring forward the subject, and move for the appointment of a Committee. The noble Marquess also complained that the Government were continually importunating the Opposition, almost, as he said, going down on their knees to them, entreating them to formulate a specific charge, and take some course by which that charge could be investigated and either established or disproved. As regarded his personal connection with the subject, it was true, no doubt, that it was entirely a casual circumstance, and he did not think he was open to any charge of neglecting his duty in not bringing the matter earlier before the House. In the first place, as a private Member, he was under no special duty to bring the matter forward; and, in the second place, if he had done so, the Government being in full possession of all the time of the House, it would have been perfectly preposterous in him, with no claim upon the Government, to suppose that he could obtain the opportunity he might have sought of bringing the matter before the House. Therefore, if it had not been for the manner in which the noble Marquess had alluded to the question again, he should not have troubled the House with his share of the matter. But having regard to the refusal the noble Marquess had now made to permit the Leader of the Opposition to bring the matter before the House, it was necessary to recall to the House what was the specific attitude of the Prime Minister, even to a humble

  1027
  individual like himself. On the 13th of November the Prime Minister having denied that there was any Kilmainham Treaty, stated that he challenged the hon. Member for East Gloucestershire, who scoffed at him for that assertion, which he seriously made, to move for an inquiry. He (Mr. Yorke) said—"Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he will grant a day?" The right hon. Gentleman replied—"I will agree to an inquiry without a debate." The Prime Minister then went on to say that there was no such Treaty, and that those who made such allegations without proof, instead of fastening disgraceful transactions on their opponents, brought disgrace upon themselves. Having thus been brought, without any deliberate intention of his own, to the position of making disgraceful allegations, which he did not prove, he (Mr. Yorke) then thought that the only course open to him was to urge and importune the Prime Minister for the opportunity he had promised. He did so from day to day, and had nothing to reproach himself with on that account. The Motion he first formulated alluded to the Treaty by name; but, that being objected to by the right hon. Gentleman, he was challenged by the noble Lord the Member for Woodstock (Lord Randolph Churchill) to state on what terms he would assent to an inquiry. Being taunted with apparently wishing to back out altogether, the Prime Minister replied in great wrath, and said that if the noble Lord did not withdraw the imputation he should decline altogether to answer the Question. The indignation of the Prime Minister then appeared very natural; but, judging by the light of his subsequent conduct, it did not seem so very absurd to impute to him an intention to withdraw from his offer. With the other steps that he (Mr. Yorke) then took he would not trouble the House in detail. He endeavoured to suit the Motion to the taste of the right hon. Gentleman, and made it as colourless and innocent as possible. He did not allude in the Motion to any "Treaty;" he only put it "the circumstances relating to the release" of the three Members from Kilmainham. To that even the right hon. Gentleman demurred, stating that, while he would offer no opposition to the Notice, he had his own opinion
  1028
  about its terms. On the 23rd of November he asked the Prime Minister to adjourn the debate at a quarter past 11 in order that the Notice which the right hon. Gentleman said he was anxious should be brought on should be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman then said that he would not move the adjournment of the debate. Another night, after the debate on Procedure had been adjourned, the right hon. Gentleman's faithful Friends and supporters talked until, by the Half-past Twelve Rule, the Motion could not be brought on. Then came the discussion which he felt bound to initiate, and in which he appealed to the House to judge between him and the right hon. Gentleman, as to the way in which he had been drawn into the matter, and the way in which the right hon. Gentleman had treated him. That was the position in which the matter stood at the end of last Session. Then began the second act. He had not yet taken any steps to renew the question, being undecided as to whether it would not be better to wait for the return of the Prime Minister. Then came the revelations in the Dublin trials, which had thrown so much light upon these transactions, and the debate initiated by the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst). In the course of that discussion a good many allusions were made to what were known on the authority of the Home Secretary as the "Kilmainham negotiations," and, strong opinions being expressed, the noble Marquess renewed the challenge. If possible, he did so in more specific language than the Prime Minister used to him last year, and it was immediately taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. On the Motion being put down, the noble Marquess, having presumably consulted his Colleagues, came down to the House and detailed various reasons why, he said, it would be inconvenient and highly mischievous to the Public Service that such an inquiry as was originally suggested, and as was now proposed, should take place. The first reason the noble Marquess gave was that the matter had been already discussed. But the discussion that had taken place had been entirely from the outside. They possessed no facts beyond what they possessed last summer, except that a certain light had been thrown on the matter, incidentally, by

  1029
  the revelations at Kilmainham. The only discussion which would be of any service was one in which the parties called upon to depose to the transactions would be placed upon their oath, and there would be liberty to cross-examine them to see how far their statements tallied. That was the discussion they wished for. They might go on discussing the matter in the House of Commons for ever if no new light was to be thrown upon the subject. Another objection the noble Marquess made to the appointment of a Committee was that it would prolong and revive the controversy. If there was nothing to find out, as he presumed was the contention of the noble Marquess, then he did not see why the controversy would be prolonged or revived by the appointment of a Committee. But if, on the other hand, fresh revelations were made, then, no doubt, the matter might be prolonged; if, however, the noble Marquess was right, that there was nothing to come out, then that argument did not apply. The third point of the noble Marquess was that it would have a tendency to weaken the authority of the Irish Executive. He could understand that it might weaken the Irish Executive if they lay under imputations; but he could not imagine anything more weakening to a Government than to lay under imputations which it was in their power to remove. By assenting to the Committee, if he were right as to there being nothing to disclose, the noble Marquess would strengthen instead of weakening the Irish Executive. The fourth argument the noble Marquess brought forward was the most idle and futile of all; he urged that the inquiry would be a waste of time. If the Committee were assented to without debate, what time would be wasted? The inquiry would proceed in the Select Committee upstairs, and on its conclusion, supposing the contention of the noble Marquess was accurate, the mouths of the Opposition would be shut. He did not believe there had been any example, at any rate for 30 years, of a Leader of the Opposition asking the Leader or Vice Leader of the House for a day to discuss a matter which the Government conceived to reflect upon them, and involving, perhaps, their very existence as a Government, and the Leader of the
  1030
  House refusing to give the opportunity asked. If Parliamentary government was to be carried on at all, the opinions of the Opposition should certainly be accepted from its Leader. The other day they heard with some amusement of a summary plan for disposing of any claims they might have to attention. The Leaders of the Opposition were to have half an hour to state their views in, and then—the clóture. But the noble Marquess went a step further. According to him the Leader of the Opposition was not to be allowed to make a speech on the subject at all; the Opposition were simply to register the decrees of the Government, while the Government had nothing to do except, to dictate. He did not see what end the Government were to come to except the natural decay which he presumed might come upon them like other bodies corporate, because they had secured themselves against violent death. If the Leader of the Opposition was not even to be allowed to hint disapprobation at their conduct, he did not see from what quarter the shaft was to come which was to terminate their existence. He regretted the absence of the Prime Minister, because in matters relating to the ancient procedure of the House he always felt a certain amount of confidence that the right hon. Gentleman would give them due weight, and he could not believe the action of the noble Marquess would be endorsed by the Prime Minister. He could only add that they, as the challenged party, ought, at any rate according to the rules of honour, to be allowed time, place, and the choice of weapons. The Government were in a position to be able to command those three advantages. As they were great, let them be merciful, if not in their own interest, at any rate in the interests of decency and fair play, and to show that they had not yet-emancipated themselves from all the honourable traditions of Party warfare.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: Sir, if the hon. Member is convinced that the decision the Government came to the other day, and which I announced yesterday, will not be confirmed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, on his return, it is scarcely worth while for him to have taken up the time of the House by the criticisms he has made upon that decision; inasmuch as the

  1031
  right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has just given Notice of his intention to put a Question to my right hon. Friend on Monday next, and if the hon. Gentleman entertains the opinion he has just expressed, my mistake will be very soon rectified. The hon. Member, in the first place, wished to make some corrections in the statement I made the other day as to his personal connection with the matter. I do not understand that I have anything whatever to correct; because the hon. Member himself has just stated that his connection with it was purely of an accidental character, and that if it had not been for the accident of a certain exclamation he made, he never would have felt called upon to take any prominent part in regard to the matter. This is all I said the other day.
  MR. J. R. YORKE: What I objected to was, the noble Marquess's statement that, on the part of the Opposition, no definite movement had been made.
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON: I was then speaking of the proceedings in the earlier part of the Session. It is scarcely necessary, I think, that I should follow the hon. Member in his proceedings during the Autumn Sitting. These proceedings were wound up by a formal discussion on the subject. ["No!"] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to explain what I mean. The hon. Member (Mr. Yorke) availed himself of the opportunity which one of the New Rules gave him. He asked a Question, and received an answer which did not satisfy him. He asked leave to move the adjournment of the House, and was supported in that attempt by 40 Members. He stated his case; the Prime Minister made a reply, and the matter was discussed—formally discussed and debated—on that occasion. That was the concluding scene in that Session. That being the case, I do not think I ought to follow the hon. Member in the various steps that were not taken, or that he was not allowed to take, in reference to his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry. All, I think, that I am called on to notice in his observations is the statement affecting myself—that I renewed the challenge. That is an entire misapprehension, and I shall be very glad if he will mention the words which he considered to bear that interpretation. [Mr. J. R. YORKE:
  1032
  I have the noble Lord's words here.] If there were any such words, they were not words which I used intentionally. What I said was that I rejoiced—although the issue placed before the House by the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was not a very definite one, that at last an issue was to be submitted to the House upon which the judgment of the House could be taken; and, speaking for myself, I said I thought, from the course of the discussion which had taken place, wide as its scope had been, I was able more fully to understand the exact charges which were made against the Government in regard to this transaction than I had ever been before, and to make what may have been a very unsatisfactory, but still to a certain extent a reply for the Government to those accusations. I was very far, indeed, from renewing a challenge to the Opposition to enter upon a discussion of this transaction; because I was convinced at the time, and I am convinced still, that we have been discussing from Tuesday last the subject of these allegations which have been made against us ever since last May. Although I might not have thought the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham raised an issue in the most convenient and clear manner, still I expressed my satisfaction that at last an issue had been raised which could be met and be decided by the House. Nothing in the world could have been further from my thoughts than to address to hon. Gentlemen opposite another challenge to renew another discussion upon this question. The hon. Member (Mr. Yorke) says we have been discussing these transactions only from the outside, and that we did not know all the particulars it was necessary we should know. But I must point out to the House that that is a matter for the consideration of the Opposition, and which, no doubt, they gave due consideration to, and they knew enough last week to censure us without waiting for a Committee of Inquiry. The hon. and learned Member for Chatham formulated a Vote of Censure on the Government. His Amendment was acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman opposite as being a Vote of Want of Confidence in the Government, which, if carried, would have the effect of turning them out of Office. They knew

  1033
  enough to formulate that Vote of Want of Confidence; and, in my opinion, it is perfectly idle to say that the Amendment pointed to any other definite subject except these transactions which are called the Kilmainham Treaty. ["Oh, oh!"] If it did not point to that, I should be very glad to know what it did point to. It appears to me that the Opposition are in this dilemma. Either the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham was distinctly and directly aimed at what they are pleased to call the Kilmainham Treaty, or Kilmainham negotiations, or else they have been guilty of wasting the time of the House during four nights by discussing subjects of a perfectly vague and a perfectly indefinite character. I always understood, and I believe we have all understood, that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham did have reference to those proceedings; and we have undoubtedly, in all our speeches, treated it as having such a reference. If that is the case, as I certainly think it is the case, it does not appear to me that the Opposition can, in justice or fairness, come forward, now that their Motion has been rejected by the House. They have been discussing our conduct for four days, and they had information enough for that, and now they want a Select Committee to inquire into it. The hon. Member said there was no precedent for refusing a day to a Leader of the Opposition. I do not know whether there is a precedent or not; but I should like to ask whether there is a precedent for a Leader of the Opposition to raise questions repeatedly on the same subject, and having first challenged the judgment of the House on a certain definite issue, and failed in the attempt, to ask for an inquiry into the very same subject upon which he had already, without such an inquiry, challenged that judgment? The position which the Government have taken up is perfectly intelligible and perfectly legitimate.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he did not think the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was one which clearly raised before the House of Commons the question of the Kilmainham negotiations. That certainly was not the opinion of the noble Marquess upon Thursday last; because, if his memory served him correctly, the noble Marquess said the
  1034
  Amendment only indistinctly shadowed forth the nature of the charge to be made against the Government. [The Marquess of HARTINGTON assented.] The noble Marquess had just now said they were asking the House of Commons to discuss a question already fully dealt with; but the noble Marquess himself had confessed that the Amendment only indistinctly shadowed forth the charge. [The Marquess of HARTTNGTON: Hear, hear!] Her Majesty's Government had expressed the opinion that the charges formulated, rightly or wrongly, against them were most serious. The Home Secretary the other day went so far as to say that charges had been made against the Government which, as gentlemen and men of honour, it was almost insupportable on their part to sit down under.
  SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT: The right hon. Gentleman must remember to what that applied. It was the distinct statement of the right hon. Gentleman that we had made communications without the knowledge of the right hon. Member for Bradford. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowther) stated that he knew that I said there was no colour of foundation for that, and, if true, it was dishonourable conduct.
  MR. J. LOWTHERremarked that that was one of the very points that they wished to have cleared up. He never said all the negotiations were conducted behind the back of the right hon. Member for Bradford. What he stated was that a portion of the negotiations did go on behind his back. Was the noble Marquess content that the Government should rest under that as well as under other imputations? What were the charges against the Government in connection with this matter? They were, as he understood them, that they under took, on the one hand, to afford the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and his associates their personal liberty, and the means of awarding a very heavy bribe to those who had been co-operating with them in illegal agitation—part of that bribe being derived from the pockets of the owners of land in Ireland, and part—
  MR. SPEAKER: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that it is irregular to re-open a debate upon an Amendment that has already been disposed of by the House.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he would avoid recurring to the subject-matter of that debate; he would merely say that the bribe was offered in return for support of the Liberal Party, and it was further hoped that the efforts of the gentlemen in question would be used to promote the restoration of law and order. But the reminder, just now very properly addressed to him, was another instance of the extreme inconvenience of the course that had been forced upon Members by the conduct of Her Majesty's Government. The noble Marquess intimated the other night, and had done so now again, that this subject had come before them again and again without being brought to any satisfactory termination. Whose fault was that? [The Marquess of HARTINGTON: It has now.] He begged the noble Marquess's pardon. The Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gorst) gave occasion, no doubt, for some remarks on the subject; but there was no threshing out of the question of the negotiations for the best of all reasons, that the House was not in possession of all the circumstances upon which a distinct judgment could be formed. Many Members had formed their opinions, and he had formed his own, upon the slender evidence that was before them; and for himself he did not hesitate to accept the whole responsibility of expressing the opinion he had so formed. The matter now stood thus—challenges had been addressed to the Opposition by right hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Prime Minister distinctly pledged himself to the House to grant an inquiry. He did not think that his hon. Friend (Mr. Yorke) was serious when he urged that any material difference of opinion prevailed on this subject amongst the Members of the Government; but he believed that if the Prime Minister were there he would have thought it incumbent upon him to offer an explanation why he distinctly pledged himself, in the face of Parliament and the country, to grant a Committee without debate, and that his Colleagues in his absence had run back from that promise. That was a matter which concerned the consistency—he might use a stronger expression—of Her Majesty's Government. He trusted that the Government would not allow the matter to rest in the position in which it stood at present. Charges had been made against
  1036
  them, and the Home Secretary considered those charges of a very serious character. It was difficult, indeed, to conceive any charge more serious than that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to sanction the taking away of money from one section of Her Majesty's subjects and giving a grant out of the Consolidated Fund for the purpose of purchasing support for their Party. That was the main charge; and until there had been a full judicial inquiry into these matters, the Government could hardly be surprised if the impression prevailed that their reason for refusing inquiry after having challenged it was the fear of unpleasant disclosures.
  MR. R. N. FOWLERsaid, that, having a Motion on the Paper, he should feel, in ordinary' circumstances, satisfaction in giving way at the request of Her Majesty's Government; but he could have no such satisfaction now, because he felt that an insult had been offered in the person of the Leader of the Opposition, not only to the right hon. Gentleman, himself, but to every Member on the same side of the House. He very much doubted whether the Government would find that the course they had taken would promote the transaction of Public Business. When the Government had deliberately insulted 240 Members of the House, they could not complain if these 240 Members did not do everything in their power to aid them in forwarding their measures. He always believed the noble Marquess to be a man not only of very great ability, but of very great courtesy; and, therefore, he preferred to attribute the conduct of which they complained, not to the noble Marquess himself, but to the Government. It might be very inconvenient to Her Majesty's Government, notwithstanding all the challenges they had thrown out, to discuss this subject. But the Opposition were driven out of the House to discuss it, though they would prefer to do so in the presence of the noble Marquess. They had only one course left to them, and that was to proclaim to every meeting of their fellow-countrymen which they had the honour to address that Her Majesty's Government dared not face an inquiry into the circumstances of the Treaty of Kilmainham.
  MR. HOPWOODsaid, he had a personal matter to refer to. A Motion of great interest to a large number of

