Sitting of 20 May 1886

MINUTES.
PRIVATE BILL (by Order)—Considered as amended—Dundalk Gas, put off.
PUBLIC BILLS—Leave—Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) (Clerical Interference), negatived.
Ordered—Public Parks and Works (Metropolis).*
Ordered—First Reading—Police Forces (Removal of Disabilities) [221].
Second Reading—Arms (Ireland) [205]; Losses by Riot (Compensation) [209]; Freshwater Fisheries [218]; Stannaries Act (1869) Amendment [203]; Mining Leases (Cornwall and Devon) [204], debate adjourned.
PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL—Second Reading—Police and Improvement (Scotland) (Leith) [197].

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
  DUNDALK GAS BILL (by Order.)

    CONSIDERATION.
    Order for Consideration, as amended, read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now taken into Consideration."—(Mr. Dillwyn.)
    MR. J. NOLAN: I rise, Sir, to move that this Bill be read a third time on this day six months. I believe that it is an unusual course to take this step, and the third reading of a Bill is, as an ordinary rule, looked upon as a mere matter of formality. I trust, however, that the House on this occasion will agree with me that it is right that it should exercise its prerogative, and throw this Bill out. It is a matter of regret to me that the Motion has not been undertaken by one possessed of more ability and greater experience in affairs of this kind; because I believe that, if the facts of the case were laid before the House as I see them, the House would have no hesitation in following the course which I propose. For the information of hon. Members, I may say that this Bill is promoted by the Dundalk Gas Company, and opposed by the Town
    1496
    Commissioners of Dundalk. The object of the promoters is, by Parliamentary powers, to secure and maintain certain rights and privileges which they now exercise on sufferance; whereas the object of the Town Commissioners is to stay proceedings in order that they may promote a measure in regard to the lighting of the town of Dundalk in the interests of the great body of ratepayers. It will be necessary, in order that hon. Members may understand the case thoroughly, to state that the Dundalk Gas Company, as it is at present constituted, was only formed last year; but if I may use a phrase which has already been used in this House, it is the apostolic successor of the Dundalk Gas Light Company. It appears to have dawned on the intelligence of the Directors that gas might be used for other purposes than lighting; and, therefore, they have dropped the term "gas." The Dundalk Gas Light Company was formed in the year 1836; and it was subsequently registered with a capital of £5,500. In 1863 the capital was, by a stroke of the pen, increased to £11,000—the profits in the meantime having been 10 per cent. It will be necessary to bear this point in mind in order to understand in full my reason for maintaining that the present capital of the Company has been fixed too high. Last year, upon legal advice, the Company was formed into a Limited Liability Company, with a further increase of capital, making it £16,500. Hon. Members above the Gangway have been threatening us that if the fell designs of the Prime Minister succeed capital will leave Ireland; but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the rest of us may take heart, because, even if British capital does leave the country, we may feel pretty sure that as long as we have gentlemen possessed of the financial ability of the Directors of the Dundalk Gas Company, who can increase with a stroke of the pen their capital of £5,500 to £11,000, and then to £16,500, we shall continue in a very prosperous condition. Now, the people of Dundalk are a long-suffering people. They endured the treatment they received in this matter of lighting their town with gas for a good number of years. At last their patience gave way, and an application was made by the Town Commissioners for a change

    1497
    in the method of the operations of the Gas Company. That application was refused, and the result was that the Town Commissioners decided to light the town with oil. I find that the counsel for the promoters of the Bill made merry at the notion of the Dundalk Commissioners incurring the cost of setting up lamp-posts in the town in order to light it with oil; but I would recommend to the attention of those gentlemen, and to others who may be inclined to think that human endurance has no limits, that it may sometimes be better to incur an initial expenditure in order that economy may be eventually effected. The steps taken by the Town Commissioners seem to have aroused the fears of the Dundalk gas monopolists; and they, therefore, sought advice in their difficulty. They had a very good thing in hand, and naturally enough they did not like to run the risk of losing it. They sought advice—I suppose they found that it could not be obtained in Ireland; and, therefore, they came to London, where, I believe, they found a gentleman who undertook to put them in the right way of protecting their interests. I certainly must say, after reading the Report supplied by this gentleman, that the Dundalk Gas Company were well directed, and made a wise choice in selecting him. I have read his Report through, and I find that, having referred to the manner in which the capital had been increased from £5,500 to £16,500, he says in paragraph 4—
    "I need scarcely remark that if the Company had been under Parliamentary sanction this practice would have been irregular and illegal."
    After having in that way alarmed his clients, this gentleman goes on to reassure them by saying—
    "Constituted as the Company now is, it is not responsible to any authority, and, however inadvisable its proceedings, it has done no legal wrong, nor has it incurred any penalty of any kind."
    I find that he omits the word "legal" before penalty; but I think there is one penalty which the Directors of this Company ought to have regard for, and that is the disapprobation of all honest men. In paragraph 5 he goes on to say—
    "The time has now arrived when the interest of the proprietors demands that the Company's operations should be carried on under Parliamentary sanction and control."
    1498
    He proceeds to advise—first, that the assets of the Company should be valued; secondly, that a new Company should be formed; and, thirdly, that powers should be sought from Parliament by a Bill, and not by a Provisional Order. I ask hon. Members to observe his reasons for saying that powers should be sought by Bill—
    "A Provisional Order involves local inquiry. There are other reasons in favour of proceeding by Bill which it would not be prudent to state in a document which may fall into the hands of possible opponents."
    Now, I notice that when he was cross-examined as to what he meant by "other reasons," this very clever gentleman found it convenient to forget them. I come now to the examination of the experts, and I find that as the value of this concern was fixed at the sum of £16,500, they told the Committee there was cash in hand amounting to £2,863 11 s., 3d., and that the plant, &c. was valued at £13,660, making a total of £16,523 11 s. 3d.; or £23 11 s. 3d. more than the sum they asked to have recognized as invested capital. They now ask for an additional sum of £5,500, which raises the capital to £22,000, with a borrowing power sought under the Bill of £8,000; consequently the Bill asks in this way to fix the capital at £30,000. Now, the earnings of one year, according to the evidence given before the Committee, were £1,170, making a dividend of 5 per cent on the £5,500 of the shares held by the new shareholders; and it is a very easy calculation to discover that the old shareholders on this arrangement will receive 15 per cent upon their original share capital of £5,500. It is quite clear, I think, to all who have followed me in this statement that the present position claimed by the Company with regard to invested capital is entirely due to the overcharges which have been made upon the residents of Dundalk in the past. It is a favourite argument in this House—and we have had a good deal of it latterly—that no matter what wrongs may have been inflicted in the past, we have only to deal with those which apply to the present, and that property, however it may have been acquired, belongs to the present owners. Sir, I should like to crave the attention of the House to the method of valuation, according to the evidence given by the

    1499
    advisers of the Gas Company, which has been adopted in this case. Now, the cost of the plant has always been supposed to have been paid out of the working expenses, and the valuation of the cost of plant is based upon that supposition. Perhaps the House will allow me to direct its attention for one moment to one item aloue—that of the main pipes. The main pipes in the streets, according to the valuation of the expert, are valued at something like their original cost, on the supposition that they are in good condition. Let me compare that with the statement made by the Secretary of the Gas Company before the Committee on page 4 of the Report. He says that the annual quantity of gas provided is 24,000,000 cubic feet, and that the escape through the main is from 22 to 26 per cent. I am not quite sure that he did not say that it reached even 30 per cent. But, taking the escape of gas from the main at 25 per cent, we get an annual escape of 6,000,000 cubic feet, and this, be it remembered, in a town of 14,000 inhabitants. Now, the Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, speaking a few days ago, called attention to the fact that while the number of deaths per 1,000 all through Ireland was less than in England, the number of deaths per 1,000 in the towns of England was much less than in Ireland. I would like to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to this fact—that here we have a town with 14,000 inhabitants, and that 6,000,000 cubic feet of gas, according to the evidence of the agent of the Gas Company, are allowed to escape from the gas mains in the course of one year. I should certainly like to hear some authority upon sanitation express an opinion in this House as to the possible effect of this escape of gas upon the health of the people. In considering the subject it is necessary to bear in mind that when gas escapes from a main in the streets it does not at once make its way up through the concrete or macadam. I read a short time ago an account of a serious explosion which took place in the heart of London. It arose in this way—a lorry passing along a street pressed heavily upon the surface, and crushed the gas main underneath. The gas, instead of finding its way at once into the air in the street, escaped into a cellar close by, and the result was a terrible explosion. I am
    1500
    not able to say, at this moment, whether there were any lives lost or not. Bearing this fact in mind, and taking a common-sense view of the case, we know that in a place like Dundalk the escaped gas from the main would not make its way at once through the hard surface of a street, but would pass laterally through the soil, follow the run of some drain, and find its way into a number of houses, to the very great injury of the health of the inhabitants. Now, I think that when these facts are taken into consideration hon. Members will agree with me that such an escape of gas as is allowed to go on from year to year amounts not merely to carelessness of management, but to a criminal disregard for the health of the inhabitants. This is no Party question. Perhaps hon. Members may feel disposed to think that it is so from the fact that the Bill is backed by the noble Lord the Member for the Western Division of the County of Down (Lord Arthur Hill) and the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson), and that it is opposed by one who has the honour to be a Nationalist—namely, myself. But if I may be allowed to say so, I have no personal or Party concern whatever in this question. I do not know a single shareholder or Director of the Gas Campany; and, so far as the Town Commissioners of Dundalk are concerned, all I know about them is—and I should like to recommend the point to the attention of some hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway—that they are a mixed body of Catholics and Protestants, returned by a constituency which is almost entirely Catholic. The Catholic voters of Dundalk, recognizing the fact that it is well to have gentlemen of property upon their Town Commission, have always allowed a certain number of them to take seats on the Commission without regard to creed; and I may add that the gentleman who now occupies the position of Chairman of the Town Commissioners is Mr. Maxwell, a Protestant, elected by Catholic votes. I should be very glad if any hon. Gentleman could give me an instance of the same kind of thing having occurred among the Loyal minority. In conclusion, Sir, I appeal to hon. Members to vote against this Bill on the broad principle of justice, and also taking into consideration the tendency of legislation at this time, which is that

    1501
    the duty of lighting a town should rest with an elected body. I believe that that system has been found to work with admirable result in Manchester, Birmingham, and other towns in England; and we have certainly reason to believe that an elected body would pay more regard to the health of the inhabitants than has been paid in the past by this particular Gas Company. There is this additional point—that if any profits arise from the manufacture of gas it is well that they should find their way into the pockets of the ratepayers, instead of those of a few shareholders of a private undertaking. One objection may be urged against my proposition to throw out this Bill, and refuse to give Parliamentary powers to this Gas Company, and that is that there may be suburbs in Dundalk outside the municipal boundary in which the inhabitants might possibly be forced to pay more by the Local Authorities for the gas supplied to them than they would by a private Company; but I beg to assure the House that with regard to these points it will be found, on referring to the evidence given before the Committee, that there are no suburbs in Dundalk which are now lighted by gas, or which are likely to be lighted in future. I thank the House for the patient attention it has given to me, and I ask it to agree with me in the Amendment which I beg now to move—that the Bill be read a third time on this day six months.
    MR. SPEAKER: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that the Motion now before the House is not the third reading of the Bill, but the consideration of the Bill as amended. The proper Motion for the hon. Gentleman to make is to leave out the word "now," and to move "that the Bill be considered this day six months."
    MR. J. NOLAN: In obedience with your ruling, Sir. I make that Motion.
    MR. SPEAKER: Does any hon. Gentleman second it?
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: I beg to second the Motion. I hope that the House, before giving its assent to the third reading of the Bill, or to go to any further stage, will allow sufficient time to elapse in order that hon. Members may become acquainted with the whole merits of the case. Except the statements which have been made in the Press and in letters
    1502
    and printed papers, and what I have now heard from the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. J. Nolan) since I came down to the House, I knew nothing whatever about the merits of this case. It certainly does appear to me to be an attempt on the part of the proprietors of this Gas Company, and other persons who may be interested in the Bill, to obtain the sanction of the House to an undertaking which is altogether adverse to the interests of the population who will be affected by it. I am quite certain that if the promoters had brought such a Bill before Parliament in the past it would never have received the sanction of this House; and we have been told that not only is this concern without the ordinary sanction of a Parliamentary enactment, but that it is altogether an irregular undertaking. I think that, under such circumstances, the House will be disposed to refuse its sanction to the further prosecution of the Bill. No injury will be done to the promoters of the Bill. They will be left, as far as their property is concerned, with all the rights they have now. They will simply be deprived of the sanction of Parliament to any irregularities they may have committed in the past. All that the law of the land sanctions will be continued to them as enjoyed at the present time; but I think there is great objection to our being called upon in the present day to sanction by Act of Parliament irregularities which have taken place in the past, and which have not received the sanction of Parliament.
    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. Nolan.)
    Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
    SIR EDWARD BIRKBECK: As Chairman of the Committee upon this Bill I may say that the measure was carefully considered upstairs, and that the Committee had not the shadow of a doubt in giving their acquiescence to it. We had every reason to believe that if the powers now asked for are conferred upon the Gas Company it will be of great advantage to the consumers of gas in the town of Dundalk, and that the Company will not only be enabled to supply better gas, but to supply it under better conditions.

    1503
    The Gas Company has been in existence now for nearly 60 years; and, so far as the opposition was concerned, it must be understood that the only persons who opposed it were the Town Commissioners of Dundalk, and that the general public did not appear in opposition at all.
    MR. BIGGAR: The last argument of the hon. Baronet who has just sat down seems to me to be of a somewhat remarkable character. He says that the only persons who opposed the Bill were the Town Commissioners, who were, in reality, the Corporation of Dundalk. I should like to know who else could oppose the Bill? The general inhabitants would have no power and no locus standi whatever to come before the Committee, seeing that the only persons who had a right to speak on behalf of the inhabitants of Dundalk were the Town Commissioners or the Town Council, who are the very persons who have protested against the Bill. Allow me to call the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. Member who has moved the rejection of the Bill represents the Northern part of the county of Louth, and that the electors of Dundalk form part of his constituents. Therefore, as far as the public opinion of the district is concerned, it is quite evident that they are practically unanimous against the Bill. I am strongly disposed to protest against conferring upon any public or private Company power to tax the ratepayers of the district for purposes of this kind; but in this instance it is proposed that the Company should, in point of fact, create a certain amount of fictitious capital, with the object of taxing the inhabitants of Dundalk for all time to come to a larger extent than they are fairly entitled to, not for the benefit of the town of Dundalk, but for the interests of this private Company, who desire to put the money into their own pockets. I must say that one of the clauses of this Bill is of a character which it is impossible to defend—namely, that which relates to the price which the Company propose to charge the ratepayers for the gas which they supply. They propose to charge 4s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet. Clause 54 fixes 4s. 6d. as the standard price, provided that the Company may increase or reduce the price above or below the standard price subject to the
    1504
    reduction or increase in the dividend payable by the Company on their ordinary share capital. Now, the price charged in the town of Belfast is only 3s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet; and why should there be this difference of 1s. per 1,000 cubic feet? The experience of the past has proved that it is of great advantage to the ratepayers of any locality that the supply of gas should be in the hands of the Corporation, and not of a private Company; and some years ago, owing to the gas supply of Belfast being in the hands of the Corporation instead of a private Company, the price of gas was reduced by 10 per cent, in addition to which the quality of the gas was rendered much superior. I think it is the duty of this House to refuse to extend the powers of this Company for the purpose of taxing the people of Dundalk against the will and desire of the inhabitants.
    COLONEL WARING: I think it would be a most inconvenient course for the House to rediscuss every Private Bill which may come down to them from a Select Committee upstairs. I take it that in all these cases the subject has been thoroughly threshed out in Committee, and I believe that in this instance the Report of the Committee was unanimous in favour of the Bill. It is quite true that the opponents of the Bill were the persons who would naturally represent the town of Dundalk; but they seem to have entirely failed to prove their case before the Committee. A curious argument has been made use of by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Nolan) who moved the rejection of the Bill—namely, that the health of the inhabitants of the town has not been sufficiently considered by the Dundalk Gas Company. Perhaps it may surprise hon. Gentlemen to hear what the facts of the case are. The Town Commissioners of Dundalk have of late prohibited the Gas Company from breaking up the streets for the purpose of repairing their mains, and therefore any poisoning that may take place lies at the door of the Town Commissioners, and not of the Gas Company. I may add also that not very long ago a very serious charge of gas poisoning was brought against the Corporation of Belfast, and steps were taken to compel the Corporation to abate the nuisance. This fact would tend to show that the

    1505
    Town Commissioners and other Corporate Bodies are not more careful of the public health than a Gas Company. As to the question of the price of gas, it is perfectly clear that no Company or Corporate Body could supply gas to a town of 14,000 people at the same price as they would be able to charge in a large city like Belfast. I do not, therefore, think that there is any force in the objection raised by the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar). I believe that this opposition has been got up at the instigation of persons who are interested in the matter pecuniarily and otherwise, and I sincerely hope the House will allow it to pass its present stage.
    MR. O'MARA: I rise to support the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Nolan), and in doing so I do not propose to follow the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member who has just sat down. The only argument in point of fact which the hon. and gallant Member used against this Motion is that actions have been brought against the Corporation of Belfast for gas poisoning, arising from a certain percentage of waste and escape of gas in the streets of Belfast. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Nolan) has, however, brought before the House very serious facts indeed in reference to Dundalk. He states that the amount of waste which this Company permit from their gas pipes in the town of Dundalk amounts to no less than 25 per cent, which is a very serious matter indeed, and entirely justifies the hon. Member in calling the attention of the House to it. More than that, this 25 per cent, of waste which the hon. Member has pointed out, calculating the price of gas at the rate which the Dundalk Gas Company propose to charge, amounts to an absolute loss of £1,200 a year. £1,200 are thrown away in the streets of Dundalk every year in consequence of the escape of gas from the Company's mains. That is a strong argument, to my mind, why this gas concern should not be allowed to remain in the hands of the present Company. I should not, however, support the Motion for the rejection of this Bill if I did not understand that the Town Commissioners, who are the only proper authority for the lighting of the town, are perfectly prepared to undertake the duty.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I have only one word to say. I would like to ask English and Scotch Members, whether they do not consider that it is desirable, in a matter of this kind, which affects purely local interests, that it should be determined as far as possible by the wishes of the people themselves, expressed through their elected representatives? One of the greatest grievances of which the Irish people complain arises out of matters of this kind, and is brought about in this way. Persons go behind the representatives of the people in the locality and come here with statements which result in legislation being imposed upon them which is distinctly contrary to their wishes. Now, this is not a matter which concerns either Englishmen or Scotchmen at all; and I cannot conceive how any English or Scotch Member can honestly vote in favour of this Bill, when he knows that the persons who are actually to be affected by the measure are unanimously opposed to it, and have expressed their opposition to it, before the Committee to whom the Bill was referred. What will be the result if the House sanctions this Bill? The result will be that the people of Dundalk and those who are entitled to represent them will be justly indignant at the course taken by the House. They do not want this measure, and they object to have it forced upon them. I would, therefore, ask hon. Members to consider in this matter the wishes of the people of the locality, who have already asked through their representatives, the Town Commissioners, that the scheme of the Gas Company should be rejected.
    MR. A. E. PEASE: As one of the Committee which sat upon this Bill, and which came to a unanimous decision on its merits, I must protest against the inconvenient and rather unusual course which is now being taken by hon. Members below the Gangway on the opposite side of the House. I am afraid that they are endeavouring to introduce a Party spirit into the discussion of a very simple question. For two days the Committee had this Bill before them; a considerable amount of evidence was produced, and the whole question was thoroughly discussed. The Town Commissioners were represented by counsel, who stated the case of the Town Commissioners with, perhaps, even more

    1507
    ability than has been displayed by hon. Members below the Gangway. I would respectfully ask the House to support the Committee in regard to the Report which is now before us.
    THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Mr. COURTNEY): I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes. This Bill is one of the most ordinary character. The Gas Company who are promoting it has existed for 50 years, but hitherto it has not been incorporated according to the provisions laid down by Parliament. It now comes before the House, seeking to be incorporated and to acquire rights which are subject to certain obligations. The Bill has already gone before a Committee of this House; the opponents of the Bill—the Town Commissioners—were heard before the Committee; both the opponents and the promoters were represented by counsel, and every statement of fact and argument which has been adduced in this House has already been before the Committee. The Committee, however, were unanimous in their decision in favour of the Bill. Under the circumstances, therefore, and considering that both sides have already been fully heard, I can see no reason why the House should re-examine a state of facts already fully inquired into upon the evidence of sworn witnessess; and, after hearing the arguments of counsel, I think the House has no alternative but to support the decision of the Committee. The only suggestion which has been made against the Gas Company is that they seek to extend their capital; but everybody knows how the capital of a Gas Company is fixed when it is incorporated. Its value is ascertained by taking a valuation of its plant, property, and assets. That has been done in this case. The valuer appeared before the Committee, and was subjected to a most severe cross-examination by the counsel of the opponents. The capital was established to the satisfaction of the Committee, and as to the price which the Company propose to charge for the gas witnesses were also examined, and in the end the Committee came to the conclusion that the price fixed in the Bill was reasonable. Upon these grounds, I would ask the House not to reject the Bill.
    MR. SEXTON: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member above the Gangway (Colonel Waring),
    1508
    as to the inconvenience of reopening in this House the decisions of a Committee upstairs; but I cannot agree with what appears to be a kind of chronic determination on the part of the Chairman of Committees that the decision of the Committee shall never be questioned. Fortunately the House, in the course of the present Session, has refused to accept the judgment of the hon. Gentleman in more than one instance. It refused to do so in the case of the Manchester Ship Canal; also upon the Hayling Common Bill; and it refused to do so the other night in reference to the scheme submitted for Lowe's Charity. I trust that it will take a similar course on the present occasion, and will disregard the hon. Gentleman's recommendations altogether. The Chairman of the Committee (Sir Edward Birkbeck) has certainly confirmed me in my opposition to the Bill, because the hon. Gentleman made an extraordinary and unsophisticated remark that the Bill was opposed in Committee, not by the public, but by the Town Commissioners of Dundalk. Now, what are the Town Commissioners if they are not the representatives of the public? They appeared before the Committee in their official character, and as they opposed the Bill we are entitled to assume from that fact that the general community of Dundalk are opposed to the Bill. Not only has this remark of the Chairman of the Committee confirmed me in my conviction that the Bill ought to be rejected, but there is one other matter upon which I should like to say a word. The hon. Member for York (Mr. E. A. Pease), who only recently entered the House, and who is one of the most juvenile Members of it, has presumed to lecture Irish Members, who have been in the House for years, upon what is usual and what is inconvenient. I protest against the manner in which this Bill has been treated throughout. It was referred to a Committee upstairs upon which not one single Irish Member had a place. The decision arrived at by the Committee is one which is protested against by 85 out of the 103 Representatives of Ireland. I certainly think it would have been more proper if the Bill had been referred to a Committee entirely composed of Irish Members; and I certainly think that legislation of this kind ought to be suspended at this stage until it is decided