  1037
  people would be displaced by the Motion of the noble Marquess to take the discussion on the Address that evening. He was not prepared to oppose the course which had been taken. He could only express his great and bitter disappointment. He did not complain of the Government. They had been forced to take the present course by the action taken by the Opposition. He hoped the country would mark the grievous waste of time which had proceeded under the name of legitimate discussion, but which had really become a system of wrangling and recrimination, which could benefit no human being, but which was delaying legislation, and delaying the discussion of questions of social legislation required by the House and the country. Those interested in such legislation ought to take an early opportunity of expressing their condemnation of the waste of time in the House. It was, he believed, almost unprecedented for the Opposition to move two Amendments to the Address, and to be preparing a third. He would also take that opportunity of asking the Government to be prepared to meet this question of the Contagious Diseases Acts at an early day. He assured them that they would have to declare their opinion for or against the present Acts, and he had no doubt that they must ultimately accept those views of which he had been one of the indicators. It was certainly their intention to proceed with it, and he asked with all firmness that the Government would come to an early determination to assist in the repeal of these Acts.
  MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT,reverting to the Kilmainham Treaty discussion, said, that the main fact which appeared before the country in connection with it was that Her Majesty's Government, having thrown out two distinct and formal challenges to the Opposition to demand and institute an inquiry into transactions which the great bulk of the people regarded as unprecedented, mischievous, and disgraceful, were now seeking to withdraw from them. There was an old method of war adopted by the Chinese Tartars of painting themselves hideously, and making wild and hideous cries before the enemy; but if the enemy showed fight, the makers of them turned and fled. First, with a display of bravado, the Government challenged the Opposition, and then they
  1038
  prolonged a debate until half-past 12 o'clock, so that the Motion could not come on. From May or June to the end of the Autumn Session, the Government had all the time of the House at their disposal. They knew very well, if this Committee were granted, there would be details discovered of interviews between the agents of the Government and the Leaders of a Party accused in that House within the past few days of terrible and unnatural crimes, and also negotiations between the hon. Member for Clare (Mr. O'Shea) and Her Majesty's Government. It was because the Cabinet was afraid of these revelations that they had refused this reasonable demand for an inquiry. It was because they know it would be shown that they were willing to use gentlemen whom they had described as "marching through rapine to the disintegration of the Empire," and were also willing to employ the worst instruments of these men, who were planning and conniving at murder. Never was there a more direct challenge than that of the noble Marquess; and he should have adopted one of two courses with respect to it—either have formally withdrawn it or carried it out. The discussion on the subject last year was nothing but a scratch debate. No doubt, the facts already in their possession were sufficient to justify a Vote of Censure on the Government; but it was better, before moving one, to be in full possession of all the facts.
  Motion agreed to.
  Ordered, That the Notices of Motions and the first six Orders of the Day he postponed until after the Order of the Day for resuming the Adjourned Debate on Motion for an Address to Her Majesty.—(The Marquess of Hartington.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ADDRESS IN ANSWER TO HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH.

    [ADJOURNED DEBATE.] [NINTH NIGHT.]
    Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Main Question [15th February]—[See page 98.]
    Main Question again proposed.
    Debate resumed.
    MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORsaid, that the Amendment he had placed on the

    1039
    Notice Paper was almost identical with that which the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) intended to propose, but for the strategy of the noble Lord the Leader of the Government, which obtained for him an easy victory, but one of which he ought not to be over proud. The Amendment was as follows:—
    "Humbly to assure Her Majesty, that the state of distress among the population of many parts of Ireland; the inadequate machinery of the Land Act, and its partial and imperfect character, especially with regard to leaseholders, the right of tenants to their improvements, the purchase system, and the condition of the agricultural labourers; the unsatisfactory operation of the Arrears Act; the state of the Law of Parliamentary and Municipal Franchises in Ireland; and the condition of Local Government in that Country, are all questions demanding the urgent attention of the Legislature and the Government; and that the absence of any undertaking to legislate on any of these questions, or on any question affecting the welfare of the Irish People, must tend to promote discontent and intensify disaffection in Ireland."
    To anyone reading Her Majesty's Speech it would be obvious that the most striking point connected with it was the total absence of any reference to the state of Ireland, or any promise of remedy for the crying evils and grievances in that country which pressed for immediate legislation. In the first place, it was a matter of notoriety that dire distress existed in certain districts; and so extreme was that distress that, in spite of the unwillingness of the ordinary channels of information which disseminated the prejudiced views with regard to Ireland that were generally prevalent in this country, it had forced itself on the notice of the people of England. For instance, there appeared in The Times of to-day a remarkable report of Dr. James Ferguson, medical officer for the district of Gweedore, county Donegal, relating to the condition of the poor in that district. Dr. Ferguson said of the children—
    "I am sorry to have to report that poverty and destitution are too clearly evident in their appearance, and that the diarrhœa and influenza which largely prevail among them are the outcome of insufficient, low, and unvaried diet, and the general use of seaweed, which I noticed in course of preparation for the principal meal of the family in every house I entered. In almost every house there is a sick patient, especially among the old folks, for whom medicine is utterly useless, the only thing needed being nourishment. Entering the schools, I was sadly disappointed, seeing nothing but
    1040
    weary and dull eyes and languid faces, betraying weakness of strength and deep depression of spirits. More than once I heard the distressing sound, repeated here and here among the children, of sickly coughing. I noticed, too, the insufficient clothing of the children in the schools and in the houses, and the dreadfully shocking sleeping accommodation which their houses supply."
    The Chief Secretary, who had been in the district, would be able to judge of the worth of such a report; and he would learn on inquiry that a similar report might be made from any of the 20 or 30 Unions in the seaboard counties on the West Coast of Ireland. Now, with regard to the inadequacy of the Land Act, he thought the majority of the House would admit, and that the Government would admit, that it was of a most marked character, especially with regard to leaseholders. The Government he thought recognized—the majority of the House at any rate admitted, judging by private conversations he had had—that the Land Act in this respect required amendment. The right of tenants to their improvements was admitted by hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House who had the harshest views with regard to the Land Act. That the Arrears Act required amendment, he thought, was also admitted; and as to the agricultural labourers, the landlords themselves had been interested in them in a manner which was very satisfactory, but which, he thought, was never exhibited to a very marked extent until recently. He was not at all surprised at the way the Arrears Act had turned out in its working. When it was introduced to that House, he never anticipated that very great advantages were likely to accrue to the poorest portion of the people of Ireland. Some advantages, no doubt, were to be anticipated—for instance, it was to be expected that, to a certain extent, some of them would be relieved from the crushing debt which prevented them from peacefully working their farms, or discharging either their obligations to their landlords or to their neighbours, and which, if they had the means, they would only be too willing to have discharged. He looked upon the Act, however, as of great value, for the sake of the two principles which it embodied. In the first place, it laid down the principle that when a system had been found to work only to the advantage of a class, and to the disadvantage of the commu-

    1041
    nity, the latter had a right to interfere, and say—"We will take from you that which you have improperly used. We will protect those who, under the system which at present obtains, are unable to make, either for themselves or the community, homes or comfort, or to obtain that well-being which, under other circumstances, they might secure." The second principle was that the community so interfering should make a limited compensation to those whose interests were disturbed. This principle, once undertaken and acted upon and properly developed would, he was confident, be fruitful of great advantages to the people. With regard to the Parliamentary and municipal franchise mentioned in the Amendment, he would remind the House that when the Government were in Opposition the Home Secretary declared that this question was of the foremost political importance. In the first year of the existence of the present Ministry a Franchise Bill was introduced for Ireland, but it was abandoned; and although they had the assurance of the Home Secretary and the noble Lord that it would be re-introduced, it had not again been brought forward, notwithstanding repeated promises. This gave some idea of the value of Ministerial assurances. It could scarcely be expected that Members from Ireland would fail to seize that and every other opportunity of urging on the Government and Parliament that Ireland should have equal rights with the other parts of the Empire. The want of local government was the next head of their complaint. In the Speech from the Throne in 1881 they were assured that such a measure would be introduced for Ireland, and that it should be such a measure as would secure to the people of that country the local authority, power, and control over the expenditure of the public money. They were further promised that it would be of such a nature that it would develop habits of local self-government amongst the people. That Bill had never been introduced, and that promise seemed to have been entirely forgotten in the present Session. The worst and final complaint in the Amendment was with regard to the absence of any undertaking of legislation on any of these questions, or, indeed, upon any question affecting the welfare of the Irish people, and the probable effect upon the feelings
    1042
    of the people of such an omission; but he did not know that there was any very great reason to complain of the absence of any assurance in the Speech from the Throne on the part of the Government, or that indicated that there was no intention to take up one or other of the questions. Such a deduction, by no means followed, nor was it a safe indication of the intentions of the Government, for it was not to be concluded that they would not find it necessary, or at any rate advisable, to introduce after a little while a measure which at present they had no intention of bringing forward. He would remind the House that in 1880 his hon. Friend the Member for Mayo (Mr. O'Connor Power) moved an Amendment to the Address with reference to the Land Question. His reasonable proposal was rejected by an overwhelming majority, and yet, before the Session was half-way through, the Government realized the necessity of introducing a measure, which, before 12 months were over, became law, with reference to the Land Question. Under these circumstances, he was inclined to think that before the Session was over they might have some further measures upon Irish affairs, of which no inkling or suggestion had reached them from the Treasury Bench. They had had an indication that the affairs of England and Scotland were to command the undivided attention of Parliament. Strange as it might seem, they had now been sitting nearly a fortnight, and yet, with the exception of Egypt, there had been only mention of Ireland; but, although this had been so, the Irish Members had certainly not done anything which might fairly be described as any attempt or indication of a wish to force unduly upon the House the affairs of Ireland. The attention which Parliament had already given to Ireland had arisen from the necessities of the situation, and announcements from one side or the other, and not from any preconcerted arrangement or any proposals emanating from those Benches. If this was to be taken as an omen of what would take place, they must anticipate that a very considerable portion of the next five months would be devoted likewise to the affairs of Ireland, whatever were the present intentions of the Government. In spite, then, of the absence of any assurance upon the matter, in spite of past expe-

    1043
    rience as to the want of significance of such absence of assurance, the Irish Members could not be expected to trust to chance for bringing under the notice of Parliament Irish grievances. It must and should be their endeavour this Session to bring before the House and the United Kingdom those grievances which he had referred to in his Amendment, and every one of which they would try and induce Parliament immediately to take in hand. He would remind the House that if they insisted upon that Assembly being the only Assembly for legislating upon Irish affairs, if they insisted that English and Scotch Members should have an overwhelming vote in regard to affairs pertaining to Ireland, and if they refused to give them any facilities which they felt to be absolutely necessary properly to deal with the rights of that country, then, in common justice, they were bound to make arrangements so that those interests should be safeguarded, and that measures for the amelioration of the condition of the people, for the development of the resources of the country, for the equalization of the rights of the Irish people with those of the other subjects of the country, should be passed. If, however, they were not disposed to initiate measures having those objects in view, then it would be for the Irish Party to take the matter into their own hands, and do what they could on every occasion, and by all the means at their disposal, to bring before the House and the country those things which they knew to be of vital importance, and with regard to which they should be wanting in their duty if they did not urge upon the Government.
    Amendment proposed,
    To insert, at the end of the 10th paragraph, after the word "Executive," the words:—"Humbly to assure Her Majesty, that the state of distress among the population of many parts of Ireland; the inadequate machinery of the Land Act, and its partial and imperfect character, especially with regard to leaseholders, the right of tenants to their improvements, the purchase system, and the condition of the agricultural labourers; the unsatisfactory operation of the Arrears Act; the state of the Law of Parliamentary and Municipal Franchises in Ireland; and the condition of Local Government in that Country, are all questions demanding the urgent attention of the Legislature and the Government; and that the absence of any undertaking to legislate on any of these questions, or on any question affecting the welfare of the
    1044
    Irish People must tend to promote discontent and intensify disaffection in Ireland."—(Mr. Arthur O'Connor.)
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    COLONEL COLTHURSTsaid, he did not wish to go over the same topics as those touched on by his hon. Friend, and would confine his remarks entirely to the question of the distress in Ireland. That was the question which pressed most on his mind. He would not enter into any details as to the extent of the distress, for he was perfectly contented to accept the statements made by the Chief Secretary during the Autumn Session, and more recently by the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Hartington). There were some Unions in each of the counties of Donegal, Sligo, Clare, and Mayo where the distress was very alarming. There was distress elsewhere, but it was not of an exceptional character; but when he came to the estimate of the power of the Poor Law, as at present contained in the Statute Book, to cope with this distress, then he regretted to say that he was entirely at issue with the Government. The Local Government Board had obtained Reports from their Inspectors. Those Inspectors were gentlemen of the greatest experience, humanity, and intelligence, and he did not wish to say one word against them. Their Reports were truthful, so far as the extent of the distress; but they measured the capability of the Poor Law to deal with it by the workhouse test. They said—"Is such a workhouse full?" But it could not be forgotten that in the autumn and winter of 1879, when the distress was much severer than it was likely to be at present, similar Reports were made and acted upon. It was said that the workhouses were not half full, and no other methods were adopted from November, 1879, to February, 1880. It was found, however, that the workhouse system did not work. The distress was most acute, and immense charitable efforts had to be made to keep the people from starving. There were several reasons why the workhouse system was inadequate. The most important reason was the invincible repugnance of the Irish people to enter the poorhouse. The Local Government Board pointed out that recipients of relief could not dictate the mode they should receive it. This was a thing which was open to

    1045
    argument; hut it seemed to him that the Board should deal with facts as they found them, and with this repugnance as it existed in Ireland. They all knew the strength of family ties. Two and three generations sometimes lived together, and once the workhouse was entered those ties would be rudely broken, and the different members of the family separated one from the other. The people who received assistance in Donegal, Mayo, and a large portion of Sligo were small occupiers, holding their little bits of land from five acres to half or quarter of an acre. The Local Government Board had assured them that by entering the workhouse they would not forfeit their interest in the land; but everyone who knew what sort of cabins these poor people lived in, the kind of roof they had, and their general condition, would know that to shut up these poor cabins for three months, and to allow a neighbour's cattle to run over the small holdings, would be as effectually to destroy the tenant's interest as if the surrender had been made a condition of obtaining relief. It might be a very desirable thing that these people should not cherish such a dislike of the workhouse as that which distinguished them, but they did. They would suffer privations, and the worst sort of privations, and would allow those near and dear to them to suffer privations, only stopping short of starvation, rather than go into the workhouse; and he could not blame them, because he knew that if they went into the workhouse they became hopeless and helpless paupers for the rest of their lives. He wished in this matter that the present Government had done what their Predecessors had done. It would have saved untold misery and other bad effects. When they found that, in spite of their Circular to the Local Government Board, the distress was mounting up to an extraordinary pitch, they instituted Baronial Sessions, and authorized the Guardians to borrow money on very moderate terms; but so rooted was the prejudice in the minds of the administrators of the law, and in the minds of certain theorists in England, that they did not, until the distress had been existing for three months, relax the workhouse test. What were the shortcomings of the Administration of 1879–80? Why, these were amongst the number—outdoor relief was three months
    1046
    late, and in the meantime the country was covered with a network of charity organization. Unfortunately, however, charity was substituted for the Poor Law, instead of, as in the case of the Lancashire Cotton Famine, as an adjunct to it; so that during all that trying period the average rates never exceeded 1s. 6d. in the pound, though a large number of people were living upon charity. Then the terms upon which money was lent to the Guardians should have been the same as in the case of the owners of land; and, further, the Guardians should have been employed to superintend the relief works, so that the works might have been used as a real test of the honesty of those applying for relief. He would have suggested in October, and he did suggest now, that the Government should, in the distressed districts, forego the workhouse test. That was the first thing to be done, and without they did that whatever else they did was worth nothing. He would then propose that money should be lent to the Boards of Guardians, on perhaps more favourable terms than they could get it now, for the purpose of providing outdoor relief for sanitary work. There was hardly a village—certainly not a small town—in Ireland where money could not be spent advantageously in giving work to distressed people—that kind of work which could be brought near to their homes. In addition to that, the Secretary to the Treasury might advance loans to small occupiers, and persons might be sent down from the Board of Works to inspect the various holdings, in order to see what amount of money had been spent upon them; and the same persons might be empowered to give the first instalments of the money. That would be a useful mode of surmounting the present distress, though he did not make light of the other schemes that had been proposed, such as emigration, migration, arterial drainage, and the like. But, at the present moment, the best mode of relieving the prevailing distress was by outdoor relief. But there were not wanting prophets of evil who said that foregoing workhouse relief would lead to waste of money. Day after day they told the Government—"Do not relax the workhouse test—once open the doors to outdoor relief and you will flood the solvent Unions." His con-

    1047
    tention was that they were entitled to judge the present and look at the future in the light of the past. In the past the Guardians had been possessed of those powers, but they had made use of them in a niggardly spirit. On the whole, in 1881, which represented the expenditure of 1880, there was only £182,000 spent on outdoor relief on a valuation of £13,000,000, and really that could not be said to be an excessive sum, or show any waste of money. The total number of able-bodied people relieved out-of-doors did not amount to 225,000; the rate over the whole of Ireland was on the average only 1s. 5d. in the pound. The preliminary and indispensable condition of any reform of the Poor Law system involved Union rating. Without union rating it would be impossible to carry out a system of outdoor relief, and as to the system of outdoor relief leading to waste, reference to the statistics in Thorn's Almanac would show that such was not the case. With the exception of four or five Unions in the county of Mayo, where the circumstances were exceptional, the highest rate in Ireland was 3s. 6d. in the pound. But it might be objected that in the last year extravagant sums were given away without due inquiry as outdoor relief to the families of' 'suspects'' and evicted tenants. That might be perfectly true. But what did the number of those instances amount to? There were, perhaps, five, 10, or 20 people in a whole Union who, in the case of evicted tenants, had received relief for one month; and in the ease of "suspects" for, perhaps, six or eight months. After all, it should be remembered that the Guardians of the Poor were ratepayers and occupiers of land, who had to pay half the poor rate, and who, in the next very few years, would probably be paying the whole of that impost. It was not to be supposed that they would be ready to shovel out and waste their own money and that of their fellow-ratepayers; and even if they did waste it for one year, why should they be kept in leading strings by the Government? The ratepayers would have the remedy in their own hands, and could turn the Guardians out at the next election. Again, the effect of the claim to outdoor relief in Ireland would be to stimulate employment, and, accompanied by Union rating, to stimulate economy, also making it the interest of every person, whe-
    1048
    ther landlord, tenant, or shopkeeper to give as much employment as he could himself to keep people off the rates. It would stimulate the energies of the Guardians in their corporate capacity to find work for the people. The Guardians in Ireland now possessed powers of borrowing money on very favourable terms for sanitary purposes, but they scarcely ever used them. Dr. Handcock, a statistician of the greatest authority, who had argued, in season and out of season, in favour of assimilating the Poor Law system in Ireland to that of England, had pointed out the impolicy of the Imperial Government standing, as it were, as a buffer between the Guardians and the poor in Ireland, and preventing them from relieving the necessitous with their own money. Such a proceeding was also especially inconsistent on the part of a Liberal Government, which proposed at the proper time to extend the municipal and Parliamentary franchises in Ireland. He certainly could not understand it. He had searched in vain for a reason, and he could only attribute it to this—that there was a certain number of persons in England, political economists, who had found, or thought they had found, that the rigid inelastic Irish system was more consonant to the dictates of political economy than the more liberal, the more elastic English system would be, and that the influence of this class of persons found an echo and a voice in some of those charged with the administration of the Poor Law in Ireland. But he would ask his right hon. Friend if he himself was one of those who considered that the Poor Law in England was too elastic, too liberal, in the administration of outdoor relief? He would ask him, was there any public man in England, any Member of Parliament, who dared stand upon the hustings and propose his wish to have the Poor Law in England amended in the sense of the Irish Poor Law? No one dare say so. If that was the case—and it was the case—was there any good reason, then, for refusing an assimilation of the Irish Poor Law to that of England in this respect? Was there anything to be said for keeping up that inequality to the detriment of the poorest and most helpless class in the community? He could not think there was. He therefore hoped that in that discussion his right hon. Friend, without prejudging

    1049
    the question of a general assimilation of that law, would, at least, announce his intention to relax that cruel and fallacious workhouse test.
    MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHYsaid, he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment. He expressed his personal thanks to the hon. Member for the Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor) for the very prompt manner in which he flung himself into the breach, and took up that Amendment, which, owing to a peculiar action on the part of the Government, was taken out of his (Mr. Justin M'Carthy's) hands. He had listened with great interest to the speech of his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst). It showed great practical knowledge of the subject, and very manly feeling. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) only hoped that the appeal made to the Government by one who supported them consistently throughout would have all the weight and influence to which it was most certainly well entitled. The Government could not in this case say they had not had ample warning of the emergency they were very likely soon to be called upon to meet. Most hon. Members in that House would remember a remarkable discussion which took place on this very subject during the Autumn Sitting. He thought it was the first occasion on which, under the New Rules, a Member had to get the support of 40 Members to raise an important question at an extraordinary time. A Motion for the adjournment was made by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell), and the whole prospect of distress in Ireland was then carefully and fully gone into. The Government were warned that they must expect an emergency of a very grave and serious kind, and they were warned that the worst pressure and pinch of the emergency would come about the end of February or early in March. At that time, he confessed, he was under the impression that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was well acquainted with the gravity of the situation, and was well disposed to meet it as it ought to be met. Almost every Member who took part in the debate impressed on him the necessity of not allowing himself to be too rigidly bound and compressed by official rules and by routine. If he remembered rightly, the right hon. and
    1050
    learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson) impressed on the Government the necessity for being liberal and generous and un-trammelled in their mode of meeting the emergency. It seemed to him at that time that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary was prepared to meet the appeal in a liberal spirit, and was equal to the occasion. He left him (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) certainly, and many others, under the impression that this appeal to him had not wholly failed in its effect, and that some good would come of the efforts they had made. There were two points that were specially urged for his particular attention. One was the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County, the necessity of meeting this case by relaxing that stringent hidebound rule which in Ireland forbade the giving of outdoor relief, or relief of any kind, until the workhouse was filled. It was pointed out again and again to the right hon. Gentleman that that system always must be a failure in an emergency. It was only waiting until sickness set in before they took the measures which might have prevented the sickness—it was only waiting until the utmost poverty was reached before they gave relief which, coming in time, might have prevented poverty. The proceedings of the House had hardly been over when the Government issued the Circular to which the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County had referred. In that Circular the Lord Lieutenant announced that he intended to rely on the operation of the Irish Poor Law in its most restricted sense. He announced that outdoor relief could not be given in any Union to able-bodied men unless the workhouse was full, or, by fever or other infectious disease, was unfit for the reception of poor persons; and then followed a sentence which he should like to read to the House—
    "Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the great objection entertained by many persons to go into the workhouse; but it cannot be contended that persons who are unable to procure for themselves the necessaries of life should be allowed to determine the manner in which public relief is to be afforded."
    He did not know whose hand drew up that sentence. He was perfectly certain that the graceful pen whose productions they all so much admired, that

    1051
    of the Chief Secretary, never was guilty of writing anything like that clumsy sarcasm. They asked for bread and the Lord Lieutenant gave them a sneer. What was needed was some sort of system of reproductive works, by which the poor people might have earned bread for themselves. Kindly help was needed; the help that decent men could receive honestly, and not the alms of the pauper flung with a contemptuous remark. Time went by and the outdoor relief was not given, and the distress began more and more to deepen and to widen over the country. It was at its worst in part of the North and North-West, and even going down to Kerry and some part of the county of Cork; it had, to some extent, swept over the whole of the country. He did not mean to say that famine spread over the whole of the country, or that famine in its worst sense prevailed as yet in any part of Ireland; but an amount of distress prevailed in some districts which was only by a very thin line divided from famine. Under these circumstances, a movement was got up in London for the purpose of making an appeal to public beneficence in favour of those suffering from starvation and poverty in Ireland. It occurred to some of his friends that the appeal should be made from the Mansion House, and that the Lord Mayor should be invited to assist. He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) presided over a meeting which was called for that purpose. He might say, perhaps, that he did not now feel particularly proud of the part he was then induced to take. He was not fond of carrying round the hat in any way for the relief of Irish distress. He began to grow, he confessed, weary of the incessant appeals to the charity of the world to assist a country which, under fair and just conditions, would be able to maintain herself. He did not expect that very much would come of this particular appeal. Still, he thought at the time that if there was the slightest chance of doing any good, everyone ought to be quite content to put aside any personal sentiments that he might have. They held their meeting, and nothing came of it. His hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan (Mr. O'Donnell) made a speech, in which he made some historical allusions. Because his hon. Friend talked history—ho supposed he talked it at the wrong place—the
    1052
    Lord Mayor of London held that there could be no sympathy in this country with Irish distress. Ireland was punished for the historical allusions introduced by the hon. Member for Dungarvan. But the attempt to get up a meeting and to get up this appeal produced a certain amount of good. They got a great many statements from authoritative persons describing the condition of things in Ireland. They were able, by means of these letters, to make it clear to everyone what the nature and extent of the distress was for which they were anxious to make their appeal. With the permission of the House he would read a few extracts from the communications that had been received, giving an account of the state of the country and the distress that prevailed. The Most Rev. Dr. Duggan, Bishop of Clonfert, writes from Loughrea that—
    "In certain districts of the country distress of harrowing intensity prevails. The pressure of hunger is mostly felt in the small towns of the West of Ireland, whither thousands of the poor evicted from the neighhouring properties to lay down the land into pasturage have been driven to huddle in outskirt hovels without employment. In simple truth my life here is a miser listening to tales of distress which I know to be true; but that distress I am utterly unable to alleviate."
    He contends that there are ample opportunities for reproductive works within easy range, and he condemns the Government for their rigid adherence to the workhouse test, and for their policy of the emigrant ship. The Rev. P. S. M'Hugh, of Kilglass, Eniscrone, Sligo, writes on February 15—
    "I had no conception of famine until now. I am bewildered at the appalling state of the people Fuel. …. is absolutely more required than even food, and as yet I have only got a few pounds to relieve the distress of over 200 families."
    Later still he writes to say that the distress is intensified. The Rev. Mr. Hughes, of Kilgain, County Sligo, writes—
    "The people have positively nothing to live on, and fever of a very virulent kind has broken out."
    The Rev. James Duncan, P.P., of Bangor-Erris, County Mayo, writes on the 20th of January—
    "The potato crop last season in this district was a complete failure, scarcely worth the digging out. The storm of last October totally destroyed the cereal crops; in a word, the people

    1053
    this year have neither means nor money. I assure you they are at present without food or raiment, and how they are to weather over the spring and pinching summer Providence alone knows."
    The Rev. Mr. Flynn, of Kiltyclogher, County Leitrim, writes on February 1st—
    "The famine here is daily growing wider and deeper. The people are without fuel, without cattle, food, or credit. I am on all sides besieged by starving people, asking even for a few pounds of Indian meal."
    The Rev. Canon Lyons, Spiddal, County Galway, at a very recent date, says—
    "I am fearful of the next few months, because at present the people are in a dreadful condition. They are living on seaweed, which will rapidly cause widespread sickness. We want employment, not charity, and in this district money might be advantageously laid out on reproductive public works."
    The Rev. Mr. O'Fadden, of Gweedore, Donegal, writes—
    "The distress is spreading with fearful rapidity, and increasing day by day. "Within the last fortnight it has reached every village and hamlet in this district."
    He also speaks of seaweed being used as food—
    "No meal, no potatoes, nothing really to support life. The misery of the people is unmistakably pictured in their countenances and eyes, in their dress and their wretched bed clothing. I longed for night to shut out from my eyes the terrible sights; but they haunted me as I walked through the lonely glen to my home, and they haunt me still, and will do so for many a month to come."
    Mr. Johnson, of Kanturk, County Cork, writes—
    "The poor people have neither fuel nor clothing—a Siberian winter; Indian meal 12s. a cwt., no potatoes, and the oat crop practically worthless."
    Mr. Redmond, High Sheriff of the City of Waterford, says—
    "The poor are in a desperate condition, and I very much fear they will be even worse, as the distress is intensifying, and the winter extremely severe."
    Mr. O'Rorke, of Tralee, County Kerry, writes—
    "The poor are starving, and it is greatly to be deplored that the Government have shut their eyes to their sufferings, as I find from a letter sent through the Secretary of the Local Government Board to the Tralee Union yesterday, in which the Guardians are asked to place all unoccupied wards in good and habitable order for the reception of those looking for relief; "and he adds," God help the poor!"
    1054
    He (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) had not read those extracts from the numerous letters he had received for the purpose of finding fault with the Government for what they had failed to do. His purpose was' to direct their attention to the future. He wanted the Government to do something before it was quite too late. The burden of all the letters he had received was that the distress was great; that it was growing, and that the worst had yet to come. During the next few weeks the worst phase of the crisis would have arrived; and if within that time some generous effort should not be made, then the Government would have to encounter an amount of distress which might very well be described as famine itself. The daily papers—even those least inclined to be sympathetic with the Irish poor—contained most strong and earnest testimony from their correspondents as to the extent, the intensity, and the growing nature of the distress in the West of Ireland. He would not weary the House with those reports. He could only enforce the appeal just made to the Government by his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County. He would urge upon the Government not to lose the time which yet remained, and to relax that rule which would not be endured in England, under which a man suffering from temporary distress could not obtain relief, but must go into the workhouse. Experience showed that people who once went into the workhouse seldom emerged any more from a pauper's position. It would be far better, far cheaper—putting it on the very lowest ground—to afford outdoor relief, and to enable those people to tide over their distress, than to offer them the odious test that they must take the risk upon their consciences of allowing themselves to starve, or else come down from their previous position as industrious people, and become paupers for a time. Becoming a pauper for a time meant becoming a pauper for life. He strongly urged the Government to give to-night some assurance that they were not rigidly bound to their so-called economy. Let the Chief Secretary give an assurance that his influence would be brought to bear upon others, so that a generous effort might be made to grapple with the distress. There was no occasion

    1055
    now for his going into the various other points mentioned in the Amendment. He endorsed every word the Amendment contained. It was a simple axiom to say that while the defects mentioned there continued to exist there must be discontent and disaffection in Ireland. The Irish Party would in the most practical way give the Government opportunities for remedying those defects. Bills embodying all the reforms they claimed would be brought before the House. It would then be for Her Majesty's Government to say whether they were prepared to deny or to grant those reforms. He might say with regard to the defects of the Land Act that the Government had admitted them. The Prime Minister had again and again stated with regard to the Healy Clause that the meaning in his mind was similar to the meaning in the mind of the hon. Member who moved the clause. There, then, was a clear instance in which, by mere mistake or mischance, a measure failed to give effect to the intention of Parliament. He should not go over all the matters spoken of in the Amendment. He preferred to lay the greater stress upon the poverty and hunger that existed in Ireland. That was a grievance over which one moment could not be lost. It had been suggested that no more time could be given to listening to Irish complaints, or to endeavouring to redress Irish grievances. He thought that was not a position which the English Government or the English Parliament could maintain. They had taken upon themselves the responsibility of governing Ireland, and, having taken that responsibility, they could not avoid considering the grievances of the people. There might be English questions which, in the ordinary course of things, would have good right to be carefully examined. Most willing would he be to hear that all English reforms had speedy chance of success. But not one of them was so urgent as the grievances of Ireland, and while Irish grievances existed the English Parliament could no more escape from them than could a man escape from his own shadow. When the roof leaked, that must be mended before any decoration of the walls was attempted; when a limb was wounded, it claimed the first thought; and in the same way the grievances of Ireland should receive
    1056
    the first attention of that House. The responsibility of removing them was a burden which they must bear, who had assumed and insisted on retaining the task of governing Ireland.
    MR. CHARLES RUSSELLsaid, he thought this a convenient opportunity for reminding the Ministry and the House that the sole function of government in Ireland was not repression and the detection and punishment of crime. Hon. Members had made the debates on Irish affairs in this Session the opportunity for delivering attacks upon various parts of the past remedial policy of the present Government. The debate had had given to it a personal character, which he thought could not serve any useful purpose, and which certainly would not tend to allay the feeling of irritation existing in Ireland. He confessed that he listened with anxious expectation to the speech of the Chief Secretary; but he must also confess that that speech was to him (Mr. C. Russell) of a somewhat disappointing character, and he would tell the House why. He fully recognized the courtesy of the right hon. Gentleman's utterances, but he should have liked to hear a healthier ring about them. While his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was laying down with great vigour that the primary duty of a Government was the protection of life and property and the maintenance of order, he should have liked to have gathered from that speech that he considered it a function of Government at least equally important to look after and redress, with equal urgency and equal care, admitted grievances. Though he (Mr. O. Russell) did not perceive it in the speech of the Chief Secretary, he found that healthy ring in the speech of another right hon. Member of the Government, the President of the Board of Trade; and he remarked that, whereas the speech of the Chief Secretary was received with unstinted applause by the Opposition, the speech of the President of the Board of Trade received but small approbation from those Benches. He would like to remind the House of some extra-Parliamentary utterances of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson). In his recent speech in the Rotunda, the junior Member for the University of Dublin—not, indeed, by any indirect or roundabout insinuation, but