    1509
    whether or not it is to be dealt with in Dublin. The Town Commissioners of Dundalk appeared before the Committee and opposed the Bill. They pleaded that the gas supplied by the Company was very bad, that the price was too high, and that they intend to apply to the proper authorities for a Provisional Order to enable them to supply the town with gas themselves. Is it decent, when the Local Authorities of the town say that they are ready to supply it with gas—and they already supply it with water—to hand the ratepayers over to a Gas Company who propose to charge 4s. 6d. per 1,000 cubic feet for the gas supplied? We know that in many other instances the duty of lighting a locality with gas has been handed over to the public authorities, and in all these cases we know that the result has been an improvement of the quality and a cheapening of the price. I must say that it is a shameful thing to plunder the town of Dundalk by inflating the capital of the Gas Company at this moment, when we are on the verge of considering a measure which is to give local autonomy to Ireland. This Company has been in existence for 50 years, and they have never I applied to Parliament for a Bill before. Then how will they be prejudiced or injured by being asked to wait till next year before a determination is arrived at upon their Bill? In the meantime, if the Town Commissioners do not ask the Local Government Board for a Provisional Order this year, the Company will be able to promote their Bill in the next Session with a much better grace. The original capital of the Company was £5,500; they are already paying upon that capital 20 per cent, and they are not only extorting that profit from gas consumers of the town of Dundalk, but they are extorting it to the extent of plunder, seeing that they have already increased their original share capital from £5,500 to £11,000. The intelligent Chairman of the Committee, who holds that the Town Commissioners did not represent the town, is simply desirous of enabling the Gas Company to multiply their original capital sevenfold. What was originally adequately met by capital of £5,500, is now, by a clause in this Bill, to be met by a capital of £37,500, for the obvious purpose that this enormous and monstrous dividend of 20 per cent may be kept up. I claim
    1510
    from the House, in the name of the great body of Members from Ireland, that a decision of four English Members in regard to an Irish matter should be reversed. I say that this is purely a matter of Irish legislation, and we ask that the Bill should be suspended until next year. If in the meantime the Town Commissioners do not take proper steps for obtaining a Provisional Order to supply the town with gas themselves, the Company will be able to go on with their Bill. Certainly, the Irish Members are of opinion that questions of this kind can be more cheaply and conveniently dealt with in Dublin than it is possible to deal with them here.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: I think the House may judge a little, from the tone and temper which have been shown in this discussion, of the manner in which even private legislation is likely to be discussed and disposed of in the new Irish Parliament.
    MR. DILLON: I confess that I do not see the point of the noble Lord's remark. I am not aware that much temper has been imported into this discussion, and I certainly think that the tone which has been imported into it has had a thoroughly good cause to justify it. The question is this—Are the wishes of the people of Dundalk to be considered in regard to the manufacture of their own gas; or are four Gentlemen, who never, probably, have been able to tell to this day in what part of Ireland Dundalk is situated, to say who is to make and supply gas to the town of Dundalk? We have had a good specimen of how well qualified English Members are to decide upon Irish questions when one of them has been induced to get up in his place in this House and declare that he considers the fact of the Town Commissioners of Dundalk being the only people to oppose the Bill affords good evidence that the Bill ought to be accepted, because the general public are not opposed to it. We have been accused of importing tone and temper into the discussion; but I may inform the noble Lord that when the Irish Members conduct their business in Dublin they will not invite Englishmen to go over there and do it for them. I trust that if this Dundalk Bill ever comes before an Irish Legislature it will be Irishmen who will deal with

    1511
    it. They will certainly know where Dundalk is situated, and will endeavour, in dealing with a question of this character, to consult the wishes of the inhabitants. I earnestly appeal to the Government not to allow this Bill to go forward, and, at any rate, to allow the discussion to be adjourned until a fuller opportunity can be afforded for ascertaining the wishes of the people who are affected by it. It is a most remarkable thing that when we come to look at this Bill we find on it the names of two Members who have no connection whatever with the town of Dundalk. They may have some connection with and interest in the Gas Company; but, without desiring to cast any imputation on their motives, it is certainly a singular thing that hon. Members from another Province of Ireland, representing altogether different constituencies, are promoting a Bill for Dundalk. If this Bill is really approved of by the inhabitants, why did they not ask their own Representatives to take it up? It ought to be known to the Members of this House, as an additional proof of the feeling of the ratepayers of the town, that of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Nolan) fully one-third are ratepayers in the town of Dundalk. If any evidence is needed as to what the feeling of the inhabitants is, surely it will be sufficient to convince every fair-minded Englishman, when it is found that the promoters of the Bill are strangers, that the Town Commissioners are unanimously opposed to it, and that an hon. Member representing the Division in which Dundalk is situated, and his constituency, composed to the extent of one-third of the ratepayers of the town of Dundalk, are united in their opposition to it. We have been taunted with adopting the inconvenient practice of re-opening the discussion of a matter which has been settled in Committee. We should have been unwilling to enter upon that course if any other had been open to us; but are we to sit here and allow a Bill which vitally affects the interests of the town of Dundalk to be thrust upon the ratepayers, when no one can get up and say that the inhabitants themselves want it? If any hon. Member can point out any other course we could have taken in the interests of these ratepayers, we shall be happy to withdraw
    1512
    our opposition to the present stage of the Bill. Unfortunately, these matters are not so closely watched at the time of Private Business as they ought to be; and I am afraid that this Bill has been allowed to slip through in its former stages unnoticed. This is the last opportunity we have of defending the interests of the people of Dundalk. I think it cannot be for a moment urged that, however inconvenient our course may be to the general body of the Members of this House, it is not perfectly justifiable. If hon. Members think it is inconvenient, I would urge on them that the lesson they are drawing from what has occurred this evening is that, pending a final settlement of the question of Local Government in Ireland, Bills of this kind, if introduced at all, should be dealt with by Committees composed entirely of Irish Members. I do not think that that is an improper suggestion; and a Committee so composed would have this natural advantage—that they would know all about the matter submitted to them. I am quite certain that if we had had Irish Members sitting upstairs upon these questions, in due proportion to our strength, the House itself would never have been troubled with a measure like this. Hon. Members have come privately to me, one after another, and told me how anxious they are to see the present system got rid of. It certainly is a reductio ad absurdum to intrust Irish Business to English or Scotch Members; and I can assure the House that, so far as the Irish Members themselves are concerned, they have every wish to spare the House the trouble and annoyance of having to deal with questions which they are really incompetent to decide.
    MR. ILLINGWORTH: It has been stated that it is inconvenient to review in this House a decision arrived at by a Select Committee upstairs. Now, I really do not know what the object of the third reading of a Bill can be if it is not to afford the House an opportunity of reviewing any decision of the Committee by which it is reported. It is quite clear that a Committee may sometimes arrive at a decision which requires the interference of this House, and if ever there was a case of that kind I think this is one, and that the House ought to reverse the decision

    1513
    of the Committee. Gas and water are articles of the utmost importance in our modern civilization, and I hold that the only proper authority to provide both gas and water is the Representative Body of the community which requires those articles. I believe that the past experience of every municipal town has been that there is great practical inconvenience in having other authorities than the Municipal Authorities interfering with the streets and pulling up the roads. Another thing which the House will do well to recognize is that there is nothing better known among monopolies than the spirit of jugglery in which the financial position of these private Companies is dealt with. Parliament has intended to impose a limit upon the dividends paid upon undertakings of this kind; but they have left such wide doors open that it is quite possible to drive a coach and four through all the financial provisions which the Legislature has laid down. I know from personal knowledge of more than one instance in which a Gas Company has been handed over to a Corporate Body, and it has been found that a discreditable system has been pursued in manipulating the Company's accounts. I hope the House will listen to the appeal which has been made to them by the Irish Members generally, and that they will reject the Bill. The only consequence of that course will be to suspend for the present the powers asked for by the Dundalk Gas Company, and leave the question an open one. Certainly in such important matters as the supply of a town, either with gas or water, whatever decision may have been arrived at by a Committee upstairs, I hold that the matter should be suspended by Parliament until the representatives of the locality have had a full opportunity of stating their case.
    MR. J. WATSON: As a Member of the Committee to which this Bill was referred, I wish to make one reference to the speech of the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon). The hon. Member presumed to say that the Committee of four English Members to whom the Bill was referred did not even know where Dundalk was situated. He also said that we were going to give 20 per cent to the existing shareholders in this Gas Company. Neither of those assertions is correct. This Gas Company
    1514
    was established in 1836, and have divided for very many years only 10 per cent. There were also accumulated profits, but those profits they did not choose to divide. After taking stock last year they found that their undertaking was worth £16,500, and I know of no reason, as a business man, why the property which they possessed, but which they have not chosen to divide, should not belong to the shareholders just as much as if they had put the profits year by year into their pockets. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Committee were not biased in any way by any Party spirit, and that they were not influenced either by a Nationalist or a so-called Loyalist feeling. We devoted two days to the consideration of the Bill; we gave most careful attention to the evidence, and we endeavoured, as far as we could, to do justice to all parties concerned. It seems to me that, although this Company was established in 1836 for the purpose of supplying Dundalk with gas, it has never occurred to the authorities of Dundalk that they should apply to Parliament for Parliamentary powers to provide gas for themselves. When this Bill was brought in it did occur to the authorities of Dundalk that they should oppose it. I have not a word to say against the course they took; it was clearly within their right to oppose the Bill; but when I am told that the Committee who considered the Bill knew nothing of the merits of the case from a business point of view, and were so ignorant that they did not know where the town of Dundalk was situated, I beg to assure the hon. Member for Mayo (Mr. Dillon) that he is acting under a very erroneous impression. It was perfectly immaterial to us who should supply the town of Dundalk with gas; but I will say at once that when people have entered into a speculation for 50 years, they are clearly and fairly entitled to enjoy the full value of their property. There appears to have been recently some schism in the town of Dundalk, and we were told that the Company who are now supplying the town with gas have had difficulties and obstacles placed in their way by the Town Commissioners in regard to breaking up the streets. Of course, under such circumstances, without the enactment of Parliamentary powers, the town of Dundalk must be left in darkness; and we have some

    1515
    evidence before us that some parts of the town have been lighted with oil lamps. The passing of this Bill will put a stop to that state of things; and, seeing that the Committee devoted so much time and attention to the inquiry, I trust that the House will support the decision at which they arrived.
    MR. BRADLAUGH: This discussion seems to me to illustrate very seriously the inconvenience of this House having to deal with Irish local affairs, and to show the necessity for passing some measure which would enable the Irish people to deal with such questions as the Belfast Main Drainage and the Dundalk Gas Supply for themselves. Most hon. Members here must be altogether ignorant of the merits of these purely local schemes. I intend to vote against the further consideration of the Bill on the ground put forward by the hon. Member who has just spoken. The hon. Member says that the Company have done very well without special statutory help, and have for the last 50 years paid a dividend of 10 per cent. [Mr. SEXTON: Of 20 per cent.] Besides this, they have accumulated a large reserve fund. If the Company are doing as well as that, I think the best thing for this House to do is to leave them to the mercy of the Irish Government which is about to be inaugurated.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: My name appears on the back of this Bill, and I only desire to say a word—namely, that if the Government will limit the action of Home Rule to a measure which will enable the Irish people to deal with their own sewage and gas, I shall have no objection, nor do I think that hon. Members on this side of the House will entertain against that measure the strong objections with which they now regard the Government of Ireland Bill. Hon. Members below the Gangway have tried to make it appear that this is a fight between a private Gas Company and the people of the town of Dundalk as represented by the Town Commissioners. I think the House will be surprised to learn that only one of the Town Commissioners appeared in opposition to the Bill—namely, the Chairman of that Body—and no Resolution was produced on behalf of the Town Commissioners against the measure. Therefore, considering the number of years which the Gas Company
    1516
    have rendered good service to the town of Dundalk, and considering also the expense to which they have been put in promoting the Bill, I trust that the House will now consent to pass the measure.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 210: Majority 41.—(Div. List, No. 100.)
    Words added.
    Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.
    Consideration, as amended, put off for six months.

PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
  POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEITH) BILL.— [BILL 197.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Mundella.)
  POLICE AND IMPROVEMENT (SCOTLAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (LEITH) BILL.— [BILL 197.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    MR. JOHN WILSON: I have given Notice of a Motion to oppose the second reading of this Bill on behalf of two interests. In the first place, on behalf of the inhabitants of Edinburgh, who have certain rights over the common land at Leith; and, secondly, on behalf of the Commissioners of Leith Harbour. I have been informed that the representatives of Edinburgh have now arranged their differences with the promoters of the Bill; and, as the other question with the Harbour Commissioners is one which may be easily settled in Committee, I beg to withdraw my opposition to the Bill.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member does not oppose the second reading?
    MR. JOHN WILSON: No; I beg to withdraw the opposition.
    Bill read a second time, and committed.

QUESTIONS.

  NAVY—COMMISSIONS FOR SEAMEN OF THE FLEET.
  CAPTAIN VERNEYasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he can now hold out hopes that the higher ranks of Her Majesty's Navy will be opened to the seamen of the Fleet in cases of exceptional merit, or for acts of conspicuous gallantry or daring, by the annual promotion of a limited number

  1517
  of Chief and other Warrant Officers, under Article 252, page 60, of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions, which has remained a dead letter from its issue in 1853 to the present time?
  CAPTAIN PRICEasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty will consider the advisability of allowing Chief Warrant Officers on retirement to take the rank of Lieutenant?
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): I can only say, in reply to my hon. and gallant Friend (Captain Verney), that the question is under the consideration of the Admiralty; and at the same time, perhaps, the hon. and gallant Member for Devonport (Captain Price) will allow me to give the same answer to his Question of a somewhat similar character.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— RENARD POINT PIER.
MR. JOHN O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Who holds the sum of £600, contributed some years ago to build a pier at Renard Point, opposite Valentia, county Kerry; and, whether, in view of the wants prevailing in that district, and the urgent need of employment among the labouring classes, steps will be taken to apply the funds in question to the purpose for which it was raised?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in reply, said, the fund to which the hon. Gentleman referred had never come into the possession of either of the Government Departments concerned, and they had no knowledge whatever of the existence of such a fund.

FIRES (METROPOLIS)—FATAL FIRE IN BEAK STREET.
SIR HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If his attention has been called to the evidence given by Mr. Palmer and Captain Shaw before the Coroner, at the inquiry into the sad loss of life in Beak Street on the 28th of April; whether that evidence tends to show that the long hours of continuous work, which (from the limited funds for this purpose at the disposal of the Metropolitan Board of Works) is
1518
forced upon the men of the Brigade, is unfair to the men themselves and dangerous to the safety of the public; whether the time has come when the recommendation of the Select Committee of 1876, that the Rate for the purposes of the Eire Brigade should be raised from the present limit of one halfpenny to a Rate of one penny, ought to be carried out; and, whether he is prepared to recommend to Parliament, in the interests and for the safety of the public, that this additional rating power should be granted by Statute to the Metropolitan Board of Works?
THE SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. CHILDERS): In reply to my hon. Friend, I have to say that I have no control over, or knowledge of, the details of the management of the Fire Brigade; but the Metropolitan Board of Works are aware that I am favourable to the limit of ½d. for the Fire Brigade rate being raised as proposed in the Bill now before Parliament.

SEA FISHERIES ACT (SCOTLAND)— FORESHORES.
MR. MACFARLANEasked the Lord Advocate, If the Act of George 3, chapter 31, section 11, conferring absolute rights to the use of foreshores to fishermen in Scotland, for
"Erecting tents, huts, and stages, and for the landing, pickling, curing, and reloading their fish, and in drying their nets, without paying any foreland or other dues,"
is still in force; and, if there is any means of securing these rights to the fishermen without obliging them to undertake costly suits in the Courts of Law?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I have more than once had occasion to consider the question within the last few years, and while it is not free from doubt, I am personally of opinion that the provisions of the Act 11 Geo. III. c. 31, with regard to the use of the foreshore by persons engaged in the "white herring fishery" are still in force. The provisions of the Act 29 Geo. II. c. 23, in regard to the use of the foreshore are repealed by the Sea Fisheries Act, 1868, but the provisions of the Act 11 Geo. III. c. 31, with regard to that subject are not, in my view, repealed by the Sea Fisheries Act 1868, nor by the Act 28 & 29 Vict. c. 56. I fear that if the

1519
matter is brought into question there is no other mode of getting it authoritatively decided but by a Court of Law; but I think that the Statute Law relative to the use of the shore by fishermen is at present in an obscure and unsatisfactory condition, and I have it in contemplation to propose its amendment so that it may be readily intelligible to that industrious and meritorious class whose interests are affected by it.

TRADE AND COMMERCE—IMITATION BRITISH TRADE MARKS.
MR. HOWARD VINCENTasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, If Her Majesty's representatives at the recent Industrial Convention at Rome have presented their Report, and if the delegates of other Nations assented to the suggestions of the Master Cutler and the Secretary of the Chamber of Commerce of Sheffield to restrain the fraudulent placing on Foreign-made goods of British trade marks or the names of British places or firms?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): The British delegates to the Industrial Property Conference at Rome have not yet presented their Report; but a final Protocol was signed on the 11th instant, by all the delegates, submitting the proposals of the Conference to their respective Governments, with whom the decision as to the acceptance of these proposals now rests. Among the proposals is an additional Article to the Convention of 1883, designed to restrain the fraudulent use of false indication of origin of goods. This Article was proposed by the British delegates in accordance with instructions suggested by the Board of Trade. Papers on the subject will shortly be laid before Parliament.

THE WESTERN PACIFIC—REPRISALS OF NATIVES.
DR. CAMERONasked the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether he has received the official report of the Captain of Her Majesty's Ship Diamond with reference to the reprisals she inflicted, towards the close of last year, upon the natives of Normanby Island, Hoopiron Bay, Millport Bay, Norava Island, and other places in the Western Pacific; and, if so, whether
1520
he will lay all the documents relating to these transactions upon the Table of the House?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): In reply to the Question of the hon. Member, I have to say that I have not yet received any official Report of the occurrences in question.

POOR LAW (IRELAND)—CLAREMORRIS —INTIMIDATION.
MR. DILLONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord lieutenant of Ireland, Whether any inquiry has been held as to the alleged destruction of voting papers and intimidation by a bailiff named Godfrey during the Poor Law election in the Kilvine electoral division of the Claremorris division; if so, what was the result of the investigation; and, whether none of the witnesses who were ready to testify to the truth of the charges made were questioned by the police?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): A prosecution has been ordered in this case. There has been some delay owing, I understand, to the officer in charge of the proceedings having been recently on leave; but there is no intention of allowing the matter to drop, and every witness will be produced who is capable of throwing any light on it.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1884—REQUISITION FORMS—THE RATE COLLECTORS OF MOUNTMELLICK UNION.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNORasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether his attention has been called to the fact that the rate collectors of Mountmellick Union had returned the requisition forms given to them by the clerk for service under the Representation of the People Act, on the ground that they could not undertake the work without remuneration; and, whether, in view of the very serious difficulty which is hereby revealed, the Local Government Board propose to take any steps to prevent wholesale disfranchisement, and to secure reasonable remuneration to the officers in question?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Yes. It is a fact that the collectors of the Mountmellick

1521
Union have declined to serve the notices until the remuneration they are to receive is fixed. The Local Government Board have communicated to the Clerk that this is a duty imposed on the collectors by statute, and calling attention to the fact that there is a means by which the Guardians, with the assent of the Local Government Board, can provide what remuneration they are to receive in respect of these services. Finding, however, that the collectors still persisted in their refusal, the Clerk of the Board was directed yesterday by the Local Government Board to inform these officers that if they do not serve the notices in question they will be immediately dismissed.
MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR: I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, supposing these officers still persist in their refusal, the Local Government Board will take steps to prevent the disfranchisement of a large number of persons in the constituency?
MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will make further inquiries as to how far it is possible for the Local Government Board to deal with the matter.

SOUTH AMERICA—THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC.
LORD FREDERICK HAMILTONasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been called to the Laws respecting Nationality in force in the Argentine Republic, under which children born on Argentine territory, of British parents, are claimed as Argentine citizens, and, if males, are held liable for military service, without being allowed the option of retaining British Nationality; and, whether Her Majesty's representative at Buenos Ayres is justified in issuing British passports to such enforced citizens of the Argentine Republic?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. BRYCE): According to the laws of the Argentine Republic, all persons born in the territories of the Republic, with the exception of children of members of the Diplomatic Corps, whatever the nationality of their parents, are considered to be subjects of the Republic whilst resident there. Children born there of British parents are, however, according to British law, also British subjects. Her
1522
Majesty's representative at Buenos Ayres would be justified in issuing British passports to such children; but, as they would also owe allegiance to the Argentine Republic, such passports would not afford them protection against the laws of that Republic so long as they resided within its territories. Nevertheless, in the event of any special case arising in which a British subject might be likely to suffer from his owing such double allegiance, Her Majesty's Government would always be ready to make a friendly appeal upon the subject to the Argentine Government. For further information on the subject, I beg leave to refer the noble Lord to page 61 of the Appendix to the Report of the Royal Commissioners of 1869 for inquiring into the Laws of Naturalization and Allegiance.

AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS ACT— FISHERMEN ON THE NORTH-EAST COAST OF SCOTLAND.
MR. ESSLEMONTasked the Lord Advocate, Whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government this Session to amend the Agricultural Holdings Act, and, in particular, with a view to remedy the conditions under which fishermen and others on the north-east coast of Scotland are obliged to build houses at their own cost, and are refused any tenure of land or compensation on removal, being "tenants at will," and liable to be removed a any term during the pleasure of the proprietor of the land?
THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)&c.): I fear I cannot hold out hope of the general provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act being amended during the present Session. Very hard cases of the class referred to in the Question have repeatedly been brought under my notice, and appear to call for a remedy, though it may be a question whether the remedy should find a place in an amendment of the Agricultural Holdings Act, or in a Local Government measure.

PIERS AND HARBOURS (IRELAND)— HOLYHEAD PIER.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether the attention of the Treasury has been drawn to the character of the work about to be undertaken by the Board of Trade in connection

1523
with the Mail Packet Pier at Holyhead; whether the Mail Packet authorities have protested against the work in question being carried on, as being likely to prove prejudicial to the rapid conduct of the Mail Service, and a source of danger, under certain conditions, to the Mail Steamers; and, whether, under these circumstances, the Treasury will either direct the discontinuance of the work, or authorise the necessary outlay for putting the Pier in an efficient and satisfactory condition, as requested by the Mail Packet Company?
THE SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. HENRY H. FOWLER): The works on the Mail Packet Pier at Holyhead have been repeatedly brought to the notice of the Treasury. They consist of the raising of the platform of the pier so as to facilitate the transfer of the mail bags from the train to the packet, and vice versâ. I should explain that there are four berths for the mail steamers at the pier; three of these are alongside the wooden pier, and the raising of the platforms opposite those berths has, I understand, been completed. It is now proposed to take in hand the raising of the platform opposite the fourth berth, which is the most sheltered, being alongside the stone pier. The Packet Company ask that, as during the work this berth will be for the time not available, the work itself should be postponed till the open wooden pier has been so improved by close piling as to make it a safe berth in all winds. The technical officers of the Board of Trade, however, have reported that reasonable security is afforded by the structure as it is at present, and, having regard to that Report, the Treasury has authorized the raising of the platform to be proceeded with.

ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.
MR. MITCHELL HENRYasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the marginal reference to the 41 and 42 Vic. c. 5, in the Bill he has introduced to continue for a limited time the Peace Preservation Act is an error, and whether he intended to refer to the continuance of the 44 and 45 Vic. c. 5; what Irish counties are now proclaimed under the provisions of this Act; what steps are to be taken to renew the Expiring
1524
Act within the next twelve days' which prohibits the importation and possession of explosive substances as well as arms; and, whether he is aware that, before the passing of the Act, immense quantities of rifles and revolvers were sold at very low price by grocers, ironmongers, and others in all parts of Ireland, and that, on the passing of the Act, applications were made by shopkeepers for compensation for the loss of their stocks and a lucrative trade?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): The mistake to which the hon. Member calls attention in the first paragraph of his Question was a misprint. I have already explained, in answer to Questions of the hon. Member for Londonderry City, the extent to which the Act is now in force in Ireland, and also its bearing on the question of the importation and possession of explosive substances; and I shall make a further statement on the subject when moving the second reading of the Bill to-day. There is no reason to believe that before the passing of the Act immense quantities of arms were sold as suggested. After its passing there were about 20 cases in which dealers applied to have their stocks purchased under the authority of the 1st section, on the ground that owing to the proclamation of the surrounding districts there was no sale for the arms. In these cases the arms were purchased at reasonable prices, and are now in store.

INDIA—CALCUTTA CUSTOM HOUSE— ADULTERATION OF M'GAVIN AND CO.'S WHISKY.
SIR ROBERT FOWLERasked the Under Secretary of State for India, Whether his attention has been called to an adulteration of MacGavin and Co.'s whiskey at the Calcutta Custom House; and, whether he will communicate with the Government of India on the subject?
THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE (Mr. STAFFORD HOWARD)said, this matter was at present under consideration, and, therefore, he would postpone an answer to the Question.

NAVY—H.M.S. "COLOSSUS"—THE 43-TON GUNS.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary to

1525
the Admiralty, Whether it is true that H.M.S. Colossus is shortly going to sea, having on board 43-ton guns of a similar pattern to the gun which lately exploded with a reduced charge on board H.M.S. Collingwood; and, whether, considering the demoralising effect produced on the ship's company by a doubt as to the life of their guns, he will use his endeavours to have the guns shifted and replaced by those of a known trustworthy character?
THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. HIBBERT): The Colossus is to be attached for the present to the Channel Squadron, and will shortly proceed on a cruise. In view of the recent accident to the 43-ton gun in the Collingwood, directions have been given that the Colossus is not for the present to use her 43-ton guns in target practice. As regards the question of shifting and replacing these guns, it is intended to strengthen them; but no action will be taken until the Report of the Committee inquiring into the subject of these guns has been considered.
MR. BETHELLasked, If the right hon. Gentleman would say whether there were any guns for the Navy of a known trustworthy character, considered in reference to their having undergone a continuous test such as it might be reasonably inferred they would undergo in an ordinary naval action?
MR. HIBBERT: The Question is of so important a character that I should like to have Notice of it.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILLwanted to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would state what other guns the Colossus carried, and what would be the condition of the Colossus in case she were attacked by the Greek Meet?
MR. HIBBERT: The Colossus has already fired off these 43-ton guns at sea without any serious result occurring. Therefore I think that if she were attacked by any Greek or other vessel she would be able to defend herself in a proper way.
LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: But she is ordered not to fire.
MR. HIBBERT: She is ordered not to use the guns in target practice; but she is not ordered not to use them in case she is attacked.
LORD CHARLES BERESFORDasked the Secretary of
1526
State for War, Whether, considering the peculiar construction of the 43-ton guns, any steps were taken to ascertain what pressure would occur in the chase of these guns when fired with a charge of "cocoa powder," especially when fired rapidly; and, if so, what was the result; what is the highest pressure considered safe for the chase of these guns; and, whether there have been strong opinions expressed by competent authorities as to the safety of using the cocoa gunpowder with the 43-ton gun?
THE SURVEYOR GENERAL OF ORDNANCE (Mr. WOODALL)(who replied) said: The Question of the noble and gallant Lord involves several technical points which are among those to which the attention of the Ordnance Committee, as specially constituted for inquiry into this gun, would naturally be directed. I would rather not anticipate by a present answer the conclusions to which the Committee may come.

IRELAND—ALLEGED CATTLE STEALING.
CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that five head of cattle were stolen from the lands of one Peter Harkin, a bailiff residing at Costrea, near Ballinamore, county Leitrim, on the night of Friday 14th instant; whether this Peter Harkin is the same man as was shot at and wounded a few years ago; and, whether any arrests have been made?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir, five head of cattle disappeared from the lands of Peter Harkin on the night of the 14th instant, and have not yet been found. It is not known whether they strayed or were stolen. Harkin has made an information. With regard to the last paragraph but one, Harkin was fired at and wounded on the 6th of August, 1882.

INLAND FISHERIES (IRELAND)— POISONING FISH.
CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether the following rivers in the county Cork have lately been systematically poisoned, viz. the Lee, the Sullane, and the Bandon, and large quantities of young as well as full grown salmon thereby destroyed, as

1527
many as 80 having been destroyed in one hole on the Lee on the 11th instant; whether these poisoned fish have passed through the hands of two men in Macroom, named Daniel Lucy and Richardson, the latter being station master of the Cork and Macroom Railway, and been disposed of by them in the Cork Market for despatch to England and elsewhere; whether any arrests have been made; and, whether any steps can be taken to prevent men dealing in poisoned fish?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): From inquiries made, it would appear that the Rivers Lee and Sullane were recently twice poisoned. Forty-five fish were known to be destroyed, sold to buyers in Macroom, and sent to Cork Market. No poisoning took place on the 11th instant. The Bandon was poisoned on the 9th instant, but the poisoned fish were not sold in Cork. The law provides a penalty of £10 for any person found near a river with deleterious matter in his possession for the destruction of fish, and £5 for any person found taking poisoned fish from any river. It it is the duty of the bailiffs employed by the Conservators to enforce the law.

LAW AND POLICE (IRELAND)—ALLEGED RIOT AT LISTOWEL.
CAPTAIN M'CALMONTasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is the fact that the police issued summonses against some persons said to be guilty of riotous behaviour in the town of Listowel on the 28th April and 4th May; whether, notwithstanding their having general instructions from the Town Commissioners to proceed for any breach of the Towns Improvement Act, that body called a special meeting on the evening of 7th May, and, without consulting the police, passed a Resolution directing the summonses to be withdrawn; and, whether, under the circumstances, the Attorney General will exercise the power given to him by the ninety-second section of the Towns Improvement Act, and authorise the constabulary to proceed against the parties charged with the alleged riotous behaviour?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): Sir, the facts are as stated. The summonses
1528
have not been withdrawn, and will come on for hearing on the 22nd instant. It is, therefore, unnecessary for the Attorney General to consider his powers under the 92nd section of the Towns Improvement Act. His present opinion is that the section has no application to cases of this kind.

RAILWAYS (METROPOLIS)—THE PADDINGTON AND LIMEHOUSE RAILWAY.
MR. CREMERasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether he can explain the delay which has taken place in the commencement of the Paddington and Limehouse Railway, the South Eastern Railway extension in Southwark and Bermondsey; and, whether, taking into consideration the serious loss entailed by suspense and uncertainty upon the shopkeepers and owners and occupiers of property in the scheduled area, and the great amount of unemployed labour in the Metropolis, he can take any steps to expedite the commencement of the works referred to?
THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND)(who replied) said: Sir, the Board of Trade have no special knowledge with regard to the Question put by the hon. Member. The Companies are bound by their Acts to complete their undertakings within a specified time, and in the event of their failing to do so the deposit which, in the case of a Company not paying interest on its ordinary share capital, is required to be made with the Court of Chancery on the application for the Bill is liable to forfeiture. In the case of an existing Company paying interest on its ordinary share capital, the Company is liable to a penalty of £50 a-day. In the event of loss or inconvenience being sustained by non-fulfilment on the part of the Companies of their duties in these respects, it will be a matter for grave consideration whether the penalties provided by the Act should not be enforced.

METROPOLITAN RATING—PARISH OF PUTNEY.
MR. KIMBERasked the President of the Local Government Board, Upon what ground the statement was made in the Return presented to Parliament by the Local Government Board, dated 30th March 1886, that the

1529
highest rated parish in the Metropolis was Putney, which had to pay 6s. 8d. in the pound, including 10½d. in the pound for the maintenance and preservation of Wimbledon and Putney Commons; whether he is aware that there is no such rate as 10½d. in the pound there mentioned, or any uniform rate for the purposes alleged, over Putney or any other parish; whether the said Return is erroneous in omitting reference to the said Commons' rates as regards portions of Wandsworth and other parishes; and, whether he will cause the Return to be re-examined and amended?
THE PRESIDENT (Mr. STANSFELD): I regret to say that I find that, through an error on the part of the printer which should have been noticed in the examination of the Return, but which was, unfortunately, overlooked, the parish of Putney is represented as paying a higher rate in the pound than was in fact the case. The maximum rate levied on any class of property in the parish for the maintenance and preservation of the commons referred to appears, from the Return made by the Conservators of the commons, to have been 5¼d. in the pound, instead of the amount stated in the Return to which the hon. Member alludes. The rate in respect of these commons is not a uniform rate. We now understand that a rate is levied by the Conservators of the commons referred to on part of the parish of Wandsworth; but no reference to such a rate was made in the Returns supplied to the Board by the overseers of that parish or by the clerk to the Conservators. The circumstances do not appear to be such as to require that the Return should be re-issued. The Return has been made annually, and care will be taken to make the necessary correction when it is next issued.

PRISONS (IRELAND)—OMAGH GAOL.
LORD ERNEST HAMILTONasked the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Whether it is true that it is proposed to do away with the Omagh Prison and to constitute Derry Gaol a district prison; whether he is aware that Omagh Gaol is in a healthy open situation, while that of Derry is in a densely crowded part of the town; whether Omagh is more convenient as a centre than Derry; and,
1530
whether, before arriving at any final settlement of this question, he will make further inquiries as to the advisability of taking this step?
THE CHIEF SECRETARY (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): In accordance with a recommendation of the Royal Commission on Prisons, it has been decided to reduce the prison at Omagh to the status of a minor prison; but there is no intention to close it altogether. It is not sufficiently commodious for the Londonderry and Omagh Prisons combined; whereas the Londonderry Prison has sufficient accommodation for that purpose, and is equally convenient. The sanitation of both prisons is stated to be quite satisfactory.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHasked the Prime Minister, What would be the order of Business this evening? After the House had arrived at a decision on the second reading of the Arms Bill, would the debate on the Government of Ireland Bill be proceeded with?
THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE)said, that was undoubtedly the intention of the Government, always supposing that the debate on the Arms Act should close, as he considered probable, at a convenient hour.
SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACHfurther inquired whether, if the debate on the Arms Bill should not be concluded by midnight or thereabouts, the next Order would be taken?
MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: Yes; the next Order.

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 205.]
  (Mr. John Morley, Mr. Secretary Childers, Mr. Attorney General.)
  ARMS (IRELAND) BILL.— [BILL 205.]

    SECOND READING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY), in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said: It will probably be convenient that I should preface the short statement that I shall have to make with a brief explanation of what the Act which we propose to

    1531
    continue provides for and effects. The Peace Preservation Act, which our Bill proposes to continne, was carried, as hon. Members are aware, in the year 1881, and what it does is to impose certain restrictions upon the carrying and having of arms, and restrictions upon the importation and the selling of arms. It imposes restrictions on the carrying and possession of arms in the districts which the Lord Lieutenant, by an Order in Council, has proclaimed. The proclamations may be of two characters. They may either extend to both carrying and having arms, or they may be limited to the carrying of arms only. No person in a proclaimed district can carry or have arms without a licence, and any person carrying or having, or reasonably suspected of carrying or having, arms without a licence may be arrested without warrant by a constable and brought up before a magistrate. The Lord Lieutenant may by warrant further direct two persons named in the warrant to search in a house specified for arms; but the search must be made in the day-time, and the warrant is only good for a period of 10 days. The warrant is to be countersigned by the Inspector General, or the Deputy Inspector General, or by any Resident Magistrate within the proclaimed district. The Act also extends to ammunition. But I should like to point out, in reply to the Question of the hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Mitchell Henry), that the more formidable kind of explosives, such as dynamite, nitro-glycerine, and so on, have long ago been amply provided for by the general law. The general law gives perfectly sufficient powers and authority for regulating the importation, manufacture, storage, and possession of these explosives. I am referring to the Explosives Act of 1875.
    MR. LEWIS: Does the right hon. Gentleman say it includes importation?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: Yes; importation is one of the things provided for in that Act. So much, Sir, for the restriction on having and carrying. But there are also restrictions of much greater value and importance upon the importation and the selling of arms. The importation of arms and explosives is prohibited save at certain specified ports, and there, of course, their importation takes place under the supervision of the
    1532
    Custom House officers; and the consignees of arms and ammunition can be compared with the lists of persons who in proclaimed districts are entitled to deal in arms and possess them. The importation and sale are not regulated by the sections of the Act itself, but by the Order of the Lord Lieutenant, and the principal provision in that respect is that a licensed dealer is to return every month an account of his stock; also he is obliged to keep a register of the persons to whom he sells arms, and the date at which he sold them. That is obviously a provision analogous to an Act of our own for the regulating of the sale of poison. Licences to sell are granted by the Inspector General, the Deputy Inspector General, and by Resident Magistrates. I should, perhaps, explain that the reason for the 2nd sub-section of the Bill before the House is that, supposing this Bill not to pass before the 1st of June, it would not operate without this clause to revive or continue proclamations, licences, and orders which would then expire, and accordingly it saves the trouble of issuing fresh proclamations and fresh licences—trouble, I mean, not only to the Government authorities but to holders of licences. That sub-section enacts that proclamations, licences, and orders already in existence shall be of the same force as if there had been no interruption in the Act. We have already under a not commonly known Act of Geo. III. a provision that in the case of Bills for continuing Acts which would expire during the Session, such Acts shall be deemed to continue from their expiration; we have, however, inserted an express provision to that effect in the Bill. There is one change only which we propose to make in the Peace Preservation Act. That is in the 4th sub-section of Section 4. That sub-section was introduced on the Motion of a well-known Member of this House—Mr. Callan, late Member for Louth. It provides that any occupier of one or more agricultural holdings, provided he can get a certificate from two Justices, shall be able to claim a licence to have and carry arms, either specifically or generally, as of right, from the Resident Magistrate or other authorities. That sub-section was accepted at the time; but it was found during Lord Spencer's administration of this Act to

    1533
    work with considerable inconvenience; and, therefore, in Committee I shall propose to repeal that sub-section. It was a sub-section borrowed, I believe, from the Act of 1875. That is the only change we propose to make in Committee in the Peace Preservation Act. I will now say a word or two as to the operation of the Act. There are 28 counties which are either wholly or partially under proclamation; 32 proclamations—only proclamations against carrying—are in force.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Will you give the exceptions?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: The excepted counties are Antrim, Londonderry, Louth, and Wicklow. The cities of Belfast and Londonderry are proclaimed.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Are they proclaimed for importation?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I will answer the hon. and learned Member in a moment or two. The number of prosecutions have not been very considerable. In 1881 there were 75 prosecutions and 58 convictions. In 1882 there were 127 prosecutions and 102 convictions. In 1883 there were 86 prosecutions and 73 convictions. In 1884 there were 73 prosecutions and 56 convictions. In 1885 there were 74 prosecutions and 56 convictions; and so far in the year 1886 there have been 51 prosecutions and 44 convictions. In reply to the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Healy), Belfast is proclaimed partially, only for carrying and not for having arms.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: As to importation?
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: I shall be able to tell the hon. and learned Member before the debate closes. That is all I have to say as to the working of the Act. What is there to justify a continuance of it? There is a vast difference between the general state of things in the country at the present moment, and the state of things in Ireland in the year 1881, when this Act was first brought before Parliament. In the first four months of 1881 the agrarian outrages of the more serious kind were 556. In the first four months of 1886 the number of serious agrarian offences was only 184; and if we take the comparison in another way, the figures are still more striking and still more satisfactory. In the four months before the introduction of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, the serious
    1534
    agrarian crimes were 881. Therefore, we have to compare 881 with 184. So far as offences go, during the present year, I think, in a previous debate, the House was placed in possession of the number of outrages, excluding threatening letters. In August, last year, the serious offences were 59; in September, 51; in October, 60; in November, they were 48; in December, 64; in January, they fell to 46; in February, they fell to 33; in March, I am sorry to say, they rose to 56, but in April they fell again to 49. The figures, therefore, at the present moment have nothing in them of an alarming kind, or to excite great apprehension. But even if the figures had been worse, I am not sure that, viewing the serious agrarian offences alone, we should have felt bound to continue the Act, because it has been found that deliberately planned murder and outrage have not and cannot be prevented by the provisions of an Arms Act. The Arms Act, as I ventured to say the other night to the hon. Member for Glasgow, was in full force when sanguinary offences against the person and violent attacks upon houses were most frequent. If a murder is planned and arranged for and premeditated, we may be quite certain that it will not miscarry for want of a weapon to execute it. That is not my view only. It is the view of all those who have been most directly responsible for peace and order in Ireland. If, therefore, the prevention of violent and terrible crime had been the only justification for this Act, I repeat we might very well have allowed it to expire. Well, then, Sir, what is the cause for the continuance of the Act? Now, I gave that cause the other day in reply to the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis) in words which, I regret, at the time gave some offence—offence which was not for a moment in my intention, and which I cannot admit to have been at all justified by the words which I used. What I said was that, according to my information, the Arms Act was believed to be, as I have already stated, of very little use in preventing deliberate outrages and crime. But I said it was believed to be of considerable use in preventing—and these were my exact words, and I do not wish to flinch from them—to be of use in preventing men in the North of Ireland and elsewhere—and I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member

    1535
    opposite (Colonel Waring) who recognized that I used these words—men in the North of Ireland and elsewhere coming to public gatherings with arms. These are the words which I used, and they are words to which I adhere. I was asked the other night, by way of interjection, why I mentioned the North at all. ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member (Mr. Lewis) says "Hear, hear!" The reason is perfectly obvious. It is in the North principally that, owing to the intermixture of religions, and owing to the tradition of faction fights, large bodies of men would be likely to come into conflict in times of considerable excitement and when political feeling ran high; and, as we know, they have been accustomed to come into conflict in such times in years past. That was my reason, and I think it was a very common sense reason, for mentioning the North as well as other parts of Ireland. I submit with great confidence to hon. Gentlemen opposite that there was nothing in that observation properly calculated to hurt their susceptibilities. I say again, all this is no discovery of mine—this special use and advantage of the Peace Preservation Act. When I was in Dublin during the Easter Recess I had the opportunity, of which I availed myself, of discussing the working of this Act and the desirableness of its continuance with those who, as I have said, are directly and immediately responsible for the preservation of order and peace in Ireland. All these high and responsible authorities set a very great store by the provisions regulating importation. They regard those provisions as having been, and as likely to be, of very great value. But it is felt that the true use of the Arms Act is that it prevents the growth of the practice which in days of political excitement might be likely to grow to very formidable dimensions—the practice of carrying arms at fairs, races, markets, and processions, and other gatherings. It is feared that if this Act were to drop, there would be a risk, the times being what they are, of that practice growing to very formidable dimensions. I do not believe that men would go deliberately to gatherings of this kind with the premeditated intention of carrying on violence on a great scale; but any hon. Gentleman will perceive that, being in the possession of arms, they would be tempted in a moment
    1536
    of excitement to give emphasis to their political views, whether green or orange, by the discharge of these firearms, sometimes loaded, and which are, perhaps, often much more dangerous to their possessors than to anyone else. Sir, we not wish to exaggerate the danger to which I have been referring; neither do I wish, on the other hand, to be stupidly optimist as to the condition of Ireland, either North or South. It has been my endeavour during the short time that I have been in Office to look at the facts of Ireland as regards the conditions of social order with a perfectly fair and impartial eye. The Irish Government keeps itself constantly and vigilantly informed—as well informed as the circumstances of the case allows—as to the state of feeling in the country both North and South, as to all that is going on in the country so far as we can ascertain it; and while we see in the state of things in the country nothing to justify anything like alarm or apprehension regarding that kind of conduct which the Arms Act is designed to prevent, we feel that there is a general state of suspense and expectancy. [Ironical laughter.] Why, of course, to deny that would be childish. There is a general state of suspense and expectancy, and in some parts, no doubt, the tide of political feeling does run exceedingly high. Under these circumstances, I do not argue the question whether the state of feeling in Ireland is such as would have justified us in bringing in a Peace Preservation Act if it were to be done afresh and for the first time. But what I submit to the House is, that as we find this Act in existence and in working order, we have come to the conclusion that it is only consistent with prudence and common sense to retain it for the purposes I have mentioned; and I cannot believe, Sir, that in any quarter of the House any use has been made, or is likely to be made, of the provisions of that Act which can be reasonably objected to by any friend of peace and order in Ireland. I beg 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. John Morley.)
    MR. PARNELL: I had intended, Sir, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary whether he

    1537
    would not agree to the omission of Subsection 4 of Section 4 of the expiring Act, which he described to the House; and I also intended, in addition, to ask whether he would not agree to take power for the Licensing Authority to revoke any licences that may have been issued to have or carry arms in any district?
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): We have those powers already by the Lord Lieutenant's Proclamation.
    MR. PARNELL: I did not understand that the Proclamation could empower the Licensing Authority to revoke the licence himself, but that it could be revoked only by the permission of the Lord Lieutenant, a very roundabout and difficult thing to bring about. A Proclamation has to be advertised in The Dublin Gazette, and, of course, has to depend more or less on the knowledge of the Central Authority in Dublin Castle, rather than on the knowledge of the Local Authority, who had given the licence. I would not propose, of course, to interfere with the power of the Lord Lieutenant to issue such a Proclamation; but I think the power should be extended to the Licensing Authorities themselves, and that they should have power to revoke licences when once given. Why do I ask this? We complain, apart altogether from the general principle of the right to bear arms—we complain that powers such as these have been injuriously and unfairly used in two different directions—they have been used, in the first place, to harass and annoy the Nationalists of Ireland. They have been used unnecessarily to deprive respectable farmers of their shot-guns, which were intended for the purpose of scaring birds away from growing crops, and which they would not use except for that purpose. Any practical agriculturist will bear me out in saying that nothing is better for scaring away rooks from crops than firing a shot-gun. It is much better than any kind of scarecrow, even such as the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) has been endeavouring to set up during the last few days or weeks, so as to intimidate the House of Commons in reference to the passage of another Bill. But this power of the Lord Lieutenant has also been used
    1538
    generally to the annoyance and to the promotion of discontent among the population in different parts of Ireland. It has been used in a wholesale way. I do not speak exactly of the past or the existing Act, but of similar Acts used in a wholesale way to the annoyance of most respectable people in Ireland. The understanding we wish to come to is this—that since the Government have used the Act to disarm the Nationalist people of Ireland, so you should also use it to disarm the Orange population—at all events, that section of the population which have shown by its frenzy and the frenzy of its Leaders, and by its acts, that though it is not willing to take to the open field and fight, yet it always is willing, whenever it can do so with impunity, to assassinate, or attempt to assassinate, those who happen to differ from them in political opinion. Well, Sir, it cannot be contended for a moment that considerable need does not exist at the present moment for some precautionary steps on the subject. We have had incitements coming from high quarters, and from both sides of the House. I will not say that the three chief Leaders of the Orangemen—Lord Salisbury, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain), and the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), really intended to promote assassination and murder. I am sure that that was not the intention of any of these Gentlemen; but certainly their words can have no other effect. To suppose for a moment that any section of the population of Ireland will ever, under any ordinary circumstances, take the field against the British Government and the armed Forces of the British Government, is to suppose an absurd impossibility. To suppose that it should be possible to incite the Orangemen of Ulster, numbering, certainly, not more than 15,000 or 20,000 men, all told—[Colonel WARING: Oh, oh!] Well, certainly in some of the estimates recently made some of their spokesmen seemed to have counted all the women and children, and even the very young children, as well as the men. To suppose that the Orangemen of Ulster, who, though they swore and have threatened several times to rebel, have never yet rebelled, but who have very frequently, as I have already said, indulged in the