    1057
    by direct charge—had practically laid at the door of the Prime Minister the charge that to his (the Prime Minister's) recent remedial policy towards Ireland was largely to be attributed the state of things existing in Ireland; and, at the same time, he lavished praise upon the Chief Secretary. In his speech, also, on the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Chatham (Mr. Gorst) was this expression—
    "I regard the Amendment as a correct historical narrative of the past policy of the Government, and as an exhortation to them to desist from pursuing in the future the path now universally condemned."
    But he (Mr. Gibson) also told the House on that occasion that they must not expect that a man whose house was on fire would regard as his guardian angel the man who came to put it out, when he believed it was the same man who had set it on fire. What did that all mean, except this—that he (Mr. Gibson) was lauding the Chief Secretary at the expense of his Colleagues in the Government? That was praise to be looked at with some qualification and suspicion, for the only part of the policy of the Government which the right hon. and learned Gentlemen showed that he wholly approved of was that part which related to the rigorous execution of the law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in labouring to show that a great part of the existing evils in Ireland was due to the past remedial policy of the Government in that country, urged that the Government should desist from bringing in any further remedial measures. He humbly but earnestly protested against that doctrine, and he protested that it was at least as much the duty of the Government zealously and carefully to search out and make itself acquainted with what were the grievances, and apply the remedy, as it was vigorously but justly to insist upon the maintenance of law and order. There were matters which had been pointed out which called for the urgent attention of Parliament; and how was the demand for attention met? It was said—"We will have no more legislative redress for Ireland until Ireland is quiet." That was one way in which it was put. Another mode was—"There are English claims which press upon popular attention, and Ireland has already received a largo share of the time of Par-
    1058
    liament." As regarded the last of these arguments, he admitted its perfect justice as coming from Englishmen. He admitted that Ireland had received—and Members from Ireland ought to acknowledge that Ireland had used—a large share of the time of Parliament; but he would point out, at the same time, that that was an argument which must be very carefully used, because every time it was put forward in answer to a legitimate demand for redress it would strengthen enormously the claims of those who said that England could not legislate for Ireland. As to the other ground of objection, he confessed he was a little surprised to hear it pressed in that House. Was nothing more to be done for Ireland because Ireland was in a state of disquiet? Why, it was as if they were to say in the case of a fever patient that they should place him in a strait-waistcoat until he was reduced to a state of subjection before proceeding to give him remedies. That was an illustration in homely language, it was true; but he thought it fitted the occasion. Was it not notorious that, although they might not always be able to trace the connection between crime and the absence of legislative redress, yet that between the existence of crime in a country and its political and social condition the connection was certain? In the first place, the absence of remedial legislation created a sympathy with offences against the law, which meant protection for those who offended against the law by immunity from punishment. To those who said that there should be no legislation for Ireland until she was quiet, he said there would be no quietness until remedies for grievances which undoubtedly existed were found. Hon. Members opposite said that it was a concession to lawless agitation and violence. He knew that was said; but they must not forget that the House of Commons had taught the Irish people the bitter lesson that their best chance of legislation was by showing a spirit of disorder and disquiet. They had that upon the authority of the right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University, for he told a different audience in the Dublin Rotunda that there would have been no such Land Act as that of 1881 but for what he described as "a lawless agitation." What were the

    1059
    matters that were now pressing? Ono I of the matters most urgently in need of the attention of the Government was the distress. He warned the Government not to delay in taking measures to relieve the distress which existed; and he warned them also not to try and break down that feeling of horror and abhorrence—call it prejudice if they would—which the Irish people always felt against entering the workhouse. He did not intend to enlarge upon that question, for he would find it exceedingly difficult to supplement the account they had had from the hon. Member for Queen's County (Mr. Arthur O'Connor), and particularly from the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst); but he joined with them in warning the Government not to be too late in taking steps, although only of a temporary character, in that matter. Primary among the other questions which demanded attention was the amendment of the Land Act. If the House should be disposed to resist the pertinacity with which this matter was brought under their notice, let him remind the House and the Government that there was not one point now brought under their notice that was not again and again insisted upon and pressed upon the House by him (Mr. C. Russell) and others at the time when the Bill was being passed into law. The points on which the Land Bill required amendment were summarized in the resolutions passed at a most influential meeting of farmers recently held in Belfast, delegates from all parts of the country, a body of men entitled to be heard and to have their demands weighed with attentive consideration by any Government. They bad insisted on the amendment of the clause called "Healy's Clause"—that no rent should be chargeable on the tenant's own improvements. That point ought to be made clear. It had been confessed by the Prime Minister that the interpretation supposed to be put upon that clause by the Appeal Court in Dublin was contrary to the intention of the Legislature when the Bill passed, and was certainly contrary to the intention of the Government. Another point of importance bearing on the matter was that the decisions in regard to fair rent should be retrospective to the date of the application, and not operate
    1060
    merely from the date of the decision. The expectation of the Prime Minister that rents would be largely settled by agreement had not been realized. It would still be years before the adjustments were completed; and it was absurd that the man who got his case tried early should be in a better position than the man who applied as soon, but whose case was heard later. The exclusion of leaseholders from the Act was also a burning and a pressing question. He (Mr. C. Russell) would ask, were the Ulster farmers, loyal and peaceable as they were—were they to be told that their just and legitimate demands were not to be dealt with in a fair manner and promptly? That was a serious question for the Government. Another of equal, if not of greater, importance was the state of the magistracy in Ireland. That was a question which, without legislation, might be largely dealt with; it was a question, indeed, which came home to the daily lives of the people; and it had assumed greater importance of late years, owing to the large increase of stipendiary magistrates, who were part of the Executive rather than judicial officers. Therefore, it became important to draw attention to the fact that in many parts of the country there was a want of magistrates in whom the people had confidence. It was necessary not only that tribunals should be fair, but that the people should feel that they were fair. He had no hesitation in saying that the state of the magistracy in a great part of Ireland at present was such as did not command the full confidence of the people. Beyond the questions of the existence of distress, the amendment of the Land Act, and the state of the magistracy, there were others which were urgent and pressing—for instance, the question of County Government Boards and Provincial Councils, in regard to which Ulster was in complete and full accord with the other three Provinces. Notwithstanding the censure which had been passed on the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Herbert Gladstone) for a speech which he recently delivered at that place on the necessity for remedial legislation in this direction, all he (Mr. C. Russell) could say was, that if those utterances were, in the opinion of hon. Members in that House, premature, they were, nevertheless, wise and statesmanlike. ["Oh, oh!"]

    1061
    He (Mr. O. Russell) thought so sincerely. He did not mean to say that he expected the Government to take up this question in the present or even next Session; but he did say that it was one which they must take up, and soon too. They would have to do so, because they wanted in Ireland a moral force behind the Government. At present, the people were practically divested of any voice in the management of their affairs; and what the Government would have to do, if they desired to be successful in restoring peace and contentment, and in ruling the country, was to place on the people themselves a Dense of responsibility. No condition of things would over evoke the sympathy of the people on the side of law unless they gave them that sense of responsibility which came from the knowledge that they had an active part in governing and controlling their own affairs. His (Mr. O. Russell's) principal objects in rising were—first, to warn the Chief Secretary to beware of the insidious laudations of hon. Members opposite—and next, to insist upon the principle, which appeared to him to have been last sight of in the course of the debate, that it was not the only function, nor the greatest function, although it was the primary function, of a Government to repress, to detect, and to punish crime. It was the nobler, it was the wiser, it was the more important function to get at the sources of disaffection, which was the parent of crime. A Government might for years, without the sympathy of a people, and against the wishes of the people, repress and keep down a people and call it government; but it was not government in any true sense of the word; and they could not permanently govern the country at all, in any true sense, unless they enlisted the sympathies of the people, founded on the confidence which they could repose in the just administration of the law, on the contentment which sprang from that just administration, and on the fact that they felt that their just legislative demands for redress were attended to.
    SIR, JOHN HAYsaid, that the condition of affairs in Ireland was such, that North of the Solway they were beginning to get sick of the Irish Question. They found that all that had been done by the House and by the country had failed in any sense to give any satisfaction to Ireland. [Mr. CHARLES RUSSELL: No, no!"]
    1062
    He was delighted to hear any expression of dissent from that remark from any Irish Member; but, so far as he could see, the efforts of Parliament had not been received as they ought to have been. The dissatisfaction existing on this matter North of the Solway was, in his opinion, justified. The hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy) spoke just now of decent and independent men, of whom he considered Irishmen principally consisted. At the present moment, if they looked at the Returns, they would find that the contribution of Scotland to the Imperial Revenue was nearly three times as large as that of Ireland, notwithstanding that the population of Ireland was 2,000,000 greater than that of Scotland; and he might say that the Scotch people were not at all inclined to contribute to the maintenance of this population of decent and independent men, who could not pay their way with regard to the Empire. At the present moment they had in Ireland over 5,000,000 of people—2,000,000 of whom could not exist there. It was utterly impossible, on physical conditions, that they could live in the wretched tenements on which they were placed, even though they had them rent free and farmed the land well. It was absurd that this country should endeavour to introduce, by legislation or by any other means, contentment among such a population. He would venture to say that the cheapest thing the Government could do was to hire 250 transports and send away once a month 1,000 persons in each of the ships, and if this was done for one year they would send away 3,000,000 of persons, and the condition of Ireland would thereby be greatly benefited. He said, truly and sincerely, that he believed that was a process by which Ireland could be reduced to a population and a condition with which they could have contentment and happiness. There was this fact to ponder—that in Scotland, with a population of 3,734,000, and Ireland, with a population of 5,159,000, there was, if they excepted the potato crop, a produce in the former of £33,000,000, and in the latter of only £32,000,000. If the potato crop came to maturity in Ireland, it was valued at £15,400,000, but it never did; and in Scotland not more than £1,500,000 worth of potatoes were ever grown; but when it failed in Ireland

    1063
    there would inevitably be starvation, and the people of Scotland were to be called upon to help support this poorer population, so many of whom the hon. Member for Longford called decent and independent men. So long as that state of affairs lasted, he believed the House had no chance whatever of bringing contentment to Ireland. There were two great statesmen in this country—Sir Thomas Wentworth and Oliver Cromwell—one on one side of the House, and the other on the opposite side, and both recognized, only with a harsher and sterner view, the right mode of governing Ireland; and he said what he believed to be true when he declared that the best thing for Ireland would be that at the next Dissolution the Writs should be suspended for that country, except for the learned constituency of Dublin University, which returned excellent Members. If that were done, and our best General—who, he believed, was an Irishman—was sent to govern the country, they should have in 10 years a contented and happy Ireland. Let them reduce the population by 2,000,000, and govern it satisfactorily, and they would have no more eloquent speeches from the hon. and learnod Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), and the hon. Member for Longford (Mr. Justin M'Carthy). endeavouring to persuade the House that, by some mean3 or other, Ireland might be governed by legislation. No system of legislation would govern a country of paupers, who were determined to be disloyal and discontented.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, he did not propose to enter upon the topics introduced by his right hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Sir John Hay). They did not lie within the circle of practical politics. He had listened to the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell) with the discomfort and apprehension with which one listens to criticism of one's conduct from a friendly source. But he was glad to hear it said that crime was to be punished in Ireland until the criminal population had learned that crime was criminal. But he thought that to say that repressive measures would fail unless accompanied by remedial legislation argued a confusion of mind. The Government meant to keep the question of crime and that of
    1064
    reform absolutely distinct. He would not insult Irish Members by mixing up the two. Englishmen or Scotchmen would feel outraged at the suggestion that crime could not be put down unless the central authority ceased to interfere with the finances of counties, and any Member who made such a suggestion would be rejected by his constituents. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think that it was the duty of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and for the Government, to indulge in vague generalities and pledges. But he thought a handful of meal better than a bushel of chaff; and that one Bill, whose title and details could be named and recommended, was better than a million of fine phrases about remedial measures. He would name the measures which were already drafted, or as good as drafted, which the Government intended to introduce in connection with Ireland. One dealt with electoral divisions and unions; another was intended to introduce an improvement with respect to the law of lunatics at large, and with the law of the poorer lunatics in Ireland. Another would enact that Boards of Guardians should be elected by ballot. The Government had also a Bill for the Sunday closing of public-houses. He was not speaking with the pride of an inventor, for many of those measures were well known; but they would be none the less useful. They intended also to deal with fisheries, and to extend the advantages now possessed by a few districts in the way of borrowing for the improvement of fisheries to certain maritime counties. They had, too, a Bill for the better registration of Parliamentary voters; and another more of an administrative than of a legislative character by which Ireland would enjoy the same advantage with respect to the training of elementary teachers which were already possessed by England and Scotland. With the assistance of the Irish Members they might be enabled to carry those Bills, and some good would be done; but without their assistance, or with their hindrance, he feared little could be done. He listened with some perturbation to the hon. and gallant Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst), because, important as the debates of the last few days had been, there was no subject that had exercised the Government of Ireland as the question of distress and the way

    1065
    to meet it. He advisedly used the word "distress," though it might appear to convey an admission that distress existed. The very essence of the situation, in the opinion of the Irish Government, was that distress always existed in certain parts of Ireland, and always would exist, unless the Irish Government ventured to face the situation with a courage which, he believed, was greater than that required to deal with assassination and outrage. What was the present situation in Ireland? The current year had not been, by any means, a bad year for Irish farmers with tolerably sized holdings. Grain had been a very valuable crop, though somewhat short. The price of cattle had been exceedingly high. One gentleman told him of a certain farm he had on his hands of which the rent was £800 a-year, which brought him a net profit of £1,400; and, taking into consideration the condition under which gentleman farming was conducted, that was a very fair balance. The potatoes, undoubtedly, had been bad on good sized farms where the farmers had not charged the soil for that exhausting crop. They had been worse than bad on those miserable patches which the peasants were obliged to continue working for generations and centuries. A certain portion of the population of Ireland lived under conditions not realized in this country, and more deplorable, perhaps, than under which any people lived in any part of civilized Europe. There were 67,000 holdings of between one and five acres in Ireland—he did not count those below one acre—as they were not, properly speaking, agricultural holdings. There were 164,000 holdings of between five and 15 acres, many of which, in the more mountainous districts, did not afford more than two, or two and a-half acres of arable land. In these small farms the ground was dug year after year for potatoes until the soil was completely exhausted. In Donegal he made careful inquiries, and he learnt from the people that in an ordinary year an acre of their land yielded not more than 90 cwt. of potatoes, instead of from six to nine tons, which would be the yield of good land properly farmed. In bad years the crop was almost worthless. The Reports which they had received from those who best knew the poorer districts of Ireland were that the population was at present in a state of social
    1066
    and financial crisis. Three years ago, when the crop of 1879 was known to have failed, and when the effects of the failure began to be felt, the shopkeepers refused to give credit. But when they began to give credit anew the great flood of Government aid and private charity also came to the assistance of the people. The Duchess of Marlborough's Committee expended £130,000; the Mansion House Committee £174,000? and considerable sums were expended by the Land League Relief Fund, The New York Herald, and other American relief funds. A sum of £1,500,000 was allocated from the Irish Church Surplus, and about £1,250,000 of it was apportioned out in loans and grants. For two years these districts were bolstered up and kept going by artificial and external aid, and in the third year there was an unusually large crop of potatoes. There was also another source of revenue for the small farmers in that year, for they very generally withheld their rent. But it was not only in that year, but for some years past, that this rent was withheld, a proof of which was the extent to which the Arrears Act was resorted to in the districts in question. From Mayo came 20,396 applications; from Donegal 13,650; and from Galway 12,559. In that year also there was an unusually large crop of potatoes. This year, however, there were none of those favouring circumstances. Potatoes were bad, and, in some cases, worse than bad. A year's rent had to be paid in order that the advantages of the Arrears Act might be obtained, and the process of getting that year's rent had in some districts been an exceedingly painful process. The fact now was patent—and the country and Parliament must face it—that the holdings on the West Coast of Ireland were too small; the people could, not live on the land without running into debt; credit could not easily be obtained, and the people were dependent on their own resources, which were insufficient to support them, or soon would be. It might be asked—"How could they ever have lived upon their poor holdings?" They had been able to do so because their style of living was formerly much simpler than it had been lately. They used to live on potatoes and meal. They bought absolutely nothing but a certain quantity of meal, and they dressed in home-made flannel or frieze. Some

    1067
    years ago, however, they began to drink tea, to use a good deal of flour, and to buy dresses at stores and shops. Their savings went, their debts grew, their land got less and less productive, until, at present, it was utterly unable to support them. They recognized this state of things very well themselves, and if left to themselves would be willing to accept the only remedy. In Newport Union 1,844 persons had expressed a desire to emigrate; in Oughterard Union 1,556 had done so; in a Union in Gal-way 1,821 had expressed the same desire; and in Belmullet, out of a population of 16,000, no fewer than 3,000 had applied. The Inspector had informed the Government that if these 3,000 people were to go, a very appreciable difference would be made in the comfort of those who would be left behind; but that if they were given any hopes of extraordinary relief they would be induced to stay at home. If that relief were made permanent it would be merely perpetuation of the evil, and they would in a few years be as badly off as they were before. Would the Government, he asked, be justified in proposing measures of relief for the purpose of perpetuating the state of things which he had endeavoured to describe? He would first consider the question from a humanitarian point of view. He had himself visited the most distressed district in one Union in Donegal. The circumstances of that visit illustrated curiously one of the minor difficulties of the Irish Government—namely, the constant misrepresentation, not only of their motives, but of their words and actions. His visit to the West of Ireland did not suit the purposes of certain people, and so they set the story going that he drove about in a carriage with the blinds down, and that story was made the basis of an extraordinary number of bitter articles and speeches, some of which were delivered by Members of that House. As a matter of fact, as soon as he had reached the border of the distressed districts, he and his party drove about in an open car, and they were well rewarded for doing so by the interesting lessons which they learned. They entered a great number of cottages, and questioned the inmates closely and systematically. The lessons which he learnt he should never forget. For a part of the time he had the advantage of the
    1068
    company of Father Callaghar, and for the rest of the time he was accompanied by Mr. Hamilton, one of the most experienced of the Poor Law Inspectors. He then saw for the first time—and when one saw for the first time it was with truer eyes than people who were accustomed to it—a great number of human beings living with the pigs, with the fowls, and actually with the cattle, in one miserable room, with a floor not of boards, but simply of earth. He saw family after family in which the eldest children were in rags, and the two or three youngest had simply some wretched little shirt on, which was only a name and a pretence for their being dressed at all. It was bad enough, and it was sad enough, that such a state of things should exist; but it was worse still that the taxpayers of England and Scotland, who, in many cases, had enough to do to keep their own modest homes over their heads, should be called upon, year after year, and Parliament after Parliament, to contribute the money, either directly or indirectly, for the purpose of maintaining that state of things, which was a perfect scandal.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWER: I should like to know what the British taxpayer has contributed?
    MR. TREVELYAN: In the first place, the English taxpayer lost every halfpenny he contributed at the time of the Famine; and, besides that, they had to consider what the English taxpayer was now asked to contribute, and that was the practical question. But he would come to that point more fully later on. If it was for the benefit of Ireland, then they might have something to say for it—they would be willing to give very large sums; but it was in order to perpetuate what was the greatest misery of Ireland; and if it was objectionable on the ground of humanity, it was much more objectionable on the ground of social morality. The utter destruction of the self-reliance and self-respect of the people by the policy of 1879 and 1880 was perceivable on every side. The moneys of the charities were given in large quantities at first, and when the distribution of the charitable funds ceased, the people did not wish to return to labour, and outdoor relief was largely granted by the Guardians. He would take the instance of the Union of Strokestown, in the county of Roscom-

    1069
    mon. The Guardians took the matter out of the hands of the relieving officers in February, 1880. They appointed committees of clergymen and others, and distributed outdoor relief. These committees began to distribute relief to the amount of £250 or £300 a week; the sums expended were handed in in loose sheets, and the chairman signed those sheets. The numbers of out-poor relieved rose from 421 in the week ending the 7th of February, to 7,459 in the week ending the 6th of March, and to 9,794 in the week ending the 13th of March, 1880. And what did hon. Gentlemen think was the population of that Union? Very little more than 20,000. That Union was, of course, an exception; but other Unions were so rapidly becoming overburdened, that the Boards of Guardians had to be dissolved, Vice Guardians appointed, and this ruinous system had to be checked and the Union saved, as it were, by fire. There was another result to the ratepayers from another form of this aid. In certain parts of Ireland the Guardians and borrowers of seed were led by unauthorized statements to believe that repayment of the loans would not be rigorously pressed for by the Government, and consequently the extravagance in some places was awful. In one Union the issue of seed was made to tailors, shoemakers, and all the idlers in the streets. Nothing more disgraceful than this jobbery was ever known, and no less than £25,000 was owed at this moment by a wretchedly poor Union in Ireland to the Imperial Exchequer for Reed thus thrown broadcast away. The Government could not be a party to entering again upon this course, with the more serious disadvantage that, whereas in 1879 the country was not demoralized in this manner, it was now found to be demoralized already. The Government had determined upon reverting to the machinery of the Poor Law as applied between the years 1849 and 1879. What the effect of the workhouse test had been during that period was well known to everyone who had studied the social history of Ireland. In July, 1879, there were 784,000 persons receiving outdoor relief in Ireland, and until the workhouse test was applied the number showed no symptoms of a decrease. After the test was applied, in the course of three months the number
    1070
    fell from 784,000 to 120,000, and it never ceased falling until, in the year 1855, it reached 685. The Local Government Board in Ireland were not of opinion that it was necessary to relax the workhouse test in times of exceptional distress. A Report had been presented by Mr. Longley to the Local Government Board on that subject, which Report had been adopted by the Board. In that Report Mr. Longley stated that it was not too much to say that all Poor Law administration since the Poor Law Amendment Act had been successful in proportion to its approach to the system of the workhouse test, and it had not been found that such conditions as locality, trade, or population interfered with its applicability. That was the principle upon which the English Poor Law authorities acted.
    MR. CALLANasked if the test was the same in England as it was in Ireland?
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that in England the people were not asked to go into the workhouse, but the Local Government Board found it necessary to apply the test. The extent to which the workhouse test had been applied in England, and the result, might be shown by a few figures. In the year 1871, £1,524,000 was paid for the maintenance of the poor in the workhouses; in 1881, £1,838,000 was so expended; but in the former year £3,663,000 was spent on outdoor relief, and in the latter year only £2,660,000. The figures showed that by spending an extra £300,000 in maintaining the poor in workhouses the country had saved £1,000,000 in outdoor relief; and the entire cost of maintaining the poor was £700,000 less in 1881 than in 1871, notwithstanding an increase of 3,200,000 in population. And the saving in self-respect and self-reliance might be estimated from the fact that, in 1871, as many as 880,000 persons were in receipt of outdoor relief, while in 1881 their number had fallen to 607,000; and the totals showed that, by the workhouse test, the rate per 1,000 of paupers in England had been reduced from 46 to 30. He would take the case of a single Union. His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cork County (Colonel Colthurst) had quoted a letter from a clergyman in the East of London; and he would now cite the case of a single Union where the test

    1071
    had been put into operation. In August, 1872, 720 paupers were in the workhouse in question; in the same month, in 1873, there were 803; but in 1872, there were 2,584 persons on outdoor relief, and in 1873, only 1,366, the result being a net saving of £2,900 a-year. In Scotland the results of the change were the same; the indoor paupers had increased from 14,000 to 15,000, but the number of persons on outdoor relief had greatly diminished; and, as was well known, the decrease had not, for the most part, been among the able-bodied paupers. In England and Scotland, then, the tendency was towards the more rigid enforcement of the workhouse test, with notoriously good results. What was the case in Ireland? In Ireland the figures showed that the tendency was the other way. In 1861, £9,600 was spent in outdoor relief; in 1871, 69,000; and in 1881, £182,000. Well, then, were they to relax in Ireland the principles which they were rendering more conspicuous every day in England and Scotland to the immense advantage of these countries, and ought they to allow the ratepayers of Ireland to be 'overburdened to the disadvantage and general harm of the population. If they relaxed the system of relief, the result would be that that would happen all over Ireland which had happened in one Union in Mayo. He noticed that hon. Members sometimes spoke of the Local Government Board as if it stood between the people of Ireland and the intended shower of comfort and prosperity. Still, as all that comfort and prosperity came from the pockets of the ratepayers, it was necessary to provide against its being poured forth too lavishly. "But," argued some Members, "there are the Guardians. In England the Guardians represent the people, and they are not allowed to do what they please with their own." Well, the Local Government Board in England, in the majority of cases, enforced a prohibitory order. The same thing might be done in Ireland. It had been done in some poor Unions like the Swinford Union, where £25,000 of debt had been run up almost in a single day. It was contended that it was only in such Unions that there was distress, as it was in the case of such poor Unions that the Government were asked to relax the
    1072
    order. He could only say that the money spent by the Guardians in those years was not exactly the money of their constituents, nearly all of whom might be fairly said to be under the £4 valuation, the rates being paid by others; and it would be a gross injustice to allow the Guardians to play ducks and drakes with the money of people who were not, in fact, the people who elected them as Guardians. The present view of the Government was contained in a letter addressed by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland to the Poor Law authorities in Donegal, for the purpose of being read, if asked for, by those gentlemen who had great influence with the people of the district, including the Rev. Father Gallaher, who had shown great affection for the people. There was one paragraph in that letter which he thought he ought to communicate to the House. The Lord Lieutenant said—
    "The Government have already, in the most unmistakable and distinct terms, announced that their policy is to rely solely on the administration of relief through the ordinary channel provided by law; and the true friend of poor persons in want of the necessaries of life is not the man who encourages false hopes that, if they hold out long enough, relief will he afforded in the more acceptable shape of relief works, but the man who uses his influence to overcome their repugnance, which would otherwise be honourable, to enter the workhouse."
    The accommodation in the workhouse was ample, and arrangements had been made, by increasing the number of workhouses, to increase the means of relief. The fact was it was the case in 1847, and it would be the case again, that when the first pinch of distress came, the people would, lose all their indisposition, which was never very serious, to avail themselves of the workhouse. In 1847, when the people began to feel the pinch of starvation, they went most readily into the workhouse. They did so also in 1879, and they would do so now if they were not advised to do otherwise. He should have liked to make a few remarks on another point kindred to this; but he thought he had detained the House quite long enough. He would, therefore, only call the attention of hon. Members to the fact that this distress existed almost entirely in overcrowded districts—those districts in which the population had not been diminished. In the prosperous districts of Ireland—the

    1073
    prosperous districts of Munster, Tipperary, and Cork—the diminution had been very large indeed, sometimes 80 per cent, down to 50 and 40 per cent; whereas, in the poorest districts, the diminution since 1841 had been scarcely perceptible. In the opinion of the Government, it would be a cruel kindness to go on expending the public money upon a system which was neither advantageous to the Exchequer nor to Ireland. They thought they would do much better by encouraging in the Irish people greater self-reliance at home, and if they gave assistance, without exercising compulsion, to those who wished to go elsewhere and seek a home. This policy might be considered cruel to some. He was sorry it should be so considered; but, in the opinion of the Government, it was the only kind and wise policy, and, therefore, the Government thought they would do very wrong if they did not carry it out.
    Mr. GIBSON and Mr. O'DONNELL Mr. GIBSON and Mr. O'DONNELL rose together.
    MR. SPEAKERcalled upon Mr. GIBSON.
    MR. O'DONNELL: I wish to reply to the Chief Secretary on the question of distress.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have already called upon Mr. Gibson.
    MR. O'DONNELL: He is no Representative of Ireland.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he wished to make a very few observations on the Motion before the House. The Motion was one framed with various intentions; but the debate had turned only upon one aspect of the subject. The Motion dealt, no doubt, with a variety of matters, which might be divided into two heads—one that the legislation suggested might have been tried; and the other topic was the distress. He did not propose to deal with the speech of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dundalk (Mr. C. Russell), who had alluded to him (Mr. Gibson) in the course of his speech; but as his hon. and learned Friend did not think it proper to reply to him upon the previous Motion, he would take the liberty of passing over the speech of his hon. and learned Friend now simply with an expression of cordial thanks to him for the kind way in which he (Mr. Gibson) had been referred to. He would, however, make an allusion
    1074
    to the speech of his right hon. and gallant Friend behind him (Sir John Hay). He had listened to that speech with attention; but he was unable to look at the question from exactly the same point of view as his right hon. and gallant Friend, because, after all, whatever hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway might say, he was an Irishman, and, therefore, he must look at the question from an Irish point of view. He should be sorry to think that the remedy for Irish distress was to be anything at all in the shape of a forcible deportation of the people. He should be glad to think that Ireland could be made a happy, peaceful, and loyal home for a substantial peaceful, and tranquil population. He hoped that the future of Ireland's happiness would not be found in very violent or drastic remedies. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was one which went fully into both of the topics raised by the Amendment. The right hon. Gentleman passed by, as almost all previous speakers passed by, any details dealing with the suggestion of legislation. The debates had not dealt largely, nor in any detail, with that topic at all. The right hon. Gentleman, however, used some expressions which he (Mr. Gibson) thought it would be well should be constantly borne in mind upon this subject. The right hon. Gentleman, alluding to Ireland and Irish affairs, said that it would be unwise and unstates-manlike to indulge in any vague generalities, and to give vague promises and pledges. He said that it was a great deal more the part of a true statesman and a true friend of Ireland to give a list of the practical measures intended to be submitted for Ireland, and not to indulge in vain and dangerous phrases about possible future legislation. Those words, he hoped, would be considered and pondered over by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade before he next made another remedial speech to the House. The way in which the question of distress had been presented to the House was a matter calling for a very different observation. Everyone must regard that topic as one of extreme importance, and they were bound to consider it with an anxious desire to arrive at the truth. They were further bound to consider the disclosures that

    1075
    were made with sympathy. He thought everyone must be conscious, who listened to the interesting speech of the Chief Secretary, of this point, whether they agreed with his conclusions or arguments—that he had, at all events, considered the subject fully. It was essentially the duty of the Irish Government to consider and to weigh this great difficulty in their path, because the responsibility rested broadly and mainly on their shoulders. It was impossible for any man to deny that there was at present substantial distress in several parts of Ireland. Everyone must admit that. It was a painful fact. It was of no use to attempt to extenuate or deny it, or to attempt to exaggerate it; but once the question was looked at, and once it was understood, and once the Government admitted and showed that they realized the fact, then at once they admitted and assumed the responsibility which rested upon them, and which the Irish Members in that House had a right to believe they would assume. In considering the question, the debate had unnecessarily touched upon the causes of this distress. Whether the causes were temporary and exceptional, or inseparable from the permanent condition of the country, he did not propose to discuss. It was unquestionably impossible, in the face of the great statistical fact of the number of small holdings to be found mostly in the West of Ireland, not to expect the repeated appearances of great distress. It had been repeatedly pointed out that even if the poorer tenants on the small holdings had no landlords at all, and had to pay no rent, and got constant outdoor relief, it would not keep them from occasional periods of almost famine. Then the distress should be dealt with in such a way as to prevent, not only the extremity of famine, but the acute pressure of suffering in occasional times of distress. The Government stated that they were prepared to undertake this responsibility by the agency of the Poor Law. A great variety of the figures which had been presented to the House were well worth attentive consideration; but the matter could hardly be gone fully into in an incidental debate like that. Then, again, emigration had been suggested as a remedy. He had no doubt that it was a remedy which, if presented in such a way as not to wound the susceptibilities
    1076
    of the people, might afford a large amount of relief. But if emigration was suggested to the people, as if they were anxious to get rid of them—if emigration was suggested to the people in a way that would wound their susceptibilities, treating them as mendicants, always asking for alms, it would not bring about a satisfactory state of things, from a people, who, with all their faults, had pride—great and just pride—and had always shrunk from the possibility of falling into pauperism. Emigration, if considered from a sympathetic standpoint, as it was suggested now by many agencies in Ireland, and notably by a gentleman whom he did not know, except by name—Mr. Tuke, who must be held in the highest praise in Ireland for the way in which he had devoted his time and money to that country—might be productive of much good. Mr. Tuke had suggested agencies by which individuals might be relieved in groups and in families, and taken to places where they would find themselves not deported, friendless, and unassisted, but where they would find companions, new homes, and the prospect of future happiness. If emigration were brought to the minds of the people, and they were made acquainted with it, and it were made an important supplement to the judicious working of the Poor Law, it might do much towards preventing the possibility of a future return of distress. There was one point in connection with this subject which he desired to mention, and it was a matter which the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary referred to—namely, the Arrears Act. He (Mr. Gibson) had received many complaints as to the working of the Arrears Act. He had been told that in many cases where the tenants had lodged their year's rent, and where the landlord and tenant had practically agreed, neither party was a bit nearer to a settlement, as the landlord had neither received the money the tenant had lodged, nor the money it was arranged the State should pay. He had received this statement from gentlemen of the highest character who were on the best terms with their tenants, and it had been agreed that bygones should be bygones. The tenant had been told to lodge his rent; he had done so; but yet neither landlord nor tenant was one whit the better off. A large proprietor