    1539
    pastime at different periods of the year of murdering and attempting to murder their Catholic fellow-countrymen and neighbours, to suppose that it is possible for these people to rebel is the very height of absurdity. We all know now that the science of war has been brought to such a pitch of perfection that in a country like Ireland—why, it would be almost the same thing for John Bull to go out and fight a pitched battle in his back garden as it would be for him to carry on a war in Ireland. It would be utterly impossible for any body of men, no matter how warlike, if they were even as courageous as the hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Major Saunderson), to hold out for 24 hours against the Irish Constabulary, much less against the strength of the British Army. So that we may put out of our heads altogether the notion of Orangemen rising, or that there is any necessity for passing this measure for the purpose of preventing open and armed resistance to the Forces of the Crown. But, undoubtedly, experience has shown us that there does exist indeed an apprehension at the present moment that there may be murder and assassination committed by Orangemen in Ulster, possibly at the next General Election—probably at any time. These threats have been published to the world. But they do not mean fight—they mean murder.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: No.
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh has spoken on the subject—his words are on record as stating that he would beat the Nationalist Members when they came canvassing the Ulster constituencies, and that it would be done by the bullet, and not by the ballot.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: I never said anything of the kind anywhere.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: You did. [Cries of "Withdraw!"]
    MR. PARNELL: The hon. and gallant Gentleman certainly did say, prior to the last Election, that that Election would be decided in Ulster by the bullet, and not by the ballot.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman; but I never said anything of the kind.
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Yes, you did.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Perhaps the House will allow me to state what I did
    1540
    say. The speech referred to was one I made in County Monaghan in commenting on a speech made by the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) that the Orangemen of Ulster would not be overcome by the ballot, but by the bullet.
    MR. PARNELL: I can only say that I have a distinct recollection to the contrary—[Cries of "Order!"]
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Read my speech.
    MR. PARNELL: And that my statement of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman said is correct; but I do not wish to insist on it in view of the disclaimer of the hon. and gallant Gentleman; but I will ask the hon. and gallant Member whether, in seconding a vote of thanks to Lord Salisbury of Saturday last, he stated that there would be plenty of customers for the gunmakers shortly?
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Yes, in London; not in Ireland.
    MR. PARNELL: We have heard of the hon. and gallant Member carrying the war into Carthage; but I did not know that the hon. and gallant Member was going to extend his warlike operations to the larger field of London. For, apart from the hon. and gallant Member, some time past we have had examples of riotous and tumultuous meetings in Ireland on the part of the Orangemen of the North, where thousands of them have come together armed with revolvers—where sackloads of revolvers have been taken from them, according to the statement of a late Chief Secretary, and where they have kept up a fire from these revolvers into the air by hundreds and thousands for many minutes. I do not apprehend that demonstrations on such a large scale as that will be repeated by the Orangemen of Ulster at the coming General Election; they did not attempt anything of the kind against us at the last General Election; but it is possible there may be isolated attempts on a small scale to create riot and disturbance, and that they may result in the taking of the lives of some in-offensive Nationalists. But, however this may be, from the point of view of equal justice we think that before we are asked to agree to the second reading of this Bill the Chief Secretary should tell us that he intends to see it fairly and justly administered as between the two sides, and that as the Orangemen under

    1541
    the operation of the 4th sub-section of Section 4 of the expiring Act have power to arm themselves, and Catholics are prevented from doing so, that that will be undone, and that in every case where arms are known to be in the hands of dangerous people, by licence previously given or otherwise, that licence will be taken away. That is a fair and reasonable request to make, and it is one that ought not to be refused. It is a mockery to introduce the Bill and say it shall only be applied to three-fourths of the country. If this law is to pass at all, it ought to be applied equally against all sections of the people. When I first entered the House of Commons, 11 years ago, an Arms Act was under discussion, and I felt humiliated at the feeling that came over me that I, who had just come from my constituency, then full of hope, that the right of making her own laws would shortly be restored to Ireland, and no other feeling, that I should find the House of Commons of that day was only willing to devote its attention to a Bill to disarm the people of Ireland. We are now entering upon better days. I do not feel depressed because the right hon. Gentleman has introduced this Bill. I admit there may be some reason why at present, and considering the condition of a portion of the country, the hands of the Government might be fortified by some such measure as this. But that reason is not one created by anything on the part of the Nationalists; it is not the fault of the Nationalists that it has to be done. I do not feel depressed or alarmed at the prospect before us. The present House of Commons is composed very largely indeed of Gentlemen who have shown themselves desirous of seeing how far they can go in the direction of giving power of self-government to Ireland; and I am convinced that when the time comes when this House shall have entrusted to all sections of Irishmen the power to make their own laws, the necessity for passing an Act like this to be used against any section of Irishmen shall have disappeared, and disappeared for ever.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSONsaid, after the remarks which had been made, he thought it necessary to offer a few words in explanation of what he said at the meeting on Saturday last. He then tried to explain to the audience
    1542
    the exact position that the Loyalists should be placed in in Ireland if the Bill now before the House was carried; and he pointed out that, from the character given of a certain section of Irishmen by the Prime Minister himself, the Loyalists were forced to look upon the advent to power of the section to whom he referred from the same point of view as a London shopkeeper would look upon the substitution of the present London Police Force by a force consisting of the murderers, thieves, burglars, and pickpockets of London—a change which he anticipated would impel the peaceable citizens of London to buy arms for their own defence, and so make the fortunes of the gundealers. He considered that he was justified in stating this, because the Prime Minister himself, some four and a-half years ago, described the Party led by the hon. Member for Cork as a Party who preached the gospel of plunder, whose steps were dogged by crime, and who were marching through rapine to the dismemberment of the Empire. He (Major Saunderson) therefore considered his illustration as a very happy and appropriate one. It was not his intention to oppose the Bill. The reason why the Act did not apply to one part of Ireland was that that portion was not under the domination of the National League. The hon. Member had accused Orangemen of murder; but he had not supported the charge by mentioning a single case, and for the reason that such an instance could not be found. [An hon. MEMBER: Philip Maguire.] He did not wish to rake up the list of crimes for which the National League was responsible. He wondered, however, that when the hon. Member for Cork spoke thus of Orangemen he did not embrace the opportunity of denouncing the horrible and brutal murders which were taking place in other parts of Ireland. He had said that they had arrived at happier times. He (Major Saunderson) thought in one sense they had, for he believed they were approaching a settlement of the Irish Question, and a settlement which would be final, and the settlement would be this—that the constituencies of England would decide by an overwhelming majority that the authority of the Queen should be permanently maintained in Ireland, and

    1543
    that the authority of the hon. Member for Cork and his Friends should never be substituted for it.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Perhaps the House will allow me to make a few remarks, which I think will have strict reference to the Bill before it, upon the manner in which the Bill has been approached, and also in the nature of a personal explanation, in answer to the attacks made upon myself personally from more than one quarter of the House. I very much regret I was not in my place when the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was speaking, having been called out of the House on business. I understand the hon. Member for Cork stated that, in his opinion, I had been guilty of unintentionally inciting to murder and assassination. Of course, that is an opinion which the hon. Member is entitled to hold. At the same time it is a very serious accusation; and I think that any Member of the House, sitting upon one Front Bench or the other, having held Office or holding it, who even unintentionally incites to murder and assassination is quite unworthy to have a place in the House of Commons. And for a Member who intentionally incites to murder and assassination, the proper place for him would be a Court of Justice. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James), speaking the other day, without any possibility of mistake as to whom he was alluding, stated that in consequence of language I had used I was half a traitor. The Chief Secretary also holds, I know, that this Bill is necessitated, to a considerable extent, by the feeling of a certain portion of the Irish people in the North, and by the preparation they may be making for forcible resistance in certain circumstances. I understand from what he said the other day, in answer to a Question put to him by the hon. Member for Londonderry, that the Bill was specially intended to apply to the prevention of armed bodies in the North of Ireland.
    MR. JOHN MORLEY: If the noble Lord had been in the House, he would have heard the explanation I have given of that observation, and the defence I have made for it.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I am very sorry, and I apologize to the right hon. Gentleman. I understand,
    1544
    then, that the Government does not mean to apply this Bill to armed bodies in the North of Ireland. But I would ask the House to give me permission to do my best to clear myself of a very serious accusation, and at the same time, if possible, for the purpose of this debate, to eliminate this question to a considerable extent from future discussion. What I said was this—I have not my words before me, but I have a very clear recollection of them—that in certain circumstances, and in the event of a certain portion of the Irish people being placed under the legislative control of another Legislative Assembly than this Imperial Parliament, the Loyalists of Ulster, or that portion of the Irish people to whom I alluded, would, in all probability, resort to forcible resistance.
    MR. SEXTON: You said they ought to do it.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: I did not. Hon. Members in that quarter of the House will please understand that I am not desirious of shirking the question. What I said was that in circumstances such as they apprehended they would be right in resorting to arms. I maintain, and I defy contradiction, that what I have laid down is the Constitutional doctrine accepted in this country ever since the days of the Revolution of 1688. Before I come to that point let me say this—that in the language I used I have the most distinguished Predecessors. In 1833, Lord Althorp—a name which will not be received, I think, with derision by hon. Members opposite—declared that if he had to choose between Repeal of the Union and civil war he would choose civil war. Lord Althorp was a great Whig statesman, who exercised an influence over the House of Commons which has never been equalled by anyone previously or since. Sir Robert Peel, if in the same debate, declared that in maintaining the Union the Government might have not only to rely on the scaffold, but to drench the plains of Ireland with blood. These, at any rate, are two great authorities as to the effects which would be produced on Ireland by the Repeal of the Union. At any rate, I think the House will admit that my language was certainly within the limits laid down by Lord Althorp and Sir Robert Peel. Hon. Members will, I hope, endeavour to exercise a judicial

    1545
    function in this matter. Which is the stronger? To say if, in certain circumstances, a portion of the Irish people were to be placed under a domination to which they could be called upon to owe no allegiance rightfully, and they use force, they would be right in so doing; or, on the other hand, to say, like Lord Althorp, that, having to choose between civil war and repeal, he would choose civil war; or, again, to say, like Sir Robert Peel, that in maintaining the Union we should not only have to use the scaffold, but deluge the plains of Ireland with blood? I appeal to the honesty and generosity of hon. Members below the Gangway to say whether I was not right in doing so? [Home Rules cries of "No, no!"] It is no use making an appeal to hon. Members below the Gangway; but, at any rate, I appeal to the general body of the House, and certainly to the general body of the public outside. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury declared that in the language I used I was half a traitor. [Sir HENRY JAMES dissented.] Oh, yes, you did; there is no doubt in my mind, or in that of anyone else, as to whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman referred. The right hon. and learned Gentleman professes to be a distinguished Whig lawyer. [Captain VERNEY: No, no!] I am glad the hon. and gallant Member for Buckinghamshire sees, as I do, the impropriety of that profession. The right hon. and learned Member for Bury preached to the House the other night what I can only call the unmitigated doctrine of Divine right. To defend myself and to meet the right hon. and learned Gentleman's charge, I will turn to the highest historical authority in this House, the Chief Secretary for Ireland. The Chief Secretary has written many historical essays of immense interest, and I may say of literary beauty. Of all those historical essays none is more interesting than that on Robespierre. In that essay occurs this decisive passage—
    "Modern publicists have substituted the Divine right of Assemblies for the old Divine right of Monarchs. We confess ourselves unable to follow this transfer of the superstition of sacro-sanctity from a King to a Chamber. No doubt, the sooner a nation acquires settled government the better for it, provided the government be efficient. But if it be not efficient the mischief of actively suppressing it may well be fully outweighed by the mischief of retaining it."
    1546
    Now, I am under the impression that the Ulstermen hold that the Government of Ireland will be transferred from one centre to another; and they will also hold that the Government, as so transferred, will not be an efficient Government. That doctrine is widely held in Ulster; and what I want to know from the Party opposite is, do they mean, by their adhesion to the argument of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, that Divine right—a doctrine which I thought was entirely exploded in this country—attaches to the acts of this Parliament any more than it attached to the acts of a despotic Monarch? I am trying to show the House that I did not transgress the lines of accepted Constitutional doctrine in this country. Will hon. Members in any quarter of the House deny that allegiance is conditional? The allegiance of Ulster is given to this Parliament on condition that it affords to the inhabitants of Ulster protection. ["Hear, hear!" and "No, no!"] Certainly; that is the condition, and if this Parliament transfers the lives and the liberties of the inhabitants of Ulster to a Body over which this Parliament will have no control—absolutely none—then I hold that no Divine right attaches to such acts of legislation; and if such legislation should lead to civil war it is impossible to contend that the inhabitants who took part in that civil war would be guilty of treason. That undoubtedly is the view which I hold, and I shall never be ashamed of expressing it. If hon. Members think so badly of it, why have they not brought forward the Motion of Censure which the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) gave Notice of, and which has since been taken off the Paper, and we have not heard anything about it? I believe that view is held not only by myself, but by two other persons held in considerable respect in this country—I mean Lord Salisbury, and by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain). Not only do I believe that these doctrines are held by the persons I have mentioned, but I believe they are also held by the Prime Minister of this country. In the Autumn of 1884 a debate took place on a subject which many hon. Members will recollect—the Aston riots. It will be recollected that I had a contest with the right hon. Member

    1547
    for West Birmingham on that point. There was an animated debate and a division, and I believe that in that division my views were supported by the then Irish Party. ["No!"] I know that we had a strong division, and I think that Party went strongly in my support. In that debate I accused the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham with inciting to violence, and I quoted a passage in which he said that 100,000 men from Birmingham could be got to march on London. The Prime Minister defended the right hon. Gentleman, and seemed rather to sympathize with the contemplated march. ["No!"] At any rate, there was nothing in his speech disapproving of it. But in that speech there occurred this most remarkable passage, which singularly bears out what I have stated, showing that the right hon. Gentleman holds very much the same doctrine as Lord Salisbury laid down. The Premier alluded to the statement of the right hon. Member for West Birmingham as to the march of 100,000 men on London, and he said—
    "That statement is treated by the Marquess of Salisbury as an incitement to violence.… Do you think, Sir, that under these circumstances it is the duty of Ministers, or of anybody else, to go to the people of this country, when they have the formidable obstacles in their front that they have now, and say to them— Love order and hate violence?" It is certainly one's duty to advise the people to love order and hate violence; but am I to say nothing else? Am I to make no appeals to them? Am I never to remind them of the dignity and the force that attach to the well-considered resolutions of a great nation? Are we to cast aside all the natural, legitimate, and powerful weapons of our warfare? I would go all lengths to exclude violence, and on that ground I object to the speech of the Marquess of Salisbury."
    Now, let the House mark what follows. The right hon. Gentleman says—
    "But, while I eschew violence, I cannot—I will not—adopt that effeminate method of speech which is to hide from the people of this country the cheering fact that they may derive some encouragement from the recollection of former struggles, from the recollection of the great qualities of their forefathers, and from the consciousness that they possess them still. Sir, I am sorry to say that if no instructions had ever been addressed in political crises to the people of this country except to remember to hate violence and love order and exercise patience, the liberties of this country would never have been attained."
    It is perfectly easy for me, addressing
    1548
    the Loyalists of Ulster, to substitute the Ulster controversy for the Reform controversy, and so to come within the doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister. Under these circumstances, I consider that I am in no way whatever liable to the charge of having, intentionally or unintentionally, incited to murder and assassination. I have said before the country, as I thought it was my duty to do, what I believed would be the consequences of such legislation as is proposed by the present Government. I believe that those consequences would be civil war; and if the consequences of that legislation were such as to lead to civil war those who took part in resisting those consequences would be right. [Cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Shame!"] And no exclamation or denunciation from hon. Members below the Gangway will make me recede one inch or one iota from that opinion. I have shown that the language that I used was language which fell short of that used many years ago by authorities far greater than any that the House can boast now; and fortified by those authorities and by the Constitutional doctrine, as laid down by the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, I regard with equal indifference either the censure of the Irish Members, or the censure of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: I am not, Sir, about to enter into any discussion with the noble Lord as to whether or not the abstract doctrine which he has laid down to-night is deserving the sanction of the House. I shall only refer to the personal matter which he has introduced. He has said—and said in a tone which I must regret, as it seemed to me to be a very bitter tone—that in the course of the debate I had spoken without any mistake as to whom I was referring, and that I had called the noble Lord "half a traitor." Now, I really do not know why the noble Lord should have applied my words to himself. I am in the recollection of the House when I state that I referred to no one in the course of what I said; I endeavoured to remove what I addressed to the House as far as I could from the atmosphere of any personal attack or animadversion; and I assure the noble Lord—and I ask him to accept the assurance—that when I

    1549
    was speaking the noble Lord was not in my mind. I can state to the noble Lord that when I so spoke I had not read the letter of the noble Lord. It was brought to my attention afterwards. I had not found time to read it, or many other things in the newspapers; and if I had intended to attack the noble Lord I would certainly have given him personal notice of it previously. He is aware that I made no such communication to him; and I say in his presence that I was not referring to him. The noble Lord says that I quoted his words. Will he say what words of his I quoted? For I did not know what his words were on Thursday, and I could not have quoted them. Having given the noble Lord that assurance, I wish to state to the House now that I have not one word to withdraw. I am anxious that the Loyalists of Ulster should fight their battle, but that they should fight it within this House, and by Constitutional methods, and I thought that I was strengthening them by pointing out that those loyal men who wished strongly to protest against the proposed legislation would fight better, and would have more allies, if dangerous language were not used so as to weaken their cause, and if they would confine themselves within the bounds of Constitutional discussion. I will not follow the noble Lord in his remarks. I am afraid that what I am about to say is somewhat opposed to what he has said; but I believe there could be no greater calamity to this country than if we were to see men fighting—I say nothing about the question of the Divine right of Kings or of Parliaments—but to see them fighting against the Throne, and fighting, as at last they might have to do, against the troops of the Queen, of whom they are, as I believe, most loyal subjects. I would say, without wishing to offend the noble Lord personally—that I would do a great deal to prevent the possibility of such a lamentable state of things occurring. I confess that I cannot agree in what I have just heard fall from the noble Lord; but I pass away from the subject, remarking that it is a most dangerous discussion. The words which the noble Lord used may be misunderstood; and I would venture to suggest to him that if he would throw his great abilities, his great energy, and his great influence into the struggle on behalf of
    1550
    the Ulstermen by endeavouring to protect them by Constitutional means, instead of using language of a doubtful character which may be misconstrued, he will act, as I am sure he desires to act, as a loyal supporter of order.
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has misunderstood me. What I referred to was action after all Constitutional means had been exhausted.
    SIR HENRY JAMES: I was only indicating the difficulties that might arise if some men should draw the inference that the time has come when Constitutional means are exhausted, and others should draw a different inference. But my object is not to enter into the controversy. I hope I have satisfied the noble Lord that I intended no personal attack upon him; but, at the same time, I do not withdraw anything that I said the other night, having then said only what I believed it to be my duty to say.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he had strenuously supported the renewal of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881, because he regarded it as necessary to good government, peace, and order. From that position he did not flinch. It was important, however, that the House should understand what the Government meant by coercion. He had understood that the programme, the leading principle of the Liberal Party and of the present Ministry, in dealing with Ireland, was that under no circumstances whatever would they ever have anything to do with repressive legislation or coercion; but the Bill did not bear out that idea. That night they had a Coercion Bill put down as the first Order of the Day, and the second Order was what was intended as a measure of conciliation. They had heard much of "judicious mixtures" with regard to Irish legislation; but the Government now proposed an injudicious mixture of coercion and conciliation. From what had passed that evening it was clear that an agreement had been arrived at between the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) and the Government, on the one hand, that the Bill should be allowed to pass, and, on the other, that the obnoxious Sub-section 4, in Clause 2, should be struck out, although he (Mr. Lewis) admitted that he added the words "and elsewhere." Why did the Chief Secretary name the North of Ireland

    1551
    at all for? Why need he have named Ulster, except the Act was to be used for the purpose of oppressing them? The right hon. Gentleman had not explained the pertinence of his reference to the North of Ireland. The facts were that the Act had hitherto been used in parts of Ireland where different creeds and different politics were not mingled; and they were justified, therefore, in viewing with some amount of suspicion the peculiar way in which the Act was to be amended in order to meet the views of the hon. Member for Cork, and in order to use it for the purpose of oppressing the Orangemen and Protestants in the North of Ireland, who had hitherto been free from the restrictions of the Bill, which had only applied to the disloyal portion of the community. When the present Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced this Bill in 1881 he observed, referring to language which had been used by the chief lieutenant of the hon. Member for Cork—
    "To-morrow every subject of the Queen will know that the doctrine so expounded is the doctrine of treason and of assassination."—(3 Hansard, [259] 160.)
    That was the reply which the right hon. Gentleman then made, in the presence of the whole House, to the observation of the chief lieutenant of the hon. Member for Cork that—
    "It was lawful for the tenant to shoot his landlord if he would not reduce his rent."
    Forsooth, it laid in the mouth of the hon. Member for Cork to make charges against the Orange and loyal portion of the community of Ireland as he had that night. He could not but wonder at the intrepidity, not to say the audacity, of the hon. Member. The hon. Member had declared that Orangemen were very willing to assassinate, or to attempt to assassinate, those who differed from their political opinions—that they were accustomed to the pastime of murder and attempting to murder, and that murders and assassinations might be expected from the Orangemen at the next General Election. Hon. Members, however, would recollect the old fable of the wolf and the lamb; and he left it to the House to ascertain from the history of the last five or six years which Party in Ireland was most likely to play the part of the wolf and which that of the lamb. In which parts of Ireland had murders and assassinations been
    1552
    most rife and most vigorously defended? Had they been perpetrated by the loyal and Protestant inhabitants of the North of Ireland, or by the wicked emissaries of the National League, under the immediate superintendence, protection, and assent of the hon. Member for Cork? ["Order!"]
    MR. SPEAKER: The language which the hon. Member has used is not Parliamentary. He has said that murder and assassination were done under the immediate superintendence, sanction, and direction of the hon. Member for Cork. That is not according to the Rules of the House, and I call on the hon. Member to withdraw.
    MR. LEWISsaid, he would withdraw the observation; but in extenuation of it he must remind the House that he was answering a charge which had been brought by the hon. Member for Cork against the Orangemen and Protestants of Ulster that they were willing and accustomed to assassinate.
    MR. PARNELL: I said nothing about Protestants.
    MR. LEWISsaid, they were arrived at this point—the Government on the one hand, and the hon. Member for Cork on the other, were content to have a measure of coercive and repressive legislation for Ireland. The Government had been very backward in coming forward with the Act. They now proposed that it should be continued for two years. He (Mr. Lewis) protested against that mode of dealing with the law for Ireland. They had better pass a general Act, and repeal it when it was no longer required. The position of the Government was one of absolute inconsistency, for in proposing this measure of coercion they cut right at the root and principle of the other measure for Ireland that was before the House.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that some of the explanations made to the House, so far as some Members were concerned, were hardly necessary. The quasi-apology of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) to the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) was scarcely required. He thought that those Gentlemen might have allowed matters to remain as they were, and let everybody draw his own conclusions. When he heard the speech