    1077
    in Ireland, who had allowed arrears to accumulate, told him yesterday that although the tenants had lodged their year's rent, and there was no question whatever in dispute, he had not yet received 1s. of the money, and he could not find out when he was to receive it from the Land Commissioners. All this placed the relations between landlord and tenant in the greatest confusion. The tenant considered that by the fact of payment and the landlord being willing to accept payment, he was entitled to a receipt in full up to the last day; but the landlord had not yet been told by the Land Commissioners when the matter was going to be settled, and everyone was kept in the greatest uncertainty. As to the distress, the Government were fixed with the distinct responsibility of watching over it, and with the grave responsibility of seeing that the machinery of the Poor Law was adequate to deal with it. They were fixed further with the responsibility of seeing that all judicious and humane schemes of emigration were fairly assisted and encouraged by them. It was the duty of the House to watch and see fairly and firmly that the Government discharged these grave duties, which, indeed, they appeared to recognize in reference to the present existence of distress in Ireland.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he was very glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was prepared to support any measure that might be devised for the purpose of remedying the great evil of over-population in certain districts of Ireland, and which did not involve necessarily the deportation of large masses of the Irish people. Certainly, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) hoped that before the right hon. and learned Gentleman sat down, he would give some indication of what the remedy was by which he desired to carry out that desirable object. He had been as much disappointed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's speech as he had been last night in listening to similar observations made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who repudiated the idea that the Conservative Party sought to govern Ireland by repression alone, and gave a catalogue of the measures which he said the Conservative Party would be
    1078
    glad to pass in order to improve the condition of Ireland. The hon. Member spoke of emigration as one remedy, of migration as another, and the encouragement of industrial pursuits in Ireland. He was not going to comment upon the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Mid Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), which were made upon another question; but he wanted to call attention to the fact that they were very often favoured from that side of the House with suggestions as to what might be done, but he was sorry to say that when they asked for a distinct proposal their Conservative Friends invariably took refuge in unbroken silence.
    MR. GIBSONsaid, he had proposed emigration as a remedy for overcrowding.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERasked if that was all?
    MR. GIBSONasked what was his own suggestion?
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERconfessed that he did not know how to estimate the right hon. and learned Gentleman's interruption. The right hon. and learned Gentleman deplored the poverty of the Irish people, and admitted the miserable condition in which they were. Then, what was to be the remedy? If it was an economic fact that they could not feed and clothe the Irish people at home—if that were the admitted fact, it was a hollow and false sentiment to shed crocodile tears in lamenting the past and present, and still refuse to find a remedy. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was not in the habit of recommending a policy to the House without suggesting something in the nature of a remedy, and he hoped he would not be guilty of occupying the attention of the House without saying something as to the practical remedy in this case. He would, in the first instance, call attention to an interruption he had made during the delivery of the speech of the Chief Secretary. He was surprised to find that the right hon. Gentleman gave new life to a wretched Parliamentary common phrase in talking about the relief of Irish distress in connection with the money of the British taxpayer. He had heard that phrase used constantly in the House during the last few years, and he hoped to be able to drive a nail in it before he sat down. When the right hon. Gentleman was discussing the subject, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) felt un-

    1079
    able to restrain himself, and accordingly he interrupted the right hon. Gentleman by asking what the British taxpayer had given towards the relief of Irish distress? The right hon. Gentleman said he would refer to that matter before he got to the end of his speech; but the right hon. Gentleman closed his speech without dealing with that part of the subject. If the Chief Secretary and his right hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay), who spoke for all Scotland a short time ago, had not got the facts and figures of the subject, he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had. If they repudiated figures of speech in dealing with Ireland, he wished to point out that they were dealing with figures of speech alone when they referred to the money of the British taxpayer having been expended in the relief of distress in Ireland. They had had in the year 1880 two Acts passed for the purpose of relieving distress in Ireland. The first Act was introduced and passed by the late Government shortly before the Dissolution of the late Parliament; and that Act authorized, not a grant of money out of the Imperial Exchequer for the relief of Irish distress, but an advance of money to the extent of £750,000 out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund. What had the money of the British taxpayer to do with the Irish Church Surplus Fund? Why, in this hour of their humiliation, should the people of Ireland be subjected to the additional humiliation of being falsely charged with levying taxation on England and Scotland towards the relief of their distress? Another Act was passed in August in the same year by the present Government and Parliament; and by that Act the sum of £750,000, authorized as an advance out of the Irish Church Surplus Fund, was increased to the sum of £1,500,000. Perhaps hon. Gentlemen would say now, at least, they touched the Consolidated Fund; but the money authorized to be advanced did not come out of the pockets of the British taxpayer, but out of the same Irish Church Surplus Fund. The only Act he could find in recent Acts of Parliament in which there was any trace of the application of the money of the British taxpayer—and he supposed that Ireland was included in that generic name of British taxpayer—was in the Arrears Act, by which the Board of Works in Dublin was authorized to make a grant of £100,000 in aid of
    1080
    Irish emigration. If the Chief Secretary would tell him what proportion was paid by the British taxpayer of that sum of £100,000, which the Board of Works in the late Arrears Act was authorized to grant in this grand scheme of Imperial transplantation, in which the right hon. Gentleman professed to have so much faith, then, as far as he could do so, he would give him a Parliamentary receipt for the paltry amount. He was surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should say a short time ago that it was really too bad that the British taxpayer should be called on to relieve this intolerable load of Irish distress. It was quite time that this fallacy should be exposed. The right hon. Gentleman, when he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had ventured to interrupt him by his question, fell back on the great Famine of 1816. He did not think the right hon. Gentleman invited him or the Irish Members to enter into a discussion on that part of the matter. He had no desire whatever to shirk it, if this were the appropriate time and the appropriate occasion. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary opened his speech in a manner which indicated that he realized the magnitude of the evil. The right hon. Gentleman had certainly relieved him from one obligation under which he felt himself at an earlier stage of the discussion. He had felt thoroughly convinced that the time had come when, by some effort, a vivid picture should be presented to the House and the people of Great Britain of the frightful misery in which thousands and hundreds of thousands of the population of the South and West of Ireland had been steeped. He was glad the Chief Secretary had relieved him of any attempt at pictorial eloquence in giving that description, because he believed that when the speech of the right hon. Gentleman came to be carefully studied, it would show that in five or six of the Western counties—and, unhappily, the county which he (Mr. O'Connor Power) had the honour to represent—the county of Mayo—was one of them—there were tens of thousands of tenants, and at least a hundred thousand people, in a condition which was not only a reproach to the Government, which, as a Government, was responsible for the management of Irish affairs, but a reproach to their common humanity. When he looked at this large

    1081
    amount of suffering humanity in the West and on the South-West Coast—when he looked at Ireland, with its population of 5,000,000, as a poor country, and contemplated the wealth, and power, and greatness of the people of England and Scotland, with their 30,000,000 of population, and their great capacity of doing an act, in the name of humanity, with the object of relieving distress, and when he recollected, at the same time, that their Irish fellow-citizens and fellow-countrymen, within so short a distance of them, were in such an unhappy condition, he felt that if the people of Great Britain could realize that picture, they would say at once—"We will take measures, without delay, to put an end to it; and we will not be slow, if necessary, to recognize that this is an Imperial danger and an Imperial necessity; nor shall we be reluctant to employ Imperial funds in applying the necessary remedy." The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to some Unions in his (Mr. O'Connor Power's) county, and also to the Union of Swinford, and another Union, in the adjoining county of Roscommon, and he had deplored the insolvency, or the repudiation of indebtedness, of which those Unions were guilty. The right hon. Gentleman alluded indirectly, and therefore he could not say to whom the allusion referred, to certain persons who had led the Board of Guardians and ratepayers to believe that if they held out long enough, and refused to pay the loans advanced for the relief of distress, the time would come when the Local Government Board in Ireland would get tired of the matter, and give a receipt. He did not know to whom the right hon. Gentleman referred.
    MR. TREYELYAN: I did not assume that they had that idea.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he recollected very well in the town of Ballina, the largest town in his county, during the progress of an election contest, he was asked by an enterprizing Poor Law Guardian whether, in the event of being returned to Parliament, he would promise to secure the remission of the seeds loan, and in the presence of from 8,000 to 10,000 persons he distinctly refused to give any promise of the kind. So far as he knew the feeling of the country, and so far as he
    1082
    had read the speeches of his hon. Friends near him—the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and others—he did not know that any such promise had been made or any such dishonourable encouragement held out. He had ventured to ask the Chief Secretary a few questions the other day touching the distress in the West of Ireland. In the Autumn Session of Parliament they found some difficulty in discussing the question of advances to tenants for the improvement of their holdings; and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Galway (Colonel Nolan), in putting a Question to the Secretary to the Treasury, was met by the reply that a difficulty would arise in many cases on account of the expense attending the necessary inspection of the holdings, and also that other circumstances had to be taken into consideration before advancing any loan. It was said that there would be a difficulty on the part of tenants under a £10 valuation in finding security, and he had himself suggested that tenants under the £10 valuation should be allowed to make a joint application for loans on the joint security of their tenant right. It must be borne in mind that since the passing of the Land Act of 1881 the tenant's property in his holding was a distinct, tangible, and realized thing. It was not a vague amount; it was something which, in the majority of cases in some parts of the country, was already determined by the judicial rents fixed on the holding, consideration being given to the interest which the tenant had in his farm. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman last Thursday what decision had been come to on that important question. He had written to the Treasury on the subject as far back as the 4th of last December. He had written to the Chief Secretary a few days later, and he had received from the right hon. Gentleman—he thought on the 18th of December—a letter in which the right hon. Gentleman told him that the subject was under the consideration of the Lords of the Treasury and the Irish Government. But up to this moment, notwithstanding the elaborate speech the right hon. Gentleman had delivered, not the slightest reference had been made to one of the most important questions connected with the resources of the country. What was the use of mentioning loans in connec-

    1083
    tion with a Vote of Parliament? Hon. Members heard a certain buzz outside the House upon different matters. They heard the question raised of the reclamation of land; they heard the question of emigration talked of, and it was said that something must be done with regard to it; and next they heard of Irish distress and some talk about guaranteeing a loan of £100,000. To his mind, that was simply trifling with the gravity of the question. The diagnosis of the disease was the first step to be taken; and this was the true diagnosis. But the right hon. Gentleman, when he came to the remedy, had no remedy at all but the rigid application of the Poor Law, which, in the opinion of economists, had done more to impoverish and demoralize the people of Ireland than any other known system of relief ever devised. He thought it was time the House should realize, notwithstanding the army of Inspectors and clerks with which the authorities in Dublin surrounded the Executive, that they had not yet obtained a true conception either of the distress in Ireland or of the true remedies yet to be applied, and which were constantly being suggested by the powerless and despised Irish Representatives. There were difficulties in the way, of course. After the description which the Chief Secretary gave of the magnitude and gravity of this evil, it was idle to suppose there were not. But it was the business of statesmanship not to sit down and repine under those difficulties; and if the Government could not master them, then he said they were not qualified to administer the affairs of the country. He would like to know whether it was not possible, considering that four-fifths of the tenant farmers in the distressed Unions in Ireland could not be reached by those provisions of the Land Act which contemplated the advance of money for the purpose of enabling tenants to improve their holdings? He would like to know, if the rule limiting the advances to tenant farmers with holdings of £10 rental and upward were not relaxed, whether something could not be done to enable tenants of lower valuations to make application for loans on their joint security? As to the remaining portion of the seeds rate which was due in the Union of Swinford and other Unions the position taken up was this. It was said not to be an
    1084
    extravagant demand, recollecting that the advances were made to the people under the Relief of Distress Acts, and recollecting that those advances, though made out of the Imperial Exchequer, were made to meet a national calamity, and an emergency, the burden of which should fall equally on all parts of the United Kingdom.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, that up to the present time £10,000,000 had been written off on account of Ireland by the Treasury.
    MR. PARNELL: How much for England?
    MR. TREVELYAN: £750,000.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, further taxes were imposed upon Ireland, by which she lost more than the amount written off; and he had yet to learn, with regard to the Famine of 1846–1848, if the people of Ireland were really brought face to face with the horrors of that period caused by a great national calamity, that the people of England refused to acknowledge any responsibility. Why, not a year elapsed without the Lord Mayor of London opening funds for calamities in all parts of the world; but it now appeared from the statements of the right hon. Gentleman that he invited his countrymen to express regret only for their own misfortunes. His (Mr. O'Connor Power's) contention was that no grants had been made to Ireland in relief of the recent distress, and as it had been said frequently in that House that Ireland was dependent on the British taxpayer, it was time to contradict that statement, and to show that it had no foundation. The Chief Secretary had accounted for some of the distress which now prevailed in Ireland by saying that a change had taken place in the habits of the small tenant farmers, and he attributed it in some part to their families drinking tea and wearing cotton dresses, instead of the frieze and flannel formerly manufactured in their own looms. He did not think he could endorse the description of the right hon. Gentleman—on the contrary, he was afraid that the clothing and diet of the people they were mainly considering in reference to the present distress had undergone very little, if any, change during the last 30 or 40 years. He admitted that the better class of farmers had improved in this respect. He ad-