    1553
    of the noble Lord in regard to the remarks of the right hon. and learned Member for Bury about "half a traitor," he was reminded of the term once applied by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Sir Robert Peel) to an hon. Member, whom he called "a mannikin traitor." If the right hon. and learned Gentleman had used that phrase, he would, perhaps, have been nearer the mark. Now, it appeared to him that the noble Lord was under some necessity of giving a long explanation to the House of the Constitutionalism of his views. If he had been so long-winded, if he had been obliged to give at such length his meaning to the Orangemen in the Ulster Hall, Belfast, he was afraid that the Orangemen of Belfast would have been rather dissatisfied with their champion. There were, no doubt, some other Gentlemen who would have been obliged to explain their language, were it not that the noble Lord and his Friends had seen the necessity for putting a certain amount of bridle rein upon hon. Gentlemen from Ulster sitting beside him. They had noticed a very considerable change of tone in the speeches of those Gentlemen of late. Complaints had been made of the change of tone of the Irish Party; but what was much more remarkable was the silence of hon. Members from the Orange Lodges in Ulster. The noble Lord did not consider that the speeches which they would make to the House would be very effective at present. They had not been so moderate elsewhere in their language. Those hon. Gentlemen were now "cooing like sucking doves" in the House, and stating that they did not mean what they had previously said at all. Perhaps that was done with a view to an early appearance at the polls. They were lambs in fact, for the hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis) had said that "it is the case of the wolf and the lamb," he being, of course, one of the lambs. He would ask the attention of the House to some of the speeches of the hon. and gallant Gentleman below the Gangway who now tried to explain the statement—that they intended to resort to arms. The noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) thought it now necessary to make an apology for his Belfast speech——
    LORD RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No; I made no apology.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he would say that the noble Lord had found it necessary to make not an "apology," but an "explanation." He would quote from a speech by the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh (Major Saunderson) made at Portadown, which was reported in The Lurgan News of February 27 last, which would, perhaps, be interesting to the noble Lord. He said at the beginning of his speech—
    "When I was at Chester and attended the meeting, I looked around and saw that when reference was made to Lord Salisbury half the audience cheered, and whenever Mr. Gladstone was mentioned the other half cheered. By these means I found the audience was pretty evenly divided, and I spoke accordingly."
    So he (Mr. T. M. Healy) presumed that these Gentlemen found that, opinion in the House being pretty equally divided on certain questions, it was necessary for them to arrange their language accordingly. In a further part of his speech he said—
    "Before I sit down I wish to say that this English meeting, composed of Liberals and Conservatives, went their way with great enthusiasm. When I said that before we allowed Gladstone and his Party to hand us over to Parnell and his gang we were resolved to resort to arms."
    The hon. and gallant Gentleman was further on reported to have said—
    "I was speaking to Lord Randolph Churchill."
    What would the right hon. and learned Member for Bury, who spoke of "half traitors," say to this?
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I must call the attention of the hon. and learned Member to the fact that these remarks bear very remotely upon the Arms (Ireland) Bill.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he, of course, bowed to the ruling of the Chair; but he thought that as the noble Lord had been allowed to refer at great length to the Aston riots, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) might have referred——
    MR. SPEAKER: Order, order! I allowed the noble Lord a certain latitude because the noble Lord was meeting a charge made against him. The matter is for the judgment of the House; but I put it to the House whether there should be a continuance of these personal recriminations?
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that the quotation was strictly in point, and had reference to arming, which this Bill was intended to prevent. The hon. and gallant

    1555
    Member, in the same speech, went on to say—
    "Speaking of Lord Randolph, he asked what force we could raise if it came to civil war?"
    That was strictly pertinent to the question.
    "I said—'Come over and see.' He came over, and goes back, knowing that Ulster is at least prepared to strike a blow for Ireland."
    [Opposition cheers.] He was quite satisfied if hon. Members were; but he should like to ask the Government whether an Act of this kind was sufficient to deal with the instructions issued to the Orangemen? The words of the instructions issued to the Orangemen made it clear, as he maintained, that the provisions of that Bill were not suitable to the North of Ireland, and required considerable amendment. The hon. Member for Derry (Mr. Lewis) thought that he and his Party were "lambs," and that this Act was necessary in Ireland, but not for the Orange Society. The Irish Party were accused of speaking recklessly; but he would defy anybody to quote from the speeches of Nationalists on many platforms, and in the many Proclamations which were signed on behalf of the National Leagne, passages which were at all comparable with the Proclamations issued by hon. Members above the Gangway, and he asked what steps the Government proposed to take to put them down? A great many foolish things might be said in the heat of the moment; but these Proclamations were deliberately written, and issued by the heads of the Orange Party, and he wanted to know what protection from them the people of Ireland were to get by the Bill? To give an idea of the state of things that prevailed in Ulster, he might say that, at a meeting reported by The Daily Express, Lord Rossmore said that the soldiers and police were the friends of the Orangemen. A voice in the crowd said that there were 400 Orangemen in one regiment—a statement which was received with cheers. They were further told that—
    "At this point shots were fired, and immediately hundreds of revolvers were produced, and it was no exaggeration to say that for fully ten minutes a steady fusilade was maintained."
    There were several shots fired off in his (Mr. T. M. Healy's) hearing. These
    1556
    "law-abiding lambs" of the hon. Member for Derry were badly in want of a shepherd. Cries were freely uttered of "Shoot Biggar and Healy," although in the South it was regarded as a terrible thing for there to be a cry of "Shoot the landlords." At a meeting at which the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh was present, the Orangemen were told to be ready with their "sweethearts," meaning revolvers, and plenty of "stuff," by which ammunition was intended. In a Proclamation issued by the Deputy Grand Master of Armagh, it was said that the meeting was to be "of a semi-religious kind"—that meant that weapons were to be concealed. It was also said that the Grand Master was anxious to give no offence to their opponents, and Orangemen were to observe the sanctity of the Sabbath. The Proclamation went on to say that Orangemen were to do their utmost to keep together, and that no man was to wander from his friends—that they were to bring colours, and, if possible, a copy of Sankey's Hymns. The meaning of Sankey's Hymns was well understood in Ireland, and among the Orange Body. It was well understood by the "lambs." He need scarcely say that it meant revolvers.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: I never heard the expression before.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that if the hon. and gallant Member did not know it he must be badly acquainted with the vocabulary of the Orange Lodges.
    MR. JOHNSTON: I most emphatically deny the meaning placed on the words by the hon. and learned Member.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he was glad that, even at the eleventh hour, the Orange Party saw the necessity of denying the real meaning of these Proclamations. He maintained, however, that the language used was understood by the brethren in the way he had indicated. Why should Sankey's Hymns be brought to a political meeting? There was, however, another phrase which he hoped the hon. Gentleman would explain—the recommendation to the Orangemen to bring to the meetings "their sweethearts and plenty of stuff." Did the Orange Order issue a special dictionary to read these expressions by, or had they a special glossary of slang? The point was—How were these words understood in Ireland, and by the Orangemen? Obviously "sweethearts"

    1557
    meant rifles, and "plenty of stuff" ammunition. It would also be difficult to explain how it was that after some of the meetings "sackfuls of revolvers" were found by the police. He would take another speech of the hon. and gallant Member for North Armagh, which he would quote from the ever-faithful Daily Express of the 11th of January, 1884. In that speech it was stated that unless the Nationalists, who were spoken of as having devoted their lives and talents to undermining the authority of the Crown, had not been protected during a visit to Ulster by soldiers and police they would have left it in a different state to that in which they entered it.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Hear, hear!
    MR. T. M. HEALY: "Hear, hear!" If the hon. and gallant Member was satisfied, so was he; but if that was the spirit in which hon. and gallant Gentlemen, magistrates and Deputy Lieutenants, acted, they ought not to be placed in the position of issuing orders under this Act. The granting of licences for arms was, in the North of Ireland, to a great extent in the hands of Orange magistrates. He should like to know how many licences for "sweethearts" the hon. and gallant Member for North Down had granted?
    COLONEL WARING: None at all.
    MAJOR SAUNDERSON: Nor I.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that, no doubt, was due to the fact, which he had forgotten, that the district in which those hon. and gallant Gentlemen lived had not been proclaimed; and the people did not, therefore, require licences to carry arms. The most inflammatory language had been used by Orange magistrates, and men such as the son of the late Duke of Abercorn, and the brother of a Cabinet Minister. In 1883, when the Parnellites were addressing meetings in Ulster, Lord Claud Hamilton, in a speech, said that if the Government did not prevent Ulster being invaded by a horde of ruffians (the Parnellites) they would take the law into their own hands. That was the language which the noble Lord was not ashamed to use in Derry; but, notwithstanding all the noble Lord's opposition and his brave words, he (Mr. T. M. Healy) now represented Derry County in that House. The Nationalists had made their raid into the county, and they had only been beaten in the city where the noble Lord delivered his
    1558
    speech by 29 votes, 20 of them having been given by soldiers. What he wished to impress upon the House was this—that they were not afraid that the incitements of the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) would lead to civil war—they were all a sham; they had heard them all before. They only feared that individual murders and outrages would be the result of them. He challenged any person to produce from the speeches of the Irish Members any language equalling in violence the language now used by persons in high positions. It was in consequence of language such as that that they had Philip Maguire murdered after the Monaghan Election, and a priest shot at some time ago by certain gentlemen under the pretence that they were shooting at a target. But he would remind the noble Lord (Lord Randolph Churchill) that it was not Orangemen alone who read this language. It was read also by Fenians and Extremists. The noble Lord's language with regard to Ulster might well be seized by the Fenians, and who, adopting the noble Lord's argument, might say—"The Irish Parliament was taken away by bribery and corruption; the Act of Union never had any moral sanction; and armed resistance to it was merely a question of expediency." The noble Lord had, by such words, lighted a fire which, if it were not for the appeasing measure of the Prime Minister, might very easily be kindled into a big conflagration, which would astonish the noble Lord. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham also wrote a letter—and written words had always more seriousness attached to them than spoken words—which was as strong a Proclamation as to the rights of resistance as anything that Emmett could have issued. He wrote—
    "The fate of this Province is in the hands of its own people, and if they are really in earnest"
    —how well chosen, but how barbed, every one of those words was—
    "in refusing to intrust their liberties and fortunes to the control of a Central Parliament in Dublin it is not likely that their fellow-subjects in England and Scotland will suffer them to be coerced into submission."
    But let that language be translated into the Fenian dialect, omit Ulster and substitute Ireland, and in the place of

    1559
    Orangemen put in Nationalists, and the argument would run—
    "The fate of this nation is in the hands of its own people, and if they are really in earnest in refusing to intrust their liberties and fortunes to the control of a Central Parliament in London, it is not likely that their fellow-countrymen in America will suffer them to be coerced."
    Declarations such as that, though they certainly would not lead to civil war, would certainly lead to outrage. When they were told that "crime dogged the steps of the Land League," he answered that crime would dog the steps of the noble Lord and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. J. Chamberlain); and he challenged either of them, in the very worst of the Land League speeches they considered to have been delivered, to find any declarations more directly leading to bloodshed and incendiarism than speeches and declarations such as those they had just listened to. The Arms Act, as it was drawn, was not calculated to put down that mischief. The Lord Lieutenant had power to proclaim any portion of the country which he considered necessary, and yet he had not proclaimed Down, Antrim, or Deny; and although every other port in Ireland was proclaimed Belfast and Derry were not.
    MR. JOHN MORLEYsaid, the importation of arms into Belfast was now only permitted under the terms of the Lord Lieutenant's recent Proclamation.
    MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the number of convictions in proclaimed districts in the year 1883 was only 73 throughout Ireland, and yet it had been asserted that sacks full of revolvers had been seized. Hon. Members were acquainted with the case of John M'Carthy, of Loughrea, in whose house the rusty half of a Queen Anne pistol was found. M'Carthy was had up before two magistrates, who gave him three months' hard labour. That occurred immediately after the passing of the Act in 1881. No doubt he would be told, by way of explanation, that M'Carthy was a suspect. The Act was practically allowed in the North of Ireland to be a dead letter. The law, to be of use, ought not to be an Act which required to be enforced by the Lord Lieutenant; but an Act applying to the whole of Ireland, without invidious distinction of counties. The effects of the present state of the law were mainly perceptible during harvest
    1560
    time in the South of Ireland. In one field last year you absolutely could not see the ground for the crows and rooks. He stated that positively. There were tens of thousands of rooks gathered on the unfortunate farmers' corn-fields. Such was the effect of the law in the South of Ireland, while Gentlemen who used language like that of the noble Lord and the hon. Member for North Armagh could get what licences they wanted. The Act was vicious in principle. It let the big fish escape through the net, and did not mesh the real criminals. He invited the Government to consider whether the measure, as at present framed, was one tending for the wished-for ends, or whether some important improvements upon it could not be made? As far as the three Southern Provinces of Ireland were concerned, such was the feeling of pacification and appeasement brought about by the measure of the Prime Minister, and such was the feeling of sincere friendship and desire to bring about a better state of things, that this Bill would affect them very slightly indeed; and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would live to see the day when, under the operation of his beneficent measure, no other Arms Act would be required for Ireland.
    MR. BRADLAUGHsaid, that the remarks of the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) in relation to this Bill were of so grave a nature that he could not pass them by without notice. He understood the noble Lord to say that he only advised resort to arms in Ulster when all Constitutional means had failed; and that was said, not in heat and excitement, but in calm explanation to the right hon. and learned Member for Bury (Sir Henry James) as a sufficient justification of language used in Belfast. He took leave to say that no doctrine more dangerous, no doctrine more intentionally treasonable, could possibly be preached, and he regretted that the noble Lord was not now in his place. It was a threat intended to influence the decision of that House. Why that threat? Did the noble Lord, and those with whom he worked, feel that the measure submitted to the Legislature was a measure which would command the assent of both Houses of Parliament and which would also receive the Royal Assent? If the noble Lord did not think so there

    1561
    would be no necessity for such a threat at all. The noble Lord was one of the Leaders of a great Party; he had been recently one of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State; he was "by Her Majesty's grace, one of her own Privy Council;" and yet, anticipating the time when Her Majesty should give her Royal Assent to a measure passed by the House of Commons and endorsed by the House of Lords, the noble Lord prepared for a contingency from which any lover of the State must shrink in any event, and encouraged people to adopt the notion that when petition had ceased, when speech in Parliament had ceased, when every Constitutional method was exhausted, civil war was the fitting answer to what had then become the law of the land. If the noble Lord did not mean that, all the greater the crime of his language. If he did mean it, of what use was it to proceed with Parliamentary discussion at all? But he would pass from criticism of the statesman—and that was not passing from much—to add a few words on the immorality of this incitement to, of the threats of, use of arms. Might men without the noble Lord's position make such threats? Might some demagogue who thought he had some grievance with Parliament resort to the use of such language, or was that privilege left to the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington? Was the noble Lord's threat what the French called mere blague? Was it a dangerous incitement to violence, intended to rouse the worst passions? Was it the voice of despair of men who had no reasonable answer to a measure of justice, and who tried to provoke violence? He regretted that the noble Lord was not in his place, for he would like to appeal from Philip after dinner to Philip earlier in the day. He had a few years ago heard—under circumstances which only enabled him to listen—the noble Lord denounce one who had peacefully assembled large bodies of men in provincial towns and in that city in order to formulate resolutions on a question then before Parliament, as seeking by force to overawe the House, and as in this guilty of conduct destitute of any excuse. And yet now to influence the decision of Parliament the noble Lord used words of incitement to civil war. If those words were used, and if blood were shed, on whose head would be the crime? He
    1562
    could understand that men who had not the advantage of listening to debates in that House might take the noble Lord's words au pied de la lettre, and might deem it their duty to fight for their Queen and their country by taking up arms against their Queen and their country, against the Parliament of England, and against its Statutes. If language had not lost its meaning, no more terrible doctrine had ever been preached than that of the noble Lord, when he said that he had only meant that the sword was to be drawn when petition had proved ineffectual, when speech in both Houses failed—when the Bill had received the assent of Parliament and the Queen. He failed to see that any words could more strongly condemn the noble Lord than those uttered in the House that evening.
    MAJOR GENERAL GOLDSWORTHYsaid, that he was in a dilemma as to what vote he ought to give on that occasion. He was generally desirous of supporting the Government of the day in any measure stated to be necessary for the safety of the country or the due canning on of Government; but, from many of the speeches which had recently been made in that House and "elsewhere," he had no confidence in the present Government, and had doubts as to how the law would be administered. The people of the North of Ireland were strongly opposed to civil war, and so was he; and he blamed anyone who incited to civil war; but he believed it was absolutely necessary that people who perhaps were, in a measure, withdrawn from the protection of law should be able to protect themselves. At the present moment there was a dread—and he believed a just dread—that the Loyalists of Ireland, in certain eventualities, might not be protected by law. In the South of Ireland he knew the people went about armed, and he had that day received a letter from a lady telling him that she was obliged to keep loaded firearms. The country should not be in such a state, and it was a disgrace to the nation. He wished for an impartial administration of the law, and for all people to be protected who had a right to be protected.
    MR. O'KELLYsaid, he thought that if it was desirable that a law of this kind should come into force

    1563
    in the existing condition of Ireland, it should be a law that promised to be both just and effectual, and applicable to the whole country. The working of the existing law had been such as to encourage violence from that part of the population, from whom they now feared disorder. The Orange Party in Ulster had been allowed to supply themselves with arms, and it was notorious that arms were now being supplied to them all through Ireland, especially in Ulster, while the National Party were deprived of their means of defence, and thus subjected to danger. That was why the Orange Party were anxious that the Bill should pass. The class of arms distributed was not that which would be used in warfare, but for murder. In Ulster those arms were for the purpose of intimidating the Nationalists. The change of front amongst the Ulstermen was very instructive. The Orangemen found that as they had friends among the magistracy they would not be disarmed, while the police would be employed to disarm the Nationalists. He admitted that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had introduced the Bill with good intentions; but had they any security that it would be locally carried out in the same spirit as that which animated the right hon. Gentleman? No; they had no guarantee that the law would be equally applied. If they wanted disarmament, disarm universally. Do not let them disarm parts only of Ireland, but let them apply it to Ulster as well. They only knew Orangemen in that House from their loyalist declarations; but in Ireland it was known that the Orange Society began in murder and continued in murder. They, therefore, objected to the power of giving or denying arms being placed in the hands of the unpaid magistracy. Who were these men? The landlords, and the Orange landlords, who armed their own satellites, and left the others unprotected—men who were interested in the maintenance of every abuse, both Governmental and social, in Ireland. Such powers should only be in the hands of a paid magistracy. What was wanted was that the law should be applied universally in Ireland. Unless the strongest measures were taken there would be bloodshed in Ulster. He himself had been fired at in Ulster. If a landlord had been fired at
    1564
    there would have been a great noise made; but it was otherwise with an Irish Member of Parliament. He objected to men being allowed to incite to murder. Why should not the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) and the right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) be prosecuted for inciting to murder?—for, unless Government took the strongest measures to preserve order, before the end of the year blood would be upon the heads of those right hon. Gentlemen.
    THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE): I have, unfortunately, been absent from my seat during a portion of this discussion, and I will not now refer to that portion with which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down has dealt. All I would say with regard to that is, first, to give my assent to the principle that a law of this kind ought to be applied with the strictest impartiality. I think you will excuse me from endeavouring, at the present moment, to develop my meaning in the use of that language. It will be for a future stage, as far as the Government are concerned, or for opportunities when my right hon. Friend near me may find it necessary to go more largely into it, and to describe the particular steps which, under this Bill, the Government will find it their duty to take. I intend to advert to that portion of the evening's discussion which was touched in a speech of great force by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh). I regret extremely that I did not hear the declarations made to-night by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). But although I have not heard those declarations I have not only collected their effect, but I am distinctly cognizant of the language used by the noble Lord on recent occasions in speech and writings, and I understand it to be beyond doubt that the purpose of his address to-night was to justify that language. I believe that the use of such language by the noble Lord, added to the language which has been used by several Irish Members giving themselves the designation of Loyalists, must constitute a very singular event, most unusual in our proceedings and our history, and apparently calling for some distinct and specific notice from those

    1565
    who are intrusted with the charge of the Government of the country. I wish to explain very briefly to the House why I have distinctly and carefully avoided taking serious notice of any of these declarations. It is not because I undervalue the doctrine taught, as I understand, by the noble Lord. I will refer now, not to Ulster Members, one of whom to-night has, I believe, made some well-intentioned attempts to extenuate a portion of what he had previously said elsewhere—I refer to what has been distinctly taught by the noble Lord, a late Secretary of State, a Privy Councillor, one bound to advise the Crown when called upon to do so, a Representative of law, and charged with a special responsibility with respect to everything that touches public order and the obligations of obedience. The doctrine of the noble Lord, if I understand him—and I shall not use a single epithet if I can avoid it in the little I have to say—is distinctly and unequivocally this—a portion of the people find themselves in circumstances when a law to which they entertain strong and vehement objection, considering it unjust and oppressive, is under the consideration of Parliament. We are told that in these circumstances the duty of these persons is this. First of all, they are to exhaust Constitutional methods of opposition—that is, they are to make their sentiments known through their Representatives, through Petitions, through public meetings, and the various means that are afforded to all subjects of the Queen for unfolding in the fullest way their sentiments with regard to the intended and meditated law. But when these Constitutional means have been exhausted, then this portion of the people—so we are told by the ex-Minister of the Crown, the ex-Secretary of State, the Privy Councillor of to-day—with his approval and support, are to resort to armed resistance to the law. I am glad the senior Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Plunket) has come into his place, because he will hear the description which I am endeavouring to give—to give without epithet, without heightening the colour—of the opinions which it appears to me beyond dispute are promulgated by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington. Ulster was the portion of the people to which the noble Lord referred.
    1566
    But if his doctrine is true of Ulster, it is equally true of Leinster, Munster, and Connaught—that after Constitutional means are exhausted, then arrives the period when some portion of the people, believing itself to be aggrieved by a law that the Legislature has adopted, may resort, and should resort, and should be countenanced in resorting, to the use of physical force for the purpose of resistance to the law. This reminds me, Sir, of a scene truly historic—one of the most remarkable among the many remarkable scenes which I ever witnessed in this House. It is, I think, about 35 years ago when the occasion to which I refer happened within the walls of the Commons House of Parliament, but before we had been domiciled in this great building, and when we were in what was considered a temporary House after the fire in 1834. Mr. Smith O'Brien on that occasion rose in his place; he set forth, if my memory serves me rightly, the position in which, as an Irishman, he stood. In his view all Constitutional means had been exhausted. It was a short time after the termination of Mr. O'Connell's career, and what was called justice to Ireland in the language of those days had been sought, but had not, in the view of these gentlemen, been obtained. Mr. Smith O'Brien set forth to the House of Commons in the plainest language his intention of quitting the House to repair to his country and to levy war upon the Queen by the use of every means that he could put into action. The House of Commons listened in absolute silence, with very strong but perfectly restrained feelings, to this extraordinary declaration. I will not refer to what followed. Everyone knows what was the sequel. But I want now to compare the position of Mr. Smith O'Brien with the position of the noble Lord. I really know no other parallel with the position of the noble Lord. The noble Lord does not say that Constitutional means have been exhausted. In that respect he differs from Mr. Smith O'Brien. But he agrees with Mr. Smith O'Brien in that which is really material—namely, that when the means furnished by the Constitution have been exhausted by any portion of the people disapproving any particular law, that portion of the people may take the law into their own hands and offer to it armed resistance. The other great