    1085
    mitted that the various Land Acts which had been passed had brought some amount of relief to this class; but he denied that they had ever brought relief to those who most needed it—namely, the small farmers of £4 and £5 rentals in the Western districts. Those who were best qualified to speak as to the condition of Ireland—namely, the representative men living in the distressed localities—had already approached the Government upon this question, and on Thursday last he had directed an inquiry on the same subject to the right hon. Gentleman without receiving any satisfactory reply. He had asked the right hon. Gentleman what decision had been arrived at in reference to the proposals laid before His Excellency the Lord Lieutenant by the deputation of Catholic Bishops who waited upon him, on the 9th of January last, and who made certain suggestions with the view of remedying the existing distress and permanently improving the country? Well, he had looked in vain for any reference to this subject in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman. The deputation, which included the Archbishop of Tuam and three other Bishops, stated that the people in many districts were short of food, destitute of money, and hopeless of credit. To meet that serious situation of affairs, the Prelates suggested that loans should be advanced by the Board of Works to all holders of land for the improvement of their farms. But there was not the slightest reference to that suggestion in the speech of the Chief Secretary to which they had listened that evening. Unlike the right hon. Gentleman, they did not believe in the adequacy or efficiency of the Poor Law system as it at present existed—on the contrary, they said that the existing Poor Law arrangements were wholly inadequate to meet the present distress, and that, to insure any permanent relief to the vast districts in question, it would be necessary to establish a system for the reclamation of waste lands, and to open up railway communications. The Prelates, he was informed, made several other suggestions, but he only quoted those mentioned in the paragraph before him. Let it be supposed that the only way to benefit the congested population of the various districts of Ireland was emigration. He asked the Government whether they believed in that
    1086
    remedy, and, if so, what steps had they taken to see it effectually carried out? They had authorized a paltry grant of £100,000, if somebody reported, after many inquiries, that this sum would be used for the purpose of emigration. If the right hon. Gentleman could not profit by his suggestions he asked him respectfully to listen to some figures bearing on this subject which had been furnished by Mr. Tuke. That gentleman went into facts and figures with the greatest possible care, and although he could not bind himself to endorse every proposal made by him, he heartily reechoed the praise bestowed upon him by the junior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Gibson), and was sure his benevolence entitled him to the respectful consideration of every patriotic Irishman. Mr. Tuke calculated that at least 20,000 families, or 100,000 persons, must be removed from their present holdings, and because of the difficulties which he said were inseparable from any scheme of migration he thought the only way was to proceed by emigration. But he also pointed out that the cost of moving 20,000 families, equivalent to 100,000 persons, at £7 per head, was £700,000, or an annual sum of £140,000 for five years. He said, moreover, what would naturally suggest itself to any person of a practical turn of mind, that if this plan was to be carried out, it must be made the business of some persons to see that it was done, and he suggested that Commissioners should be appointed specially for making arrangements for the reception of the families who were to be emigrated in the country to which they were sent. He said, further, that if a Government grant were obtained, it might be placed at the disposal of a Commission for the purpose of allocating the fund to the different Unions on some general principles to be laid down for their guidance, and having regard to the population and taxation therein. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary must have seen Mr. Tuke's Circulars, and the figures he had quoted; and, that being so, he was surprised that the Government had not availed themselves of the valuable suggestion of this gentleman to make it the business of some properly constituted body to carry out a system of emigration, if emigration must be resorted to.
    MR. TREVELYANsaid, the Government had appointed two paid officers for the purpose, and were now considering the appointment of a third.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, a special Commission was wanted for the purpose; but he was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman was doing something in the matter. At the same time, he would remind him that people in Ireland were of opinion that the wheels of the Government coach moved very slowly. If the right hon. Gentleman thought the question one of magnitude, he must say that he had not realized the magnitude of the remedy necessary to cope with it. He (Mr. O'Connor Power) was reluctant to see large masses of the population leaving Ireland; but he would rather see the distressed populations emigrated than see them remain steeped in their present misery, and he would hail, as a wise and beneficent act on the part of the Government, to appoint a properly constituted body to see that they were emigrated on proper conditions. The Chief (Secretary said that the value attaching to emigration consisted in the fact that the departure of some would relieve those who remained. Well, if the right hon. Gentleman thought that emigration, as at present conducted, in face of the figures supplied by Mr. 'Take's Committee and his agents, would permanently relieve the condition of the distressed Unions, he ventured to tell him that, as far as his information went, he was mistaken. When the Government had emigrated families from their holdings, did they intend to prevent those holdings being subsequently re-occupied? He hoped to be able to obtain from Mr. Tuke—who was then in Mayo—an answer to a few questions which he had ventured to address to him through an hon. Friend. His first question was—"What becomes of the holdings from which the families are emigrated?" Were they consolidated, were they permanently cleared, or were they subsequently re-occupied? If the latter were the case, it was nothing more than a process similar to that of letting water into a pipe at one end, and letting it run out at the other. He contended that if emigration was to be scientifically applied to the relief of Irish distress, a great deal more remained to be done than had yet been dreamed of by Her
    1088
    Majesty's Government. But then the hon. Member for the City of Cork wished to know what was to become of the people who remained. Well, he should say that if by any process you sufficiently cleared a district, it would enable you to make by consolidation farms of sufficient size to afford a livelihood to their occupiers; but this he believed could not be done by means of the machinery proposed by the Government. He came now to the proposal which had always been favoured by the bulk of Irish Members as a means of remedying the evil of congested population. They had always preferred to advocate a system of migration, because they had never admitted, and he was not prepared to admit, that Ireland, as a whole, was over-populated. They had always spoken of the condition of Ireland in this respect as one of congestion, not of over-population; and he said now that in all the districts referred to by the Chief Secretary where there was a surplus population, if the Government could not meet it by a scheme of migration, if they could not take possession of unoccupied lands elsewhere in Ireland, and advance the tenants sufficient money wherewith to build houses and cultivate their holdings, why, then, of course, the only alternative was that of emigration. For his own part, he would like to see the Government bringing these two proposals of emigration and migration to the test of practical operation. Not only would he wish to see power given to Commissioners to advance money to enable persons to emigrate, but a Commission also appointed to consider the existing distress having power to present the alternative of migration to those who had no wish to emigrate. Upon that subject some valuable suggestions had been made before the Richmond Commission, and had been from time to time laid before the Government from other sources. He referred to Professor Baldwin, who had collected evidence upon the subject which appeared in a small book recently published, and which he ventured to say should be in the possession of every Member of Parliament who wished to understand the real remedies to be applied in Ireland. Professor Baldwin said, that, if they went before the people of Ireland with a proposal for emigration alone, that proposal would never be carried into practice,

    1089
    because the public feeling was so strong against it, but that if they went with the alternative remedy of migration, fully one-half, and in many districts the larger majority of the people concerned, would be prepared to accept emigration. If that were so, For Majesty's Government had the opportunity of bringing the two plans to the test of practice. Considering what had happened in Ireland side by side with the increase of population—what had happened side by side with the increased area of land, waste and out of cultivation, he thought it would be a pity if the Government confined themselves solely to the attempt to get the people to emigrate, without doing anything for migration and the reclamation of land. His own opinion was, therefore, in accord with the scientific knowledge and experience of Professor Baldwin. He said that in Mayo alone—and he was supported by Dr. M'Cormack—there was sufficient land that could be purchased for a small sum to accommodate with farms of a respectable size the whole of the surplus population in the county. The same statement was made by him as to Galway and Donegal, and some step might be taken to test the accuracy of these statements. Whether it was right or wrong, it was, at all events, a proposal which came before this House in the name of the overwhelming majority of Irish Representatives, and which was, so recently as January last, solemnly laid before the Lord Lieutenant by four Bishops who lived in that part of the country and were in daily contact with the masses of the people. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) had dealt with this question of migration during the Recess, as also had done several other right hon. and hon. Members. The right hon. Gentleman had fallen into the mistake of saying that migration was impossible for the reason which he mentioned. He said that they had heard a good deal of the cry about migration instead of emigration. He believed that to be impossible. They could not go to other districts in Ireland without taking away the land from those who already occupied it. But that was not the fact, as was shown by the figures in regard to unoccupied land, or land over which the landlord had the slightest hold, where the tenant sometimes might have the run of the moun-
    1090
    tain side, but possessed little or no tenant right. He (Mr. O'Connor Power), therefore, thought he was justified in contradicting the statement of the right hon. Gentleman. The reason why this question of migration ought to occupy the attention of the Government was this. Turning to the eight years which had elapsed between 1874 and 1882, what did they find? They found that as Ireland decreased in population the area of the waste and uncultivated land increased. In 1874 the area of waste land was set down at 4,250,621 acres. In 1875 it was 4,255,525 acres; in 1876 it had risen to 4,278,214 acres; in 1877 it went up to 4,572,216 acres; in 1878 it went up to 4,651,524 acres; in 1879 it was 4,653,551 acres; in 1880 it seemed to have been stationary. In 1881 it rose to 4,680,059 acres, and in 1882 it rose to 4,787,275. So that in the space of eight years over 500,000 acres of Irish land, which had been previously cultivated, had gone out of cultivation and become waste. What did that show? If it showed anything at all, it showed a want of the employment of labour under proper conditions in the cultivation of the soil. He agreed with Professor Baldwin—whose name he had mentioned, and whose suggestions he hoped they would have some subsequent opportunity of discussing—that a better system of migration would bring about a better system of farming, which they might hope for if they had proper agricultural schools and proper technical instruction bearing upon agriculture imparted to the people in various parts of Ireland. He did not like to weary the House by going further into these matters at this particular time. He could only regret that the subject had not been brought before the House on the very first night of the Session. During the last eight or nine years he had had the painful experience of seeing that the great Parties in that House were more interested in the political aspect of questions than in their economic or industrial utility, and that it was only by sheer perseverance, and by the exercise of that quality which some people might characterize as obstinacy, that Members who held strong views on these matters and advocated reforms of this nature could produce any serious impression on the House. He must express extreme regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the

    1091
    Lord Lieutenant, in the speech he had made that night, had lent himself to a gross fallacy. He regretted that the only remedy the right hon. Gentleman could offer the people of Ireland for the terrible evils he had described was to be found in a rigid application of a law which had hitherto proved to be lamentably inadequate, and which bore, on every trace of its operation, the marks of a humiliating and disgraceful failure.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, that, on behalf of himself and others who were working with Mr. Tuke, he must entirely reject the view that they had experienced any want of full support from the Government.
    MR. O'CONNOR POWERsaid, he had spoken of the amount of money granted by the Government. He had no doubt that any amount of sympathy had been lavished upon Mr. Tuke and his Committee.
    MR. RATHBONEsaid, he was not speaking of sympathy, but of money. They had had as much money placed at their disposal as they would be able to use in the present year. The question was not so much one of money; but they could not throw a number of Irishmen on the coast of America, to find no homo or place ready to receive them. That was the real difficulty—that was the limit to their work. If any attempt were made, such as that proposd by the hon. and gallant Member opposite, to throw hundreds of thousands of Irishmen on the shores of America, without places having been provided to receive them, they would all be sent back on their hands. The Committee were determined not to send unsuitable parties to America. At that time of the night (12.50 a.m.) he would not go fully into the matter; but there was just one point he should like to answer, because it was one which occurred to everybody who approached the subject. An hon. Member asked—"How are you to secure that when you remove men from these congested districts, their places are not very soon filled up by individuals of the same class?" They had the principle of self-interest to guard them to a large extent against that. Formerly when, in years of distress, a large number of the population were removed, as soon as prosperity returned to the country the places of those who had been removed were filled up by people from neighbouring
    1092
    districts, for the landlord had an interest in allowing it. The landlord, under the system of divided tenancies, could secure a far higher rent from his tenants than he could possibly get if he let out his land in large farms, or in farms on which the tenants could live decently. The Land Act, however, had done away with the state of things under which the system of divided tenancies flourished. Now, the landlord could got no more from the tenant of a small farm than from the tenant of a large one, whilst he knew that directly a period of distress recurred, his rent disappeared altogether. Therefore, it was perfectly clear it was to the interest of the most selfish landlord to prevent the filling up and re-division of holdings, if once they could relieve the most congested districts of some portion of their population; and though, no doubt, Mr. Tuke's estimate was correct as to the total amount of relief, in the first place, they could not proceed without great caution. He hoped that emigration would take place at an increasing rate, and he was sure it would do so if places were provided to receive the stream of emigration as it arrived on the other side of the Atlantic. The Emigration Committee found by experience that almost every emigrant who went out to the United States became himself an agent for emigration, drawing other emigrants to him. It was found that people sent to certain districts communicated with their friends, giving a flourishing account of the places in which they were located, and of their prosperity; and the number of people who were induced to go out by representations of that kind was most extraordinary. This year they found that many families in the congested districts were anxious to go out to exactly the same places as those to which they had sent families last year. He had stated, he thought, enough to show hon. Members that what they were doing was not limited by any niggardliness on the part of the Government, but that they were only proceeding with consideration, which in the end would prove more effectual than if they were now to attempt a more rapid progress.
    MR. MOLLOYsaid, the speech of the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant was of such importance that it would be utterly impossible at the present moment to reply to it. It contained such a mass

    1093
    of figures, that hon. Members had found it impossible to take them down while the speech was being delivered. There were some 17 or 18 hon. Members who wished to explain their views on the subject. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Members seemed to receive that statement with disapprobation; but this subject was clearly of importance to many of the Irish Representatives. There was no subject that would come before the House that Session which was of such first-rate importance, not only to Ireland, but to the whole of the United Kingdom; and he ventured to say the House would agree with him that, for this reason, it would not be improper to ask thorn to adjourn the debate. He begged to move the adjournment.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Molloy.)
    THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, he had hoped, and he thought the House had hoped, that it might have been possible to have concluded the debate on the Address to-night; and it was very much to be regretted that, owing to the delay in the preliminary proceedings, there was now no likelihood of that result. He perfectly admitted that the subject debated during the last three or four hours was infinitely more important and deserving of the consideration of the House than some subjects which they had discussed upon that Address, and, therefore, he need not offer opposition to the proposal. He trusted, however, that the hon. Member who had just spoken was mistaken in thinking that it would be necessary for so large a number of Members to take part in the debate to-morrow, and he earnestly hoped that they would be able to bring the discussion to a close in the course of that day, and that it would not be necessary to take a long discussion on Report. To-morrow he would move—
    "That the Orders of the Day be postponed until after the Order of the Day for resuming the Debate on the Motion for an Address to Her Majesty, and the further proceedings thereon."
    If the Address was disposed of before 6 o'clock, he should ask the House to proceed with the Report, and he earnestly hoped that it would be the will of the House to go on and finish that stage at once. The urgency for Supply was be-
    1094
    coming very great indeed. The length of the Session before Easter this year would be very short indeed—very much shorter than usual. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer told him that unless they were able to obtain Thursday and Monday next, and Thursday in next week, for the Votes in the principal branches of Supply, the House would be placed in a position of great inconvenience, and it would be necessary to resort to the extremely objectionable practice of Saturday Sittings, or else the House would be compelled to sit so late as Thursday in Passion Week. Either of these courses would be extremely inconvenient to the House, and he trusted, therefore, that some attempt would be made to make progress with the Address.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he had only one remark to make. The noble Marquess had taken the course he was expected to take on this important matter. The discussion could hardly have been concluded to-night; but if he was not out of Order in just making this one suggestion, he would point out that it would help the House very much in the consideration of the matter if some Member of the Government—perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland—would, in the course of the debate tomorrow, give them the last information obtained by the Government as to a possibility of a considerable increase or not in the distress between now and the next harvest. That seemed to him to be the practical matter with which they had to deal; and, most interesting as was the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, it did not appear to give them information on that point.
    MR. CALLANsaid, he thought it would conduce very much to the convenience of the Irish Members generally, if the Chief Secretary would tomorrow bring down, for the use of those who wished to see them, a number of copies of the Memorial presented to him by the Archbishop of Tuam and the three Bishops who accompanied him as a deputation to the Castle. In that Memorial they had the official statement of the four Bishops who belonged to the distressed districts. It was not an official Report, but an official statement of the most trustworthy representatives of the distressed districts

    1095
    in Ireland. Some private promise had been made on the subject by the right hon. Gentleman he was aware; but he would ask for a public statement. He would also express his surprise that the Chief Secretary had not referred to the celebrated letter of the Rev. Mr. Gallagher, who accompanied the right hon. Gentleman through Donegal. This letter was important, because, if the statements made in it were true—and they had not been contradicted—it endorsed officially other Reports that they could not get at before to-morrow.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must point out that the hon. Member is not confining himself to the Question before the House—namely, that this Debate be now adjourned.
    MR. CALLAN: I will merely ask, is the statement true that the sad condition of the districts referred to exceeds everything that has appeared in the Press?
    Motion agreed to.
    Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 83.]
  (Sir John Lubbock, Mr. William Henry Smith, Mr. J. Lawrance.)
  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (No. 2) BILL.— [BILL 83.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK,in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, it was the same as the Bill he introduced last Session, which the House read a second time without discussion. He hoped the House would agree to reading the Bill a second time now, and refer it to the Committee to which the Government Bill on the same subject would be referred. There wore many questions involved which could be better discussed by a Committee than by the House. The Bill was a comprehensive, and, he believed, a good measure, and he thought he was consulting the general feeling of those interested in it by moving the second reading. Whatever merit attached to the Bill belonged to the Society of Arts—and especially to Sir Frederick Bramwell—on whose behalf he introduced it last year, and now again asked the House to consent to the second reading.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John Lubbock.)
    MR. R. N. FOWLERinquired whether the hon. Baronet contemplated referring the Bill to one of the Grand Committees?
    SIR JOHN LUBBOCK: Yes.
    MR. CHAMBERLAIN: I do not like to object to the course my hon. Friend proposes to take, and I shall not oppose the second reading. Neither shall I oppose the second reading of a similar Bill of which Notice has been given by the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Anderson). But I feel bound to say this. My hon. Friend proposes the second reading at a time when it is impossible to discuss the measure, and asks us to assent to the second reading, as it were, sub silentio. That is rather against the ordinary practice of the House; but, at the same time, there is considerable interest taken in both Bills, and I do not like to take the strong course of opposing them. But I do not think my hon. Friend will be very much advantaged by the course he proposes to take, because I assume that the Grand Committee will, in the first place, consider the proposals of the Government on this subject, and they might come to a decision upon those proposals. Having done so, I doubt whether they would then consider the Bills now brought forward. I presume that my hon. Friends will adopt the course of moving such portions of their Bills as are not in the Government Bill, or as they think it desirable to insert in the shape of Amendments to that measure; and I should have thought it more convenient to do that, than to carry both these Bills formally through their several stages.
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 6th March.