    1567
    and glaring difference besides the difference I have pointed out is this. Mr. O'Brien was a Representative of the people, but had never been an Adviser of the Queen or a Minister of the Crown; though he had upon him the obligations of a loyal subject, against which, in my opinion, he grievously transgressed, he had not upon him the special obligation which attaches to every Privy Councillor and to everyone who has had the honour of serving the Queen in a responsible position. Well, Sir, this is an extremely grave series of facts. We have the speech made in Ulster, and that speech followed by a written exposition and a written commentary, and we have to-night, as I understand—and I believe there is no question about the fact, which I am as far as possible from wishing to exaggerate—we have laid down the doctrine to which I referred, and which I will not characterize by epithets to the House. I merely state that such occurrences as these are occurrences of the utmost gravity. It may be asked why has not the Government of the day taken notice of these circumstances in debate? Why have I waited until the direct challenge of the noble Lord himself in this House, until the notice taken of these circumstances by independent Members, has, I may say, compelled something to be said from this Bench? Now, Sir, I will give such justification as I can for the silence, which I fully admit requires some justification. The reasons which have decided me to avoid all notice of these grave and painful circumstances have been these. In the first place, I well know the strength of the law, and the strength of the love of law, and the determination to maintain it in this country, to be such that no rash or culpable assault upon it, come it from whom it may, however lofty be his position, be the responsibility however great, can, in truth, do anything to weaken the foundations of public and national obedience. If we were a weaker country with less solid institutions, such occurrences as these would, in my opinion, have called for severe as well as for immediate notice. Another reason, I must say, which has encouraged me in this policy of abstention has been the fact that the language of the noble Lord has received no extenuation or apology from any of those who sit near him in the
    1568
    House and who have been associated with him in Office. That is a circumstance which fills me with gratification, and I will take the opportunity of saying that I am convinced, as regards those whom I now see opposite, that an overwhelming majority of the Gentlemen who occupy those Benches opposite I am perfectly convinced—while I appreciate the delicacy of the position in which they stand towards a late Colleague, and can therefore understand their silence—that, the case arising, they would give proof that their sentiments with regard to any tampering, in whatever form, with the principles of loyal obedience are precisely the same as those which prevail on this side of the House. A third reason that has governed my conduct, and as far as I have been able to make it a subject of communication I am speaking for my Colleagues, has been this—we have felt, with regard to the measures we have before the House touching the future conciliation of Ireland, that we were making large demands not only on the patience of the House, but large demands upon its generosity, upon its foresight, upon its sense of justice, and upon all those great qualities of statesmanship to which we look for the acceptance of our measures. That being so, it has been a prime duty on our part to avoid, in the discussion of those measures, the introduction of any subject likely to create angry controversy—a studious banishing, if it were possible, of whatever might stir passion, or whatever might give offence. For that reason I have felt it was right, and I think my Colleagues have felt it was right, that we should take no notice of circumstances which are undoubtedly to be considered in themselves as much marked by very great gravity of character as they are happily by the extreme rarity of their occurrence in the annals of this country. Sir, having given these reasons by way of justification for having waived what might appear to be some degree of duty imposed at all times upon persons who are responsible for exercising special watchfulness in regard to whatever touches the sanctity of the law and the undisputed prevalence of the principles of obedience, I will only say that I shall further adhere to that method of proceeding, unless an overruling necessity should compel me reluctantly to depart

    1569
    from it. I trust we may be spared that necessity. I believe if we came to debate any such question as that, and if we came to mix such debate with questions of passion and excitement—with questions above all things requiring the calmest and most deliberate statesmanship, then our best hopes of ministering to the future peace, prosperity, and union of this country will be seriously weakened. To avoid whatever might weaken and to pursue whatever course is best calculated to maintain them is the primary duty—incumbent, I think, on them at this moment—of the Ministers of the Crown.
    MR. PLUNKET: I should not have thought of taking part in this debate had it not been for the way in which the Prime Minister, on my entering the House almost accidentally in the middle of the hour ordinarily assigned to dinner, appealed to me personally. Of course, I cannot refuse to answer such an appeal; but before I say anything more I wish to state distinctly that the very few observations I shall make have been extorted from me, and have not been in any way volunteered. When I left the House a short time ago I was under the impression that you, Mr. Speaker, had laid it down from the Chair that this matter could not be gone into in a debate on the Arms Bill, and that you interrupted the speech of the hon. and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) on that ground. Therefore, when I came back and found the Prime Minister speaking, and speaking very gravely on this subject, I was amazed. I do not think I ought to say anything more on that subject. I do not know whether the Prime Minister was in the House when the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington was speaking. [Cries of "No, no!"] He was not in the House, and, not having been in the House, he has taken upon himself to read a lecture of the most serious kind upon the course which my noble Friend has pursued.
    MR. W. E. GLADSTONE: My "lecture" had reference to the speech of the noble Lord in Ulster, and to the letter written recently by the noble Lord; and as to the speech of to-night, I understand it did not involve any recession on the part of the noble Lord.
    MR. PLUNKET: I must say that I understood the right hon. Gentleman was replying to the speech made by my noble Friend in this debate. Had I thought otherwise, I should have felt it to be my duty to rise to Order. I must say, Mr. Speaker, subject to your correction, that a more irregular thing than to quote a speech on a totally different subject in a debate on the Arms Bill I never heard of. I have no right, Sir, to say more on that point. I can well understand that it may have been thought to be of advantage, in the political battle which is now going on, that such a scene as this should have taken place; but I will tell the right hon. Gentleman how this matter arose. The noble Lord did not volunteer the observations he made. He was directly challenged by the hon. Member for Cork. The right hon. Gentleman has expressed a hope that the Colleagues of the noble Lord would disclaim the observations he has made. He referred to the conduct of Mr. Smith O'Brien and to the celebrated doctrine as to the circumstances under which it is or is not unconstitutional and disloyal to appeal to the ultima ratio of civil war when, as he said, all other appeals have been exhausted. The noble Lord has never, as far as I can recollect his speeches, laid down any general principle of that kind at all. He has pointed to certain circumstances that might arise, and said that if the authority of this Parliament were transferred to another Assembly to which a certain portion of the Irish population would not willingly have their allegiance transferred, events might happen in the midst of what would be practically a great and far-reaching revolution, in which one part of the people of Ireland might unfortunately be placed in a position in which it would be necessary for them, in defence of their rights and liberties, to have recourse to force. For my part, I decline to follow either the noble Lord or the right hon. Gentleman into such speculations. I say there is nothing in the speeches of the noble Lord that I have read, as far as I can, at a moment's notice, recollect them, that I am prepared to recede from. But I must point out that it is very irregular for us to be challenged under these circumstances to give an abstract opinion on the most shifting and uncertain proposition that could be submitted

    1571
    to one's judgment. I do not wish in the least to dissever myself from my noble Friend in the action he has taken in this matter; but, as I have been challenged, I will just say this much in addition, that I trust the Arms Act may not in the future have to be put in force in Ulster any more than it has been in the past. It has not been put in force hitherto, because there has been no occasion for it. ["Oh, oh!"] Yes; I appeal to history. The Government of the right hon. Gentleman and other Liberal Governments have not been obliged to apply the provisions of the Arms Acts to Ulster, because the people in those districts are a law-abiding people. I believe it will not be more necessary to put it in force in the future than it has been in the past. Furthermore, I trust that the possible contingencies referred to by my noble Friend will never arise, because I cannot bring myself to believe, and I will not believe until facts establish what now seems to be an absolute impossibility, that the people of England and Scotland will consent to impose on the free and loyal inhabitants of Ulster a yoke which they think will be inconsistent with their liberties, their lives, and the safety of their property. I believe that when an appeal is made to the country the answer of England and Scotland will be that they will stand by their loyal fellow-subjects in Ulster.
    MR. HASLETTsaid, he would not have trespassed on the time of the House had it not been for observations reflecting on the character of a Body of which he was not ashamed to avow himself a member. He was not aware there was anyting in the principles of Orangeism that any respectable man of the Protestant faith should in any way be ashamed of. Yet they had been charged with crime of the most odious character, though without any proof, save that one hon. Member asserted he had been fired at by Orangemen, but when and where did not transpire, nor where he had made application to have justice done. Upon such bare statement were founded charges against an Association numbering many thousands of respectable, hard-working, and earnest men, whose character would be established by a reference to the records of crimes in Orange districts, which showed how small a proportion of indictable
    1572
    offences were committed by Orangemen. The Society had its origin in murder, it was said. Yes, the murder of Protestants at the Diamond, for whose protection the Society was originally instituted. A large series of extracts had been read setting forth what had been done by Orangemen; but what had been done by Nationalists? The hon. Member who had addressed the House from the Nationalist Benches had stated some time since—
    "What first induced Mr. Gladstone to give attention to the demands of Irishmen? And, as far as could be gathered, it was the outrages committed in the country; and they were, therefore, to understand that the British Parliament was absolutely deaf to argument, and that the beat speaking-trumpet to reach its deaf ear was the mouth of a blunderbuss."
    What could the people do after hearing that statement from one of their most respected Nationalist Leaders but take up the weapon pointed out to them to get redress for their supposed wrongs? If he did not wish to weary the House he could give quotation after quotation to show the system of loose speaking and outrageous advice to ignorant men which had been indulged in on both sides. He deprecated this in the strongest manner; for while he was not ashamed to own himself an Orangeman, he never uttered a word to counsel the humblest man in society to adopt other than peaceable and law-abiding demeanour, and he never allowed a word to escape from his lips advising the population to have recourse to arms except under circumstances absolutely desperate—in fact, desperate beyond anything he could conceive at present. He owed to his Sovereign loyal obedience to law and order, and he also owed it to his own higher sense of religion that which led him to deal out to his fellow-men all the liberty and all the protection he sought for himself. It had always been the practice in the town of Belfast, at any rate, for licences to carry arms to be granted by the Resident Magistrate. [An hon. MEMBER: No; two local magistrates.] It had been said that Act was not put in force in Down and Antrim, and yet that it had been put in force in other counties. In Kerry and Cork the number of serious crimes reported to the Judge of Assizes at last Assizes was 550; while, at the last Assizes for Down and Antrim, the serious crimes reported were 20 in Antrim and

    1573
    15 in Down. Looking at these figures, he thought the Government must exercise a very wise discretion as to the places in which they put this Act in force, and the places they did not think it necessary to proclaim at all. The Act was one capable of being made one-sided. It was, he admitted, capable of being made so. It was possible that a magistrate might recommend a party for a licence who was unworthy of confidence, and that under this recommendation, thus improperly given, that party might get the licence. That might be so. He did not, for his own part, know what other magistrates might do, but he (Mr. Haslett) never gave a recommendation to a man that he did not first inquire into his character or his religion. [An hon. MEMBER: Orangeman or not?] He inquired first into the man's character as a citizen, and unless he was satisfied as to his character on these points he did not give him a recommendation. Then, for his own part, he always and under all circumstances refused to give a certificate to a man who was under age or to a man who was of dangerous habits in society. He did not, in deciding whether he should give a recommendation, care at all whether a man was a Roman Catholic or was a Protestant. He did not care for that. If he found that a man was a good citizen, that he was a religious man, that he was a steady man, who was not likely to abuse the possession of arms, he would then give him a certificate; and he had great satisfaction in saying that, to the best of his belief, and according to all the information he had been able to acquire, he had never in a single instance had reason to regret that recommendation he had given a man for a licence to carry arms under this Bill. He would not detain the House by going further with this subject at that hour of the evening. He might, however, say that he intended to vote for the second reading of the Bill. He should take that course, although he thought that some of the provisions it contained might be susceptible of amendment. But, although he was about to take this course, he, for his own part, hoped that the day was not far distant when men of good sense and good bearing in society would not need to be restrained with respect to the possession of arms. He regretted, and he did not
    1574
    hesitate to say so, that decent men in a good position should have such difficulty in getting a licence to carry arms in the counties of Down and Antrim—arms which were never used for committing murder. They generally secured a game licence, and kept their muzzles a little lower or a little higher; but they had never been guilty of murder or shooting. He regretted deeply that in other districts it was not so, and that some parts of Ireland had been brought into disrepute by men—if they were men—by people almost below the dignity of being called men, but who, as a matter of fact, were mere machines excited to these acts by the unguarded expressions of those in whom they unfortunately trusted, and from whom they ought to have received better counsel.
    MR. W. O'BRIENsaid that they had nothing very particular to quarrel about in the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, and they would leave him to settle accounts with the hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. W. Johnston). He should like to ask the hon. Member, however, if he had forgotten that when an ex-Member of that House—a late Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. Dawson)—went down to Derry to deliver a lecture on the household franchise, he was fired at by an armed party of Orangemen occupying the City Hall? On that occasion a man's eye was shot out when he was standing within two yards of the Lord Mayor, and shot out, not by a Nationalist, but by one of the armed party who were holding the Corporation Hall, under the command and at the instigation of the noble Lord the Member for North Tyrone (Lord Ernest Hamilton). At the time of the last Election he had to encounter a ferocious Orange mob, who waylaid him and the hon. Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner), who was accompanying him, on leaving the polls. The mob numbered over 200 men. They lined a wall which he had to pass, and every man of them had his hand in his breast pocket, and he well remembered the police running after his car when he approached the mob, and crying out—"Look out, they are going to fire." The police rushed at the mob and collared a lot of the men. His hon. Friend happened to have a revolver which he manifested his perfect readiness to use if the worst came to the worst; and but for

    1575
    this he doubted very much whether he should be there in the House that night to tell the tale. It was all nonsense for Orange Members to pretend to have this virtuous indignation about facts which were as notorious as the daylight. Everybody knew that there was a large number of men at every Orange meeting in the North of Ireland who carried revolvers in their breast pockets, and who used those revolvers just as much as it was safe for them to use them without risking their necks. They generally drew the line at that. Some of his friends who attended the demonstrations at Rosslea and Dromore knew that at those demonstrations, while some were content to cheer the sentiments of the speakers, the Orangemen expressed their applause by rounds of revolver shots. With regard to the Bill before the House, he was sorry that they had had no indication of a desire on the part of the Government to close with the very moderate proposal of his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell). For his own part, he regretted that the Government could not see their way to discard this very hateful coercion system altogether. If the Chief Secretary for Ireland could have consulted his own feelings in the matter, he believed that he would have discarded it. It was really stupid and humiliating to deprive a whole people of firearms. It was just like the forbidden fruit—it only increased the desire. When he was a young fellow the attraction which such a Bill had for him was that a man might get two years' imprisonment if he were discovered breaking its provisions. There was an air of romance or adventure about the thing. If an Irishman had a weapon concealed about him, or under his thatch, he had very much the same sort of romantic and adventurous regard for it as the old Bonapartist in one of Béranger's famous poems had for the tattered old flag which he had under his mattress. The Chief Secretary was right when he said that outrages had not been and would not be prevented by the mere difficulty of obtaining arms. Each man who was disposed to commit an outrage would get arms to do so in spite of all their restrictions. All they did by such legislation was to wound the self-respect and manhood of the people and to deprive them of a right which other people in the world enjoyed. Its
    1576
    effect also was to disarm five-sixths of the Irish people and to arm one-sixth, and that was the reason why his hon. Friends were pressing the Government, if there was to be a disarmament, to make it a real and not a sham and one-sided one. He reminded the Government, however, that the damage which it was sought to repair by this Bill had, to a large extent, been already done. Arms were already in the hands of the rowdies of the country; and unless some measures were taken to revoke the licences of those persons they would continue to be armed to the teeth, being perfectly persuaded that they could commit any outrages with impunity, so far as the magistrates were concerned, and, indeed, so far, he was sorry to say, as the superior police officers in the North were concerned. The class of dependents and ne'er-do-wells who were possessed of revolvers had a conviction that even if they got into trouble with the police through riots they would be brought before a Bench of magistrates who were sworn Orangemen, and before men who were making speeches inciting them to the use of firearms. All that they asked was that the Government should not make this legislation one-sided in its character. The Nationalists wanted nothing but peace, and they approached the question in this spirit. He hoped that the Government would give some intimation that they considered that the request of the hon. Member for Cork was not an unreasonable one.
    LORD ERNEST HAMILTONsaid, he desired to make a few remarks on the last speaker's allusion to Derry. It was true when Mr. Dawson, a late Lord Mayor of Dublin, went to Derry for the purpose of sowing the seed of sedition, a purpose in which he was thankful to say he failed, he did not meet with the cordial reception which he expected. It was also true that revolver shots were fired, and a man's eye put out; but those shots were not fired by Orangemen, and therefore the statement which had been made was absolutely without foundation. There were, no doubt, Orange and Nationalist processions; and he was sorry to say that he was foolish enough to take part in an Orange procession. As it passed down the street he saw a man at a window fire a revolver at the procession. He left

    1577
    the House, therefore, to judge whether it was likely that an Orangeman would fire a revolver at his own procession. There was one significant fact in connection with these proceedings to which he should like to draw attention. An inquiry was instituted in Derry to ascertain the cause of the shots being fired. This inquiry lasted three days. The police and the Loyalists came up in large numbers to give evidence. He himself gave evidence; but from the beginning to the end of the inquiry not a single Nationalist was forthcoming. He left the House to judge of the facts as he had stated them.
    MR. DILLONsaid, there was good reason why no Nationalists appeared to give evidence before the Commission of Inquiry at Derry. It was because the investigation was ordered by the authorities of Dublin Castle. The Nationalists declared that they had no confidence whatever in the persons holding the inquiry, especially when the Government refused to give power to administer an oath which was demanded by the Nationalist Party. It was only an unsworn inquiry, composed of what the Nationalists considered to be gross partizans. Personally, he was strongly opposed to this Bill. As an Irish Nationalist Member he would never leave it on record, to be hurled as a reproach against him, that he concurred in, and voted for, a Bill to deprive his countrymen of the first right of all free men, the right to carry arms if they thought fit. He disbelieved in the efficacy of the Bill; and, though he admitted the opposition of the Irish Party to-day was different from that of the past, yet he thought he was justified in saying that he had no faith in Coercion Bills of any kind for the people of Ireland. He believed that the Chief Secretary (Mr. John Morley) was the first Minister holding Office who had made the declaration that for the purposes of crime, outrage, and assassination, Arms Acts were simply valueless in Ireland. The Irish Members had told the House the same thing for a long time; and the long experience they had obtained from the administration of 15 or 20 Arms Acts which had been passed and enforced in Ireland in almost unbroken continuity since the Union might have proved this fact to the House. At a time when Ireland was convulsed by
    1578
    outrages—from 1825 to 1835—Arms Acts of the most stringent kind were enforced; but they did not prevent the commission of agrarian crime. The man who wished to revenge himself for what he considered to be a wrong, or to commit any crime with firearms, would obtain those arms despite all their police detectives and Arms Acts. The only argument which could be used as a justification for this legislation was the preventing of men going about the country in open day and under the eyes of the police with arms in their hands. He had attended probably no less than 150 public meetings in Ireland, and he asked those who had watched the course of public meetings in Ireland, especially in the three Southern Provinces, if the people had been seen at those assemblies with firearms in their hands? At no National League meeting which he had attended, large and tumultuous as they were, had the police had occasion to take arms out of the hands of the people gathered there. But in the Northern Province, the so-called Loyalist Province, this particular offence was to be found there. In Ulster the Orangemen had continually come to meetings called for free discussion with arms in their hands, a proceeding which would not be tolerated in England. In the three Southern Provinces, where no such offence was committed, the Arms Act was enforced with the utmost rigour, whereas in Ulster, where it had been constantly violated, the Arms Act was not in force at all. As to the threats of civil war, he did not believe in the threats of the Orangemen. If a wall were drawn round Ulster to-morrow the Nationalists would be a good match for the Orangemen. He did not believe in these threats for another reason, and that was because the Orangemen who talked thus were but a very small minority of the Protestants of Ulster. If the Bill were passed at all, it should be made applicable to the whole country. He had been hunted by 200 men with arms in their hands through the streets of a town in the County Down, until he escaped by means of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He would vote against an Arms Act; but if the Government were determined to pass one, then let it be a real Arms Act—an Act to disarm every man in Ireland, not only the peasant, but the gentlemen; until they

    1579
    learned to talk and act like sensible men—so long as it might be necessary.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, he asked the indulgence of the House while he made some observations with regard to the Orange Institution, which had been seriously impeached by hon. Gentlemen sitting below the Gangway. The statements made by hon. Gentlemen in regard to the Orange Institution were of the most reckless and untruthful character. He had the honour of being the Grand Master of the Orange Institution of Belfast for a period of five years, and he had the honour at present of being Deputy Grand Master of the Orange Institution for Ireland. He had presided at meetings of the Orange Body, the largest meetings that had ever been held in Ireland, some of them attended by over 100,000 people. [Laughter from the Home Rulers.] Yes; attended by over 100,000 people, and he had never yet been present at an Orange meeting, or had taken part in an Orange procession, where the Orangemen were armed. He had never yet taken part in an armed Orange meeting, nor had he known members of the Orange Body march in procession when armed, and therefore he denied most emphatically the statements that had been made by hon. Members below the Gangway. A short time ago the hon. and learned Member for South Londonderry (Mr. T. M. Healy) interspersed some observations in the midst of a grave debate in relation to Imperial matters about "sweethearts," and the hon. and learned Member appeared to assume that, as the word was used on the platforms of Orange meetings, it was figurative in its character, and amounted to an instruction to the men assembled to come armed. The statement was purely visionary. In some parts of Ireland, where Protestants were in a minority, and being in a minority were exposed to outrage, it was necessary for the Protestants to arm themselves; it was necessary for the Protestants attending public meetings for loyal purposes, meetings at which the name of the Queen of these Realms was received with respect, and at which attachment to Imperial rule was expressed in no indefinite way, it was necessary for the Protestants in districts thickly populated with their opponents to carry arms for their own protection. It was not only once in the
    1580
    history of Ulster that a Sunday school going out in the summer weather for a holiday excursion had been attacked by men differing from them in religion with weapons and firearms—["Where, where?"]—and for these reasons, where Protestants were in a minority, he admitted that Protestants might carry arms. ["Where, where?"]
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, he hoped hon. Gentlemen would allow the hon. Member to proceed uninterruptedly with his speech.
    MR. DE COBAINsaid, he was much obliged to the Speaker for his intervention. He had often noticed that the surveillance which the Speaker exercised in the Chair was largely hampered by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway, and that, therefore, many hon. Members had to claim the Chair's protection from interruption. What he was about to observe was that where the Protestants were numerous—in Belfast and in those parts of Ulster which had been assailed by hon. Members below the Gangway—when Loyalists met together they did not do so armed. It was not necessary that they should. During the time he was Grand Master of Belfast, certain disturbances occurred in the town, which were referred to by the London papers as "Orange riots." Being then at the head of the Orange Institution in Belfast, he felt himself charged with a very weighty responsibility, and he felt it was his duty to inquire how far actual members of the Orange Institution had in any sense participated in the riots. During the lengthened investigation that occurred in the Police Court consequent upon these riots, there were just two instances in which actual members of the Orange Institution were impeached. In one of these instances a man who had mixed in the crowd did so for the purpose of rescuing an aged Roman Catholic woman who had been exposed to molestation; and in the other instance a man's house was entered by the police without a warrant, and he considered himself justified in resisting the encroachment. Hence his being brought before the authorities. These were the only two instances in the lengthened police investigation consequent upon the riots at Belfast in which members of the Orange Body were impeached. The debate this evening had drifted into so many subjects that it was

    1581
    very difficult to follow them all. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister appeared to consider that it was relevant to a discussion upon the renewal of the Arms Act to comment upon some political observations of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). If the right hon. Gentleman had only been in the House when the noble Lord justified his observations, and quoted his true precedents to warrant the use of those observations, it was possible the right hon. Gentleman would not have made the attack. At all events, the noble Lord was well able to defend himself against the attacks of the Prime Minister. An observation was made with regard to the investigations at Derry consequent upon the visit of Mr. O'Connor and the riots that ensued. An hon. Gentleman below the Gangway said the Nationalists did not appear to give evidence out of contempt for the authority by which that investigation was set on foot. But that authority was the present Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman was then in Office as he was now.
    MR. DILLON: What I stated was that the Nationalists refused to give evidence because it was not a sworn inquiry, and because we had no confidence in its impartiality.
    MR. DE COBAIN: Whatever the cause might have been, reference was made to the Executive, and that Executive was precisely similar to the present one, only he thought they had at that time a Chief Secretary who had a more general respect for the whole population of Ireland than the present holder of the Office. They had then to deal with Gentlemen who had not undergone a process of conversion, and who were animated by a spirit of confidence in the Protestant population. So far as the renewal of the Arms Act was concerned, he had no objection to the partial enforcement of the provisions of that Act. With regard to an observation, which appeared to him to be very irrelevant to the discussion before the House, as to what the Chief Secretary called "contingent sedition," and the attitude the loyal Irish population might adopt if the Bill of the Prime Minister became law, it was not for him (Mr. De Cobain) to say. He thought there was not the slightest probability of that
    1582
    Bill becoming law, and until its prospects assumed a different aspect from what they were at present, they would give no indication of the attitude that would be adopted; but when the time came the Loyalists would be able to protect their own interests and to defend their imperilled liberties and lives. (Ironical Irish cheers.) He was much obliged for those cheers. [An Irish MEMBER: Do not mention it.] It did not at all discompose him. What he was going to say was that no matter what policy might be adopted by that House, or any House of Commons, the Loyalists of Ireland would always be animated by a spirit of devoted and loyal submission to the reigning Monarch of these Realms.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMONDsaid, the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, being the Grand Master of an Orange Lodge, had indulged in a vein of lofty eloquence more befitting the "'prentice boys of Derry" than the arena of the House of Commons, and had sought to depict the Orange Societies as all that was pure and immaculate, and the Nationalists as all that was demoniacal and odious. The Prime Minister had borne up very well until that night; but after that dreadful and impressive pronouncement of the "Grand Master" of the Orange Lodge, no doubt the right hon. Gentleman would fall down defeated and abashed. The Representatives of the Ulster Orangemen always tried to make Englishmen and Scotchmen believe that "Orangeism" and "Protestantism" were absolutely synonymous terms in Ulster, and were really one and the same institution. Nothing more absurd, ridiculous, or untrue, and more grossly misleading could be imagined. There was as much difference between the honest and straightforward Protestantism of Ulster and rowdy corner-boy Orangeism as there was between the two sides of that House. It was ridiculous to say, as had been said, that the Orangemen had no arms. At Dromore the Orangemen assembled at the rate of 7s. 6d. a-day, and the late Chief Secretary for Ireland (Mr. Trevelyan) stated that sackfuls of revolvers were taken from them. Was it not, therefore, indecent, dishonest, and hypocritical for an hon. Member to sneer down, and with smooth-faced coolness—
    MR. SPEAKER: The words "dishonest and hypocritical" are not in-Order as applied to an hon. Member.
    MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I will withdraw the words "dishonest and hypocritical;" but at least it was indecent—very indecent—for an hon. Member to come down and tell the House that the Orangemen did not carry arms. None of the Nationalists wished to see Protestants any more than Catholics deprived of the proper use of arms; but they asked that if an Arms Act was passed it should be employed to prevent the reckless members of Orange Lodges from coming into the possession of revolvers. The last speaker said he had never known an Orange procession that was armed, and he had likened those demonstrations to the processions of school children; but how then came it that when the noble Lord the late Conservative Leader in that House went to Belfast and led the way to the subsequent mission of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) he told an Orange gathering that he addressed there to be sure not to fire off their rifles in the gaiety of their hearts. The noble Lord, knowing how undesirable and dangerous violence of any kind would be, advised the Ulster Orangemen, in a spirit very different from that of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, not to fire off their rifles. He would ask, if the Bill were again passed, that it should be administered fairly. The result of its recent adminstration, which was anything but fair, was that the Ulster Orangemen were the only people in Ireland who had arms; and it was only because of the disadvantage under which they were thereby placed that the Irish Members were willing that such a Bill should become law. Another point to which he wished to refer was to the circumstance that the administration of the Act was manifestly opposed to justice. This resulted from having sworn Orangemen acting as magistates. In the county he represented there could be but little confidence in the administration of justice with a Bench constituted as it was. His opponent at his election was a magistrate, and just after the election that magistrate appeared before the people with a bright yellow sash, and was greeted by the crowd of his followers as the latest recruit to the great Orange
    1584
    Society. How, he asked, could confidence be felt in magistrates of that character? He (Mr. Redmond) represented a very large number indeed of Protestants, and he believed that not one of them would deliberately or in any way do an injury or an injustice to his Catholic brethren. The Government would find themselves in this difficulty—that, whereas other Arms Acts had been passed to prevent the Irish people from procuring arms, this was an Act to disarm them. If the Government intended to carry out the Act fairly, they most revoke the licences already issued, and they would have to set the police to work to seize the arms of every Irishman. He objected to a measure that would disarm one section of the Irish people, and would leave arms in the possession of their opponents.
    MR. HENRY CAMPBELL, as representing the Southern Division of Fermanagh, so often referred to by hon. Members above the Gangway as loyal and patriotic, wished to lay his protest against an Arms Act of any description, were it not that contingencies had arisen, and might arise rendering an Arms Act necessary. He was aware that in Enniskillen revolvers had been delivered at the rate of 150 per week, and for what purpose? Was it for the purpose of taking the field? Certainty not. No; but it was for the purpose of creating riots at the coming Election. The Catholics and the Nationalists of the County Fermanagh, who were represented in that House by two hon. Members, and were very numerous, had not yet two Catholic magistrates on the Bench. How then was it possible for the Catholic farmers who desired to obtain a gun to frighten the rooks off their farms, to hope to do so, seeing that the whole of the magistrates were Orangemen and sworn partizans? He urged the Government, if they desired to pass an Arms Bill, to bring in a measure which would be enforced against all parties alike, and not a Bill such as this one, which would only be enforced in regard to one particular section of the community.
    MR. EDWARD CLARKEsaid, he regretted that this discussion upon the renewal of the Arms Act should have degenerated into a quarrel between the Orange and Green. A division on this question now appeared inevitable,

    1585
    and if it took place he would vote with the Government for the re-enactment of the Bill; but he would do so with great reluctance and regret. In 1881 he voted for the Coercion Bills of the Prime Minister, and he did so under the conviction that the Government of that day might be trusted only to ask for coercion when its powers were necessary for immediate use. That belief was disappointed. The Ministry used its powers of coercion in 1881, not for the purpose of restoring order, but of forwarding a political action in this House; and he then felt and said publicly that he believed he should never again be able to support any measure of coercion proposed by a Government similarly constituted; and in 1882, when a very strong Coercion Act was brought in, he steadily declined to vote in favour of any one of its provisions. If at this time he voted for the present Arms Act it was not with any view of its being exceptional with regard to Ireland, or of its being put into exceptional operation in one part of that country. As far as the Arms Act itself was concerned, he thought it would be a useful thing if in this country we had an Arms Act, and if we had some check upon the carrying and improper possession of arms. He, for one, would never vote for this Bill for Ireland if it were not to be equally enforced in regard to all parts of Ireland. The proposal thrown out by more than one hon. Member that evening for the disarmament of the whole of Ireland was a very serious proposal. It was one very different from carrying into effect the provisions of this Act; but, so far as this Act had to be put into force by the authorities responsible for the protection of law and order, he hoped they would put it in force with perfect equality, and they would restrict, with regard to the possession of arms, people in one part of Ireland just as much as in another. He hoped never again to vote for a measure of this kind applicable to Ireland which could not be equally applied to the country in which he lived. He was afraid the necessity for it in Ireland was deeper than even the Chief Secretary himself would be willing to admit. Things had been said that had increased the dangers against which the Arms Act was intended to provide. Whatever those dangers, it was only the assurance of the responsible Government of the Crown that this
    1586
    Act was necessary for the purpose of preserving order that he, as an English Member, would give his vote for the second reading.
    MR. JOHNSTONsaid, he should not have interposed in the debate if it had not been for the remarks that had been made by the hon. Member for North Fermanagh (Mr. William Redmond). He did not think the statements of the hon. Member should go uncontradicted, and he felt that he could not sit silently by when he heard such atrocious actions attributed to the Orangemen by the hon. Member. At no time in their history was it a pledge on the part of Orangemen to "wade knee-deep in Catholic blood." That was a calumny which had been refuted time after time by Gentlemen who were Members of that House, and their words, as Christians and gentlemen, ought to be taken. He contradicted most emphatically that statement. The basis of the Orange Society was a union of Protestants for maintaining the Legislative Connection between Ireland and Great Britain, and the Succession to the Throne of Her Majesty's most illustrious House being Protestant. It was part of the principles of the Orange Society to injure no man on account of his religious opinions, and no persecuting spirit of any kind against persons on account of their religion was tolerated in their Lodges. The documents of the Orange Society were open to the Chief Secretary and to the House. Their Organization was not secret. In Ireland, the Society was not regulated by an oath; and they met as a Body to maintain the integrity of the Empire, the Legislative Union, and the honour of the Crown. This the Orange Institution intended to do, and 500,000 Orangemen were bound to use every means to do so. In the ranks of the Orangemen not all the Protestants of Ulster were to be found; but if the views of hon. Members below the Gangway were carried out, every Protestant in Ulster would find himself compelled to join himself to the Orange Institution.
    MR. T. D. SULLIVAN: Sir, we have had many Arms Acts in Ireland during the last 86 years; and an undeniable proof that they have not been satisfactorily worked is to be found in the fact that, while the Orangemen of Ulster are armed in one

    1587
    way or another almost to a man, the Catholics of Ireland are certainly unarmed. I should be very much surprised if the Orangemen of the North of Ireland deny that statement of a plain fact, because it has been with them a matter of continual boast that they have arms, and that they know how to use them. Now, Sir, it is because they are armed, and because their Catholic neighbours are unarmed, that we have had from time to time in the North of Ireland so much Party rioting and so much bloodshed. In the South, where Protestants and Orangemen are comparatively few and the Catholics form a great majority, Party riots and bloodshed are things which have been absolutely unknown. The recent meetings in the North of Ireland were attended by armed Orangemen; but the Nationalists went unarmed to their demonstrations until matters had progressed a very long way. We have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan) to that fact. The right hon. Gentleman stated last year in this House that it was not the habit or the custom of the Nationalists in the North of Ireland to go to political meetings armed until they found, over and over again, that the Orangemen, who were holding counter-demonstrations, attended them armed almost to a man. It will be remembered by some hon. Members that one of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman was that at one of these meetings, in regard to which the Government thought proper to take action, the Orangemen, arriving at the railway station from distant parts, were stopped by the authorities, and sacks full of revolvers were taken from them. The Orangemen boast, at the present day, of the magnificent fusillade they fired at Rosslea and Dromore. I had the pleasure of hearing part of that fusillade myself. I am quite prepared to grant that there are others besides these violent Orangemen who are possessed of arms, although I believe that there could not have been found among the Catholic Party one revolver for every five carried by the Orangemen. It has been remarked by my hon. Colleague that these revolvers are of no use for military warfare, but only for purposes of rioting. They are worthless as against the arms of the Constabulary
    1588
    or the military; but they are very effective weapons in a riot or disturbance, because they can easily be concealed; and it is the man who knows that he has this weapon in his pocket who is always ready to give offence and to create riot and disturbance. The Orangemen have two reasons for taking that course—one is that they think it very likely that they will get the best in the conflict, being better armed than their opponents; and the other is that they know that, if any legal trouble comes out of their performance, they will by-and-bye have sympathetic juries and sympathetic magistrates trying their case. This is not at all a new condition of things; it is a matter which has been inquired into by the House of Commons more than once. These Orange troubles and these armed demonstrations are not a matter of to-day or yesterday. I have here two volumes of Reports from a Committee of this House which sat on this subject in 1835; and if any hon. Member wishes to learn something about the peaceable character and love of law and order which distinguish the Orange Party, I would refer him to these volumes. We have just heard from the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain) that the Orange Society, if it is distinguished for anything at all, is noted for the love it has for loyalty to the Crown, and the cause of law and order. Now, there was a time in the county of Armagh when these gentlemen had matters very much their own way, and let us see to what extent the description given by the hon. Member of that Society is borne out by the record of their doings in the county of Armagh at that time. On the 28th of December, 1795, certain magistrates and gentlemen were convened in Armagh at the special instance of Viscount Gosford, the Governor of the county. The noble Viscount opened the business of the Convention by delivering an address, from which I will only read a very small extract; but what I shall read is a fair sample of the entire document. Viscount Gosford was a Protestant Nobleman who lived in days of unchecked Protestant ascendancy in Ireland, and who had more than once declared that he loved that ascendancy and would stand by it to the last gasp. Still, he was a man with some sense of humanity, of honour, and of justice in his composition, and the state of things

    1589
    in that county had become so frightful that he considered it his bounden duty to call the magistrates together in order that he might speak to them of the horrible state of affairs which then existed. In his address on that occasion, Viscount Gosford said—
    "Gentlemen, having requested your attendance here to-day, it becomes my duty to state the grounds upon which I have thought it advisable to propose this meeting, and, at the same time, to submit to your consideration a plan which occurs to me as the one most likely to check the enormities which have already disgraced this county, and may soon reduce it to the greatest distress. It is no secret that a persecution, accompanied with all the circumstances of ferocious cruelty which have in all ages distinguished that dreadful calamity, is now raging in this county. Neither age nor even acknowledged innocence in regard to the late disturbances is sufficient to excite mercy, much less to afford protection. The only crime which the wretched objects of this merciless persecution are charged with is a crime easy of proof; it is simply a profession of the Roman Catholic Faith. A lawless banditti"—
    that is the name which Viscount Gosford, a Protestant Nobleman, gave to this law-abiding Orange Society—
    "A lawless banditti have constituted themselves the judges of this species of delinquency, and the sentence they pronounce is equally concise and terrible. It is nothing less than the confiscation of all property, with immediate banishment. It would be extremely painful and surely unnecessary to detail the horrors that attend the execution of so wide and tremendous a proscription, that it certainly exceeds in the comparative number of those it consigns to ruin and misery every example that ancient or modern history can afford."
    As I have told the House, that is a sample only of the address of Viscount Gosford in reference to the doings of the Orange Society in the county of Armagh. Nevertheless, it is perfectly true, as the hon. Member for East Belfast (Mr. De Cobain) just told us, that if you will only let the Orangemen paint to you their own portraits, you will find them a charming class of people. Sweetness and light, and everything that is amiable and lovable in human nature, are to be found concentrated in an extraordinary degree in the Orange Lodges of the North of Ireland. The principles and practice of the Society, as I have just shown, and could show further by numerous references to historical examples, conflict very much with that view. I should like to read to the House the qualifications—the admirable and delightful qualifications—which are
    1590
    set down for members of the Orange Society. I take them from the volume I have already quoted. In the first place—
    "Every Orange member must have a sincere love and veneration for his Almighty Maker; a firm and undying faith in the Saviour of the world; a full conviction that He is the only Mediator between a sinful creature and an offended Creator."
    Now, under the circumstances of the case, I must confess that that language seems to me something very like blasphemy. The next qualification is—
    "That he shall be a man of humane and compassionate disposition."
    These are the men who compose the "lawless banditti" referred to by Viscount Gosford as having been engaged in carrying out in the county of Armagh and elsewhere these tremendous and cruel persecutions. They were all of them to be men of humane and compassionate disposition. Further, they are to be
    "Of a courteous and affable behaviour; utter enemies to savage brutality and un-Christian cruelty."
    And, moreover, they are to be
    "Lovers of society, and of improving company."
    Finally, they are to have
    "A great regard for temperance and sobriety."
    We all know that these are qualities which eminently distinguish the Orangemen in the North. As to their feeling of loyalty, and their love for law and order, let me read, for the edification of the House, another passage from this volume, which recites some of the obligations that the Orangeman is required to undertake. One of them is that he is
    "To keep his brethren's secret as his own, unless in the case of murder, treason, and perjury."
    Thus, every other offence in the whole category of human crime is exempt from this condition. He is
    "To keep his brother's secret in everything except murder, treason, and perjury."
    But, very wisely for their own purposes, the Orangemen have left out the crime of arson, probably because house-burning was one of their favourite occupations. Even within the last few years a distinguished member of that Society was sent to prison, and I believe is there still, for endeavouring to set fire to a

    1591
    Land League hut in the North of Ireland. Arson, it seems, runs in the blood, and the old habits have not yet been extirpated from the members of this Society. It must also be noticed that robbery, rape, and other crimes too numerous to mention are omitted, and a free tongue only is given in cases of murder, treason, and perjury. I think I shall be able to tell the House something more of this loyalty. Judge Fletcher—a Protestant Judge, of course, for in those days there could be no Catholic Judge—in his Charge to the Grand Jury in the county of Wexford, in 1815, spoke of the loyalty of these Orange gentlemen. He said—
    "'I am a loyal man,' says a witness; that is, 'gentlemen of the petty jury, believe me, let me swear what I will.' When he swears he is a loyal man, he means, 'Gentlemen of the jury, forget your oaths and acquit the Orangeman.…. The truly loyal man is peaceful and quiet, he does his utmost to prevent commotion.…. But what says the loyal man of another description, the mere pretender to loyalty? 'I am a loyal man in times of tranquillity; I am attached to the present order of things, as far as I can get any good by it.'"
    That is the limit of the loyalty of the gentlemen of the present day. For what do they tell us? What do they avow in this House, and out of it? They say that if a law be passed which is displeasing to them—if a law be passed by the Queen, Lords and Commons of this Kingdom from the operation of which they apprehend the slightest discomfort, then they will feel themselves entitled to set it at defiance, and resist it, if necessary, with arms in their hands. That is the measure of the loyalty of these gentlemen. They call themselves the Loyal minority, but I call them the Disloyal minority. Allow me to proceed with the quotation from Judge Fletcher's Charge to the Grand Jury. He went on to say—
    "'I am attached to the present order of things as far as I can get any good by it. I malign every man of a different opinion from those whom I serve. I bring my loyalty into the market.' Such are the pretenders to loyalty, many of whom I have seen, and incalculable mischief they perpetrate. It is not to their interest that the country should be peaceable. Their loyalty is a sea of troubled waters."
    That is a correct picture of the loyal Orangeman, not drawn by an Irish Nationalist or Papist, but by a Irish Protestant Judge of the land. It is an old custom of the Orangemen to bring
    1592
    arms with them to their meetings, even when it is not a counter-demonstration at all, but a meeting of their own. It has been customary for them to engage on the 12th of July in a sham battle of the Boyne. They divide themselves into two parties, one representing the Williamite Army, and the other the Jacobite Army. I need not tell you that the Jacobites always get the worst of it. An Orangeman mounted a tremendous charger, represents King William, while another, striding a much less dignified steed, represents King James, who invariably comes to grief. I find, in this record, a curious incident mentioned as having occurred at one of these sham fights in the county of Tyrone. The rival parties of Orangemen got so eager and warm, that they conceived they were real enemies, and one of them fired at King James as he was jumping over a ditch, and blew out his eye. Now, Sir, what do these people want with arms at all? They are about the most comic set of people we have in Ireland, and I can assure the House we have some very queer people there. But for the fact that the comedy sometimes becomes a tragedy, it would be a very laughable matter indeed. We pity these men and we do not despair of them. They have been made what they are by a long course of very special and peculiar treatment extended to them by the Parliament and the Government of England. They have been kept apart from the masses of their fellow-countrymen; they have been taught to mistrust them; they have been put over their heads, and have obtained power, place, privilege, and everything that the Government could give to them. Of course, to that order of things, they have been, in a certain sense of the word, loyal. But the moment that order of things is attempted to be interfered with, their loyalty goes to the wind, and is substituted by threats and protestations. That is no new thing. No single reform was ever passed in Ireland for the benefit of the people at large, from the date of the Union, that has not been denounced by these men and threatened to be resisted. Take the case of Catholic Emancipation. That was to have ruined Ireland and England also, and to have broken up the Empire. Municipal Reform was regarded as another tremendous evil. I

    1593
    need not go through the list of similar measures which were looked upon in the same light, because every reform which has tended to secure equal justice, equal rights, and equal privileges in Ireland was denounced by these men, who, in their opposition to it, threatened the most fearful things that could be imagined. But, notwithstanding all that, we do not despair of them; we have no enmity towards them. We do not like the insults and outrages they perpetrate; but for the men themselves we wish them well, and we do hope that a time will come when, although they may continue Orangemen if they choose, they will, at the same time, be Irishmen. They are nothing of the sort to-day. They have no country—they are not Englishmen, and in heart and spirit they are not Irishmen. They are the enemies of their native land. I do not imagine that that order of things is to continue for ever; and I think the effect of such a measure as that which has been brought before the House of Commons by the Prime Minister will, in the course of some reasonable time, allay their apprehensions, and draw the sting of that hatred which causes them to say and do so many foolish things, and by-and-bye they will settle down as members of the Irish nation, and become a useful and prosperous community.
    DR. TANNER: At this hour of the evening I propose to be very brief in the remarks which I intend to make. My apology for intruding myself upon the House is that I have had some little personal experience of these Orange Gentlemen, who have spent a considerable portion of the evening in repudiating actions which every sensible Orangeman and every sensible Protestant know to have occurred. I can tell the House, from my own personal experience, dating from a very early age, that the words and actions of the Orange leaders have always tended to set class against class. The Orangemen have done everything in their power to promote the ascendancy of their religion, and to set up in Ireland a standard of hatred between man and his fellow-man. I well recollect, in my earlier days, having been requested to become a member of this Orange Society. I asked the friend who desired to nominate me as a member of that distinguished Order what I was
    1594
    supposed to do. The answer was that I was to do everything in my power against the Roman Catholic religion; that I was to vote against the Catholics; that I was to prevent the Catholics from getting place or power; and that I was I to oppose them by every means at my command. I would ask hon. Members in this House if men with principles like these are proper persons to intrust with the care of arms? I have been astonished and amazed this evening at the expressions which have fallen from hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway. They have told us that these men are meek, mild, gentle sucking-doves. Let me give my own personal experience. During the last Election I paid a visit to the North of Ireland, and before I went there I met a few of my friends in the City of Cork who belong to an Orange Lodge. They told me—"It is all very well to mix among Orangemen in Cork; but in order to find out what that Society really is you must wait until you reach the North, from which, in all probability, you will never come back alive." I never believed that there was any truth in those statements; but when I went to the North of Ireland I found that there was much more reality in them than I had conceived. I recollect the day when my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien) drove to one of the small towns in that division of the county, where he met with a somewhat hostile reception. We were warned by the police officers that our lives would be sacrificed if we left the town that day. The police were drawn up in the square facing the hotel at which we were stopping, and there were a large number of Orangemen outside the hotel brandishing their revolvers in our faces. I will defy hon. Members to deny that, because I saw it myself. When we came down through the streets of the town, we were pelted with stones over the bayonets of the police, and when we reached the bridge leading out of the town, we found men gathered there armed with revolvers. The police told us to draw up, which we did; and I firmly believe that if we had not had the protection of the police that day, we should not have come out of that town alive. That is not all. I recollect the morning which preceded the day of polling. I was in the town of Dungannon, and I recollect going