  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (No. 3) BILL.— [BILL 99.]
  (Mr. Anderson, Mr. Brown, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Jackson, Mr. Hinde Palmer.)
  PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS (No. 3) BILL.— [BILL 99.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. ANDERSON,in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he did so for the same reason as that given by his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock). The objection mentioned by the President of the Board of Trade did not apply to this Bill, because it was

    1097
    read a second time after full discussion two years ago. The principle of this Bill was the same as that of which the House then approved.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Anderson.)
    Motion agreed to.
    Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 6th March.
    House adjourned at One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—First Reading—Representative Peers (Scotland) Election Procedure (6).
REPRESENTATIVE PEERS (SCOTLAND) ELECTION PROCEDURE BILL.

  BILL PRESENTED. FIRST READING.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY,in rising, according to Notice, to present a Bill to amend the procedure at the elections of Representative Peers for Scotland, said, that the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack had presented a measure on the same subject on Monday evening, and as he (the Earl of Galloway) had been subjected to a certain amount of hardship in consequence of that procedure of the noble and learned Earl, he hoped their Lordships would allow him, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, to advert to what had taken place in connection with the matter in hand. It might be within their Lordships' recollection that about a year ago he (the Earl of Galloway) moved for and obtained the re-appointment of a Committee to consider the whole question of procedure at the election of Represen-

  945
  tative Peers in Scotland. The Committee sat several times, took evidence, and made a Report. He introduced a Bill, founded upon that Report. That Bill was read a second time early in July, and as he happened to have pressing duties in Scotland the Committee was not put down until August. In the meantime a great many Amendments were put on the Paper, including the number that were put down by the noble and learned Earl. Under the circumstances, he (the Earl of Galloway) did not think it expedient to press the Bill further; and, therefore, he withdrew it, and gave Notice of his intention to reintroduce it this Session. On February 19 this year, he gave Notice of his intention to re-introduce the Bill on that day—namely, the 27th instant. On the 22nd instant, the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack, as he (the Earl of Galloway) was informed, gave Notice that he would present a Bill on the following Monday—namely, the 26th instant; but on the 23rd, and every day since, it appeared by the Notice Paper that the noble and learned Earl would present the Bill on that (Tuesday) evening, the 27th instant. In those circumstances, he (the Earl of Galloway) thought he was safe in being absent from town yesterday; he had, however, been greatly surprised to hear, on his return late on Monday night, that the noble and learned Earl had brought the Bill in, while he was absent from the House, although he (the Earl of Galloway) thought he might have postponed it to the day for which it stood on the Notice Paper. He had thought it necessary to make this explanation in order to justify the introduction of his own Bill—after the introduction of the noble and learned Earl's measure—which—that was his own—he considered should be called No. 1, and not No. 2 Bill. There seemed to him to be another reason for persevering with his own Bill. As far as he could gather from his speech, the Bill of the noble and learned Earl seemed to consist of two clauses only. Now, he thought that if their Lordships were going to legislate on this matter at all, it would be better to go more fully into the question, and, if possible, prevent any further difficulties arising. He hoped the noble and learned Earl would excuse him if he said, in further reference to his speech of last night, that he seemed in some respects
  946
  to have been trusting to a broken reed for his information. First of all, with regard to the request made by their Lordships' House to the Court of Session in 1739, he could not acknowledge that what the noble and learned Earl said was correct. The noble and learned Earl said that when a request that the Poll of Scotch Peers must be settled was made on the part of the House of Lords to the Court of Session, the Court reported, "That they could not perform the task." But what the Court really did, in its reply in 1740, was to assert "its right to entertain and decide all questions relating to Scotch Peerages." It was true, however, that when the House of Lords requested the Court to announce the limitation of every Peerage connected with Scotland, the reply was made that, as the work must assume such gigantic proportions in consequence of the difficulties arising from the peculiar laws and customs of Scotland, in respect of Peerages, the task was of too vast a nature to undertake. It was a fact well known in Scotland that all rights and privileges existing at the time of the Act of Union were preserved by the Articles of Union, and that nothing had been done to annul the jurisdiction of the Court of Session, but, indeed, the very reverse. He might further say that, by the law of the land, the law of Scotland ought to be applied to all cases arising in Scotland, as laid down in the Articles of the Union, and acknowledged by the most learned lawyers. In answer to the contention of the noble and learned Earl, that by bringing in the jurisdiction of the Court of Session they would be referring to another tribunal, other than the House of Lords, the right to determine who should have seats in their Lordships' House, he (the Earl of Galloway) stated that, as a matter of fact, the House of Lords never had had any authority whatsoever to interfere with the voting of the Peers of Scotland at Holyrood. Their Lordships were bound to accept the list of Peers sent up by the Lord Clerk Register as the 16 Representative Peers of Scotland. Therefore, there could be no question now, in his (the Earl of Galloway's) Bill, of taking away any existing right or power from the House of Lords. The only question was whether it was advisable that the House of Lords should have new powers. The noble

  947
  and learned Earl laid stress on the fact that there had only been one instance in which the Court of Session had been referred to as the proper Court of jurisdiction since the Union, and it was quite evident that he was referring to the case of Lord Lovat in 1733. In that case the noble and learned Earl stated that a compromise was arrived at, resulting in a large sum of money being paid to prevent the order of the Court of Session from being brought before the House of Lords by way of appeal. He should really like to know where the noble and learned Earl made that discovery. He (the Earl of Galloway) could not find any such record. That had been said before, but it had never been stated on authority, and he did not believe there was one iota of proof in support of the statement; and the best proof that his contention was right was, that Lord Lovat was tried for high treason before that House as a right, inasmuch as it was the right of every Peer to be tried by his co-Peers, and he had the satisfaction of being condemned to execution by their Lordships' House. The only ground on which he could claim to be so tried as a Peer was that the Court of Session had found that he was entitled to the Peerage he claimed. Therefore he thought the noble and learned Earl had fallen into an unfortunate error in citing a case that had no weight whatever, and he had also been simply misled by idle gossip when he said that the case in question was settled for a large sum of money. The noble and learned Earl compared the Report of the Committee of 1874 with that of the Committee of 1882, to the disparagement of the latter, the sole object he had in view, apparently, being to extol in the highest degree the merits of the Report made by the former, while throwing cold water upon that made by the latter. But the Committee of 1882 contained the names of the Earl of Milltown, the noble Earl the Chairman of Committees (the Earl of Redesdale), Lord Balfour of Burleigh, Lord Inchiquin, the Marquess of Lothian, the Earl of Belmore, Lord Brabourne, Viscount Monck, the Earl of Stair, the Earl of Kintore, Viscount Sherbrooke, and Lord Watson; and such names, with that of Lord Moncreiff as Chairman, surely entitled the recommendations they made to some weight and consideration. The
  948
  noble and learned Earl preferred the Report of the Committee of 1874; but there were Reports of Committees in 1822, 1847, 1851, and 18(59, as well as 1874, and all those Reports were before the Committee of 1882, which selected from them such recommendations as they thought most suitable, and notably that of 1874 as regards instituting an Election Roll, and only tried to supplement them by provisions to be enacted in a legislative measure. He (the Earl of Galloway) wished now specially to emphasize what was not in his Bill. In the first place, there was not to be found in it any proposition to subvert any Article in the Treaty of Union; secondly, there would be no attempt to infringe upon the Prerogative of the Crown; and, thirdly, there would be no attempt to interfere with the prescriptive authority of their Lordships' House. As regards its provisions, in the first place it proposed to delegate to the Lord Clerk Register to form the Election Roll of Peers himself, to make it up not only of those on the Union Roll, but also of others which happened not to be on it at the time of the Union, in consequence of being dormant or under attaint, but which had been since restored, all in their right and proper precedence. The Roll List should contain not only the titles, but the Christian names and surnames of the holders of Peerages. In the second place, the Lord Clerk Register was enjoined to send up to their Lordships' House a Report on the matter of titles not upon the Election Roll, in consequence of controversy. Then there would be a provision for enabling any individual Peer aggrieved to present a Petition to Her Majesty, as to his right to be on the Election Roll, or as to proper precedency. That might also be in the Bill of the noble and learned Earl.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, of course it was.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, it was not so reported in the London papers.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that, at all events, it was in his speech.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY,continuing, said, there was a further provision that the said Petition, on being referred by Her Majesty to the House of Lords, was to be remitted—and it was

  949
  here he thought the noble and learned Earl would differ from him—in case of investigation being evidently required, to the Court of Session for their Report—the final adjustment resting with the House of Lords. In the third place, the Election Roll, which was to be made out annually, was to be conclusive evidence of the right to vote. The claims of future claimants to the right to be put on the Election Roll were to be referred to the Lord Clerk Register for Report to the House of Lords; and, if doubtful, were to be referred to the Court of Session for their Report to the House of Lords. That would save time if Parliament were not sitting. There was a special provision that the Order of the House of Lords should be equivalent to entry on the Election Roll, when no opportunity of getting that Order on the Roll had been obtained. With respect to claims to be put on the Roll, the Bill provided that they should not be made vivâ voce at the time of the Election, but should be sent in in writing to the Lord Clerk Register, for transmission to the House of Lords. He might say, generally, that the Bill was practically the Bill he introduced last year, with the exception that it was made undeniably clear that it was not intended that the Court of Session should decide cases themselves. There was simply a reference to the Court of Session, and a provision that their Report on each case should always be received by their Lordships before finally determining the rights of the case. He might add, in conclusion, that the Bill had been drawn in a careful manner and moderate spirit, such as were likely to insure, he hoped, the subject no longer remaining what was termed a vexata quœstio. He moved the first reading of the Bill.
  Bill to regulate procedure at the elections of Representative Peers in Scotland; and for other purposes—Presented (The Earl of GALLOWAY.)
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, it seemed to him that both the Bills now before the House treated the matter simply as being one connected with certain differing rules of procedure. What they all desired to arrive at was that the names of the right persons should be inscribed on the Roll. He was aware that some of the noble Lords connected with Scotland had what
  950
  seemed to him somewhat exaggerated opinions with reference to procedure. As a Member of the Committee of 1882 he had voted for the proposal of Lord Moncreiff in the Committee, and he thought that, consequently, his noble Friend might expect hint now to support his Bill; but he must say it seemed to him that the Bill of the noble and learned Earl on the Woolsack seemed to be preferred by almost all the Peers from Scotland; and, inasmuch as a Bill by the Government was much more likely to receive the assent of Parliament than one brought in by a private Member of that House, he submitted whether it was worth the noble Earl's while to go on with the Bill? For himself, he (the Earl of Belmore) though he voted in the Committee of last year with his noble Friend (the Earl of Galloway), he should now, under all the circumstances of the case, consider it his duty to support the Government Bill, as providing an expeditious machinery by which the right person would be admitted to vote.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he very much regretted that the noble Earl (the Earl of Galloway) should have been misled by the unauthorized form in which the printed Notices appeared, and that, under these circumstances, the noble Earl was unable to be present yesterday. The Clerk of the Parliaments sent a message to the noble Earl, which, it was hoped, might reach him; and when he (the Lord Chancellor) came down to the House, he found there was a sufficient attendance of noble Lords interested in the subject, and it appeared to him that, on the whole, it was the better course to proceed according to the Notice. Now, he had nothing at all to-complain of in the observations of the noble Earl. He proposed an alternative plan, which, if he thought useful, he was entitled to press on the House; but he was surprised he should have thought that all he (the Lord Chancellor) said was reported in the newspapers. Of course, he did his best to explain the details of the Bill; but it was not surprising that the skilful and able gentlemen who reported the proceedings should have thought that those details might be left to be gathered from the Bill; and that it was better they should report what might generally interest newspaper readers than the technical

  951
  parts of the Bill, which was not confined to two clauses, as the noble Earl supposed. On the contrary, it consisted of 10 clauses, and it aimed at accomplishing all the objects mentioned by the noble Earl. He would not say it did it better, because he had not yet seen his noble Friend's Bill; but in some respects the draftsmanship of his (the Lord Chancellor's) Bill might, perhaps, bear favourable comparison with the Bill of last year, introduced by his noble Friend. The only material difference between the Bill now presented and that which was introduced last night appeared to be as to the mode in which claims for succession were to be presented, and disputed questions of title were to be adjudicated upon. He was surprised that the noble Earl should have persuaded himself that the proposal that every Petition presented to the Queen was to be remitted by that House to the Court of Session for Report, was the same as his (the Lord Chancellor's) own proposal of last year. That proposition was that, on a Petition being presented, it should be lawful for the Committee of Privileges, if they should think fit, to state a case as to the question of the law of Scotland for the opinion of the Court of Session; and also, if they should think fit, to refer it to the Court of Session to receive and report evidence. To that proposition he adhered in the Bill which he yesterday presented. The noble Earl's proposal was that they should be bound to send everything to Scotland.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: No, my Lords; I said, where there is a necessity for investigation.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the words "if they think it necessary" were there, then he did not see that there was any very great difference between his Bill and that of the noble Earl.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAYsaid, the words "if they think necessary" were in his Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it had appeared to him, in dealing with that part of the question which related to succession after death, more consistent to adopt the method which was in use as to the succession to Peerages of Ireland. He would not follow the noble Earl through all the exceptions taken by him to his speech of yesterday; but the noble Earl had him-
  952
  self made one or two rather extraordinary statements which seemed to call for notice. For example, the noble Earl had said that the House had, at present, no power as to the votes taken at Holyrood. Surely, he had forgotten that the Act of 1847 expressly authorized that House, in the case of those old dormant Peerages, which had not been voted upon for many years, to restore them to the Roll for the purpose of voting. It also gave that House certain powers in the case of a contested Election of Representative Peers, and entitled it to order that in case of protests, which were not properly followed up by claims in that House, the titles of Peerages should not be called at elections. And in 1851 there was another provision—that where any Peerage had not been voted upon for 50 years, the Lord Clerk Register was to report the fact to that House, and the House might order that those Peerages should not be called. The truth was, as he (the Lord Chancellor) had said, that since the Union the House had a direct interest in the matter of a kind that could not have existed when there were no Representative Peers. The Representative Peers sat and voted in that House, and, if not duly elected, as might happen, if all persons who chose to tender votes at Holyrood could, without inquiry, elect Representative Peers, the House might have Members thrust upon it who were not entitled to sit and vote in it. They would have got in irregularly and unconstitutionally, and contrary to the intention of the Act of Union. His noble Friend had thought it worth while to refer to what he (the Lord Chancellor) had said about Lord Lovat's case; but the mistake was on the part of the noble Earl. It was true the Court of Session, after the Union, performed this one act of jurisdiction—if such it could be called—as to a Peer. Three years before the Union the Court of Session had declared an heir female entitled to that Peerage in the absence of the heir male; and in 1730 Lord Lovat came forward to ask the Court of Session to "reduce" its former Order, and the Court of Session did so. The want of confidence which the Court of Session had in its own jurisdiction over such a case was apparent from the Report of 1740, in which the Court of Session, after stating the

  953
  circumstances of that case, said—"But whether that judgment is of sufficient authority they humbly submit to your Lordships;" plainly showing that they were doubtful as to their authority in that case even in the peculiar circumstances. The statement that there had been a compromise and a sum of money paid was made on the authority of witnesses examined before the Committee of 1882. His noble Friend appeared to suppose that the decree of the Court of Session in 1730 had been recognized by that House when Lord Lovat was tried for his part in the Rebellion of 1745. To him it was surprising that his noble Friend seemed not to be aware that Lord Lovat was not tried by that House upon an ordinary criminal indictment, but was tried upon a Parliamentary impeachment by the House of Commons, just as Warren Hastings was, who was no Peer; and no question of any title to, or privilege of, Peerage did, or could, under those circumstances, arise. There was no trace of it in the Report, which the noble Earl would find in the State Trials; it was wholly immaterial for the purposes of the impeachment whether he was a Peer or not. It was the clearest thing in the world that since the Union the real and substantial operative jurisdiction had been exercised by the House of Lords alone. He wished to add that he had not, as his noble Friend seemed to imagine, said anything in disparagement of the Committee of 1882, for whom he had all possible respect; it was no disparagement to them to prefer the unanimous recommendation of the Committee of 1874.
  Bill read 1ª and to he printed. (No. 6.)
  House adjourned at half past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.