    1595
    down to a little shop which faced a gunsmith's shop. I saw a constant stream of men coming out of that shop handling small revolvers—"sweethearts," I think, they are called—which they had been obtaining for the purpose, I suppose, of preserving law and order. I would ask the House if that state of things ought to continue? For what purpose were these men getting revolvers? Was it not for the purpose of intimidation and interference with, free election? Would such a state of affairs be tolerated in the South of Ireland? If it had occurred there, hon. Gentleman above the Gangway would have made a great to do about it; but because it was done at the instigation of Deputy Lieutenants, of magistrates I could name, and of Deputy Grand Masters of Orange Lodges I could name also, if I chose, these men were protected against that law which would surely have overtaken them if the acts had been perpetrated by any of the people of the South of Ireland. Let me give one further instance of their method of carrying on free election, aided by revolvers, in the North of Ireland. On another day I happened to go out with my hon. Friend the Member for East Tyrone (Mr. Reynolds) to Stewartstown, in the Northern part of the district which he represents, and, while we were on the point of addressing the Nationalist electors, a man stepped out from the Orange ranks and drew a revolver, which he levelled at several persons. The name of that man was John Dunseath, and I have already drawn the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the circumstance. When the man presented his revolver, seeing that danger was imminent and that injury might possibly ensue, I jumped down, when this heroic Orangeman immediately ran away, and, I believe, took refuge under a bed in a neighbouring house, from which dignified position he was extracted by the heels by a constable. This man was brought before the magistrates who had granted him the licence to carry arms; and what was their action? They stated that the man had presented, not a revolver, but a pipe-case. A pipe-case, Sir! It was presented at me at no greater distance than the Table on the floor of this House, and I was able to see quite clearly what it was. The circumstance was sworn to and distinctly proved by
    1596
    three other witnesses. But what did the unpaid magistrate say on that occasion? He said that, at any rate, whether it was a revolver or a pipe-case, it had had the desired effect of frightening the people. That is what is considered to be the right of free election in the North of Ireland. If these revolvers are being obtained in great quantities at the present moment, will not the right of free election be endangered at any ensuing Election? I maintain that it is really wrong to allow these men to have and obtain, at the instigation of the magistrates, arms which will interfere with all the circumstances that go towards building up a free election and obtaining the true verdict and opinion of the people.
    THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. JOHN MORLEY): I am aware, Sir, that I have no right of reply; but, with the indulgence of the House, I may perhaps be allowed to make one or two extremely brief remarks on some of the points which have been raised in the course of this debate. The suggestion of the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) was that we should take powers to revoke licences; not merely such as we have now in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant, but that we should give those powers of revocation to the authorities who now have the power of granting licences. That is an administrative question which I should like to have further time to consider before deciding whether the Licensing Authorities are authorities to whom the power of revocation might properly be confided. Before coming to any decision on the point, I should like to have time to confer with some of my Colleagues in Dublin. Another point raised, I think, by the hon. Member for the City of Cork—or, if not by him, by some other speaker in that quarter of the House—was as to extending the operation of the Act to the two counties where at present it does not run. That change, of course, needs no legislative action on the part of Parliament, because the Lord Lieutenant has nothing to do but to use the powers already conferred on him and to proclaim those districts which at the present moment are not included. Whether the Lord Lieutenant will think fit to use those powers to proclaim the districts which are now exempt is a question

    1597
    we have under our very careful consideration. More than that I cannot at present undertake to say. The hon. and learned Member for South Derry (Mr. T. M. Healy) put a question as to the regulations affecting the importation at the ports. The state of things as regards the importation of arms and ammunition is that there are 12 specified ports by which alone it can be effected—namely, Dublin, Belfast, Cork, Limerick, Londonderry, Waterford, Galway, Sligo, Dundalk, Wexford, Drogheda, and Greenore. The importation takes place under regulations which are specified in the Order passed and issued by the Lord Lieutenant in Council. As to the general point raised by the hon. and learned Member for Plymouth (Mr. E. Clarke) and others in regard to an assurance being given by the Government that it is our design and purpose to administer this Act, if it is passed, with impartiality, and to use its powers with discrimination as between one set of Irishmen and another—Orangemen and Catholics—I should have thought it hardly necessary for me to give an assurance of that kind. However, as I have been asked, and as it has been made a sort of condition of approval of our measure, I have no hesitation in repeating what I intended to say at an earlier period this evening—that it is our intention to continue the very careful inquiries we have already instituted as to the carrying and possession of arms in an illegal manner, and to apply and exercise the powers we are now asking Parliament again to confer in an entirely impartial spirit.
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I certainly have no wish whatever, Sir, to cast any doubt on the concluding words of the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot believe for a moment that he, or any right hon. Gentleman who may be intrusted with the Government of Ireland, would wish to administer such an Act as this, except in the most complete spirit of justice as between the different classes and sections of society in Ireland. And, Sir, in supporting the second reading of this Bill, I do so with the most complete belief that the right hon. Gentleman—should it be his fate to administer the measure now proposed, if it should become an Act—will carry out the words he has addressed to the House. With regard
    1598
    to the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) as to the power of revocation of licences when granted, my recollection is this. I think in former Bills of the kind it was always considered that the act of revocation was a more serious matter than the act of granting a licence, and that the power of revocation should be retained in the hands of the Central Authority, in order that there should be a greater difficulty in the way of revocation than in granting the licences. In fact, it was desired that these licences should be granted as far as possible, and should not be revoked, unless it was shown to the satisfaction of the Chief Secretary, or of the Lord Lieutenant, that there were special circumstances existing which rendered such revocation absolutely necessary. I do not wish to dwell upon that matter, because it is a point which it will be more fitting to discuss in Committee. Certainly, if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to extend the powers of revocation, there may be some reasons why such powers should be extended; but I do not wish at present to express any opinion on the subject. There is, however, one point which occurs to me, having listened to a great part of this debate, to which I should wish to call attention, and it is this. Sir, this is a Bill of exceptional character, applying to Ireland certain regulations as to the possession and use of arms which it is not thought necessary to apply to other parts of the United Kingdom. It is remarkable that at the very moment when we are asked to give Ireland exceptional powers of local self-government, such as the Government do not propose to apply to any other part of the United Kingdom, we should be simultaneously asked to continue such an Act as this. Such a proposal might lead to some doubt whether Ireland is precisely in such a state as that in which it ought to be if it is to receive the powers of local self-government which Her Majesty's Government desire to confer upon it. The observation has been made that Ireland is not one nation, and that observation has been received with very considerable dissent, not only on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway, but also on the part of Her Majesty's Government, and hon. Members sitting behind them. But all who have

    1599
    listened to the debate this evening, and who have heard the comments which have been freely made by hon. Members below the Gangway, and made with obvious sincerity with regard to parts of Ireland which are represented by hon. Members behind me, must feel that Ireland is not one nation, or, at any rate, that it is a nation in which the most vital differences exist on the most important subjects. The right hon. Gentleman the Lord Mayor of Dublin (Mr. T. D. Sullivan), when addressing the House, observed, I think, that there was no enmity on the part of hon. Members below the Gangway towards the Protestant minority in the North of Ireland, who are largely represented by the Orangemen. I do not say that there is any enmity on their part towards the Protestant minority; but I do say that if it were possible for them to make hostile comments in reference to the past and present history of Ireland which would excite the Protestant minority and aggravate them to the highest degree, those very comments have been made to-night. And, more than this, Sir, is there no mutual feeling of the kind? The hon. Member for the County of Cork (Dr. Tanner), who spoke last, told us of some of the experiences of his youth; and he said, if I heard him aright, that on one occasion the two opposing factions of the North of Ireland, represented by the Orangemen on the one hand, and the Catholics on the other, were only kept apart by the interference of the police.
    DR. TANNER: The right hon. Gentleman is under a complete misapprehension. I never said that it occurred in my youth. It occurred the other day, in the course of the last Election, and in the course of the candidature of my hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone (Mr. W. O'Brien).
    SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: I am deeply obliged to the hon. Member for his interruption, because it adds very much to the force of the argument I intended to use. What we have to deal with, therefore, is not a matter that occurred 20 years ago, when probably the hon. Member was a young man, but a state of things existing only the other day, and with which Her Majesty's present Government have to deal in Ireland. They have to deal with all these Party differences, and with all
    1600
    these deep divisions, which, if we are to believe what has been said by hon. Members below the Gangway upon another measure, have no existence at all. This very Bill, and the debate upon it, are the best arguments which can be adduced against the very next measure which is on the Paper as a measure which can possibly be applied with any hope of a peaceful or successful issue to Ireland. I believe it is absolutely necessary, in the name of common sense and prudence, as the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland has stated to the House this evening, that the Bill before the House should be proceeded with and become law but for that very reason I say that the Government themselves, in proposing and in pressing forward this measure as one of exceptional urgency, have condemned the policy which they have presented to the House of treating Ireland as one united country, and of trusting in the honeyed words of hon. Members below the Gangway, as if no such difficulties as this Bill is intended to meet would ever occur again.
    COLONEL NOLAN: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has displayed on this occasion a want of memory—a fault which he is not often guilty of. He would induce the House to believe that the introduction of the Arms Act is a very abnormal proceeding in the present state of Ireland. The right hon. Gentleman must have a very bad memory, or he would recollect that he himself introduced a similar Bill for five years; and that during the last 86 years countless Bills of a similar character have been passed. In the early part of the evening the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) made a speech in which he practically declared that under certain circumstances, of which they were to be the judges, the Orangemen of Ulster would be perfectly within the Constitution in resisting the law and having recourse to arms. No doubt, the language of the noble Lord was qualified; but it certainly meant that. Under these circumstances, I can very well imagine that if there was any moment which would justify the introduction of a measure of this kind, this is that precise moment, especially after such speeches as those delivered by the Marquess of Salisbury and the noble Lord the Member for

    1601
    Paddington. I am altogether opposed to measures of disarmament, and I will give my reason briefly. If we permanently disarm a country we must inevitably lower the character of the inhabitants. ["Oh!"] Can hon. Members give me any case in history where a country has not had its character lowered, if not destroyed altogether, by being permanently disarmed? But I say that you cannot completely disarm Ireland. There will always exist a certain quantity of surreptitious arms in the country. I maintain that that is much worse than the licensed possession of arms, because men get possession of them in defiance of the law, and are taught to act in defiance of the law. That, therefore, constitutes another reason why, in my opinion, it is unwise to pass these disarming Acts. Then, again, they not only interfere with sport, but with agricultural operations, in consequence of the inability of the farmers to use firearms for the destruction of birds and other creatures which injure their crops. I do not believe that the passing of any measure of this kind will have the slightest effect in diminishing murder and outrage. As a matter of fact, surreptitious arms will remain in the hands of the worst class of people, and you will only be disarming the best part of the citizens, and the most deserving. Certainly, when a great change of this kind is pending over Ireland, and such inflammable speeches are delivered as that which has been made by the noble Lord the Member for Paddington, I cannot attach any considerable amount of blame to Her Majesty's Government for introducing such a Bill.
    MR. REYNOLDS: No hon. Member in this House can doubt that Her Majesty's Government would not have thought it necessary to introduce this Arms Act had it not been for the inflammatory speeches of the noble Lord the Member for Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill) in Ulster, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. J. Chamberlain). The noble Lord is notorious for his high principles and political consistency, and also for his courage; and I am sure that if a civil war should under any circumstances take place in Ireland, and an army be enrolled in Ulster, the noble Lord will not hesitate to exercise his hereditary right to go over to Ireland in charge of the Commissariat. My hon.
    1602
    Friend the Member for the City of Cork (Mr. Parnell) has stated to-night that he is sure the noble Lord has unintentionally incited to violence and disorder on the part of the Orangemen of Ulster; but can any man, after listening to the speech of the noble Lord to-night, say that the incitement is unintentional? The noble Lord has been perfectly consistent. What was the language he used before the passing of the last Reform Act? On that occasion he said that the labourers of England were not in earnest, for if they were they would march to London in their thousands, and pull down the Hyde Park railings. [Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: No!] I would ask the noble Lord whether, in speaking in this way, he is not laying down a most dangerous doctrine for the large mass of the working classes in England? If he finds that this House passes the Bill; that it is ratified by the House of Lords, and receives the Queen's Assent—should he find that it is displeasing to the people of the North of Ireland; that it is held by them to contain provisions which are oppressive and disagreeable, will he be justified in telling them to oppose the Bill by force? It cannot be said that the noble Lord acted without an example in regard to what might occur in Ulster, because the Earl of Iddesleigh made a speech of the same kind in Belfast, and the result was that a convent was wrecked and a nun died. What is the object of the noble Lord to-night? I am sure that he cares very little, in his secret heart, about the Orangemen of Ulster. The real object of his speech was to embarrass the Government, and to incite to outrage in the North of Ireland.
    MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to impute motives of that kind to a Member of the House.
    MR. REYNOLDS: I beg to withdraw the observation. What I meant to convey was this—that the speech of the noble Lord will have that effect in Ulster. I should not have risen to-night if it were not that I desire to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant to a matter of some importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cork (Dr. Tanner) has informed the House that he accompanied me to a meeting in Tyrone at the last election,

    1603
    and that we addressed a large crowd of Nationalists, when an Orangeman presented a revolver. That man was prosecuted under this Act for carrying arms without a licence; three witnesses of unimpeachable veracity swore that they saw the revolver in this man's hand, and they were not contradicted by any witness who was called on behalf of the man himself. The solicitor who conducted the defence confined himself to one or two questions of this character—"Were you at this meeting of itinerant spouters?" and the witnesses having stated that they had attended my election meeting, the magistrate thought the evidence was sufficient, and dismissed the charge for carrying arms without a licence. I presume that tribunal was constituted in accordance with the provisions of the 5th section of the Peace Preservation Act of 1881; but what occurred was this—the Resident Magistrate was there, and there were four or five Orange magistrates on the Bench also. Ample proof was afforded that the man had a revolver in his possession; and when the unpaid magistrates refused to convict the Resident Magistrate retired from the Bench, intimating that he could not sit there and take part in the injustice which was about to be perpetrated by the other magistrates. Now, Sir, having had considerable experience of the way in which Justices' justice is administered in the North of Ireland, I would respectfully suggest to the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary that the jurisdiction under this Act should be given to two Resident Magistrates, and that the local Justices should not have anything whatever to do with the administration of the Act. No matter how the right hon. Gentleman may protest that this Act will be fairly administered—and I am sure that, as far as he is concerned, it will be fairly administered—yet if this power is still left in the hands of the local magistrates the purposes of the Act will be defeated, and no good will come out of it.
    MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: I should not have risen at this hour if it had not been for the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Sir Michael Hicks-Beach). I feel bound to congratulate him upon the discretion he has manifested. He has exhibited an
    1604
    extraordinary degree of discretion in not having made any allusion whatever to the speech of his noble Colleague the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill). That speech, remarkable as it was, he neither condemned nor approved; and that, too, in spite of frequent challenges from various parts of the House for an expression of opinion from him, as an ex-Minister of the Crown, as to whether he agreed with his noble Colleague in the strong and suggestive expressions he had used. I also congratulate him upon the considerable courage he has displayed. The right hon. Gentleman turned round to these Benches, from the place where the noble Lord spoke a few hours before, and charged hon. Members below the Gangway with having used provoking language. I do not think we ought to allow the right hon. Gentleman to escape so easily from his position. We want to know if the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington expressed the joint opinion of the Leaders of the Conservative Party when he encouraged treason against the Crown? The other day I ventured—being slightly out of Order, I admit—to interpolate a question to the Secretary of State for War as to some extraordinary statements which have been circulated, to the effect that high military authorities have indicated a disposition to take sides in the civil war which is said to be impending in the event of a certain measure becoming law. The question I asked was how many Irishmen, soldiers in Her Majesty's Army, who had acted on the principle suggested and proposed by the noble Lord, have been sentenced to death, or have served long periods of penal servitude? I would remind the noble Lord that the Office which he held in the last Government was that of Secretary of State for India, and that this principle of "contingent treason" and of armed resistance to the authority and force of the Crown is a doctrine that may find its way into the Vernacular Press of India, and produce effects upon millions of our fellow-subjects in that country, the consequences of which, I think, nobody can contemplate with equanimity. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that there were two nations in Ireland. Now, Sir, that is not the true state of the case. There is an overwhelming mass of Nationalists

    1605
    on one side—Catholics principally, but to a large extent Protestants also. An hon. Member who made a most effective speech to-night, in showing how Irishmen understand the duty of preserving law and order, is a Member of the Protestant Body. It must not be forgotten that in the North of Ireland there is a small section of Protestants who oppose themselves to the will of the masses of their fellow-countrymen, and who, when the occasion offers, are ready and willing to resort to measures of violence, because they are encouraged by vain hopes of assistance and countenance by such men as the noble Lord. It is such speeches as that of the noble Lord—and a policy like that which the noble Lord has pronounced to-night—very different from that which he advocated five or six months ago—it is speeches and policies like that which produce the bitter passions which are excited between different sections in Ireland. When Orangemen know that they have no ex-Ministers of the Crown to condone treason, and that acts against law and order will not be sustained, they will throw in their lot with the rest of their fellow-countrymen, and they will be as peaceable and orderly as the rest of the country. [A laugh.] I understand that laugh to mean that hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway deny the possibility of Orangemen ever being peaceable. What do these incitements mean? There are some hon. Members above the Gangway who make speeches which I think no one can agree with. The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Johnston) makes speeches which none of us can agree with. But I respect the hon. Gentleman because, although his convictions are to my mind profoundly wrong and false, the hon. Gentleman believes them. The first time I ever saw the hon. Gentleman was at an Orange meeting, which I attended for purely professional purposes. The hon. Gentleman, at that time, had just fulfilled a sentence of imprisonment for breaking the laws of his country. If I were to imitate the language of some of the hon. Gentleman's Friends, I would say that the hon. Gentleman has been a "gaol bird" in his time. But I do not wish to make such an observation with regard to him in that spirit. The hon. Gentleman went to gaol for his convictions, and he sacrificed what in Ireland
    1606
    would be considered a well-paid position under the Crown for his convictions. Therefore, however much we may condemn his principles, we must admire the courage and honesty with which he has stuck to them. But what of the cold-blooded, cynical, and unbelieving politicians who use these profound political convictions and these terrible religious dissensions for the mean and despicable purpose of advancing their own personal and paltry Party prospects? I "would rather be a toad, and live upon the vapour of some foul dungeon," than rise to Office by such means. An hon. Friend has suggested that if there were to be civil disturbances in the North of Ireland, and the noble Lord were to be there, having encouraged by his speeches, both in and out of this House, recourse to violent means—if disturbances were to take place, and were not unattended by fatal results, my hon. Friend has asked—and I think it might be some compensation, because no man has a right to incite other men to violence without taking the risk himself—[Lord RANDOLPH CHURCHILL: Hear, hear!]—would the noble Lord be there? The noble Lord cheers that observation. Am I to understand from it that when the fight begins the noble Lord would be there, and not in charge of the Commissariat? Sir, there will be no civil war in Ulster. The Orangemen in the North of Ireland will be kept down by the Constabulary; but what may take place in the North of Ireland consequent upon the disturbed feeling which exists is this. Hon. Members who are unacquainted with the North of Ireland cannot well understand the state of feeling which exists there. The Act of Catholic Emancipation never came into force there until within the last few years, and it is not in full operation in the North of Ireland even to this day. I have heard hon. Gentlemen who come from the North of Ireland describe the modus operandi. Persons supporting the Nationalist cause attend a meeting for a Constitutional purpose; Orangemen appear at it armed with revolvers—sometimes bringing sacks full of revolvers. ["Oh!"] I am only quoting the words used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan), who was Chief Secretary for Ireland at the time he used them. The Orangeman fires, or attempts to fire, his

    1607
    revolver at the Nationalist, and he is able to do so with perfect impunity, because, if arrested, he would be brought before Orange magistrates, who, even if they had themselves seen the revolver fired, would hesitate to convict. If, by a miracle, an Orange magistrate sent him before the Grand Jury, and if by another miracle he was sent to trial by a Grand Jury of Orangemen, good care would be taken to empanel a petty jury of Orangemen that would acquit him. When we have a hierarchy so complete as this, and when killing is no murder, there is sure to be murder. What, then, will take place in the North of Ireland? There will be no civil war; but in going home at night from fairs, in going to the Registration Courts, and perhaps to the elections, some poor Roman Catholics who may stray away from their companions will be set upon by Orangemen and murdered, as Philip Maguire was, and no one will be brought to justice, because the Orange magistrates are behind the culprits. That is the reason why the Chief Secretary is compelled to bring in a measure like this. It is the encouragement from England which causes the bitterness and lawlessness and the turbulence of the Orangemen; and when they are freed from this contaminating and demoralizing influence I am sure that Ireland will become as orderly and as law-abiding a country as any in the world.
    MR. ASHMEAD-BARTLETT(who was received with great interruption) said: I have listened, Sir, with some amusement to the remarks which have been made by the hon. Member who has just sat down. The hon. Member would have been described by the Prime Minister, four years ago, as one who marched through rapine to the disintegration of the Empire. [Interruption, and cries of "Divide!"] I have listened attentively to the speech of the hon. Member. I am not surprised at the interruption which proceeds from this side of the House. I have observed the tactics which have been followed before by the hon. Member, and I have neither been intimidated by them, nor do I object to them. I had not the opportunity of hearing the remarks which were made by the noble Lord the Member for South Paddington (Lord Randolph Churchill), and I gather that they were remarks of a courageous and resolute
    1608
    character. A great deal of strong language has been used by the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down. He has accused Members of the Conservative Party of making statements which they are not prepared to support by action. [Interruption.] I have only two sentences to say upon that subject, and those two sentences I shall say in spite of the unmannerly turbulence of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have heard that the disloyal and revolutionary Party in Ireland are likely to receive large support. I can only say there are in two of the Northern counties of this country—Yorkshire and Lancashire—100,000 men, and fighting men, too—who will know the reason why, before the cause of loyalty and order goes down in Ireland. I have the honour to be a humble Member, not only of this House, but also of a regiment of Militia, and I am confident that the whole of that regiment, and many others besides—[Mr. T. M. HEALY: What regiment?]—will volunteer for service before the cause of order and loyalty goes down in Ireland. ["Oh!"] I am amused by the mechanical ridicule with which that statement is received. I listened with great admiration the other night to the speech of one of the oldest, best known, and most respected Radicals in this House—the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham), who made remarks practically identical with those which I myself am now making, and which were also received with shouts of interruption from the same Benches. I will not repeat the hon. Member's words; but I am repeating the same sentiment as they expressed, and it is one which the bulk of this House and three-fourths of the people of Great Britain will endorse—namely, that the first shot of repression which is fired against the Loyalists of Ireland will be the cause of such an outburst of indignation in this country as will sweep Her Majesty's Ministers from their places, and perhaps mete out to them even a worse doom. There is plenty of spirit in the country yet, Sir, and I do not envy the Party that arouses against itself the national feeling of this country, nor do I envy the Ministry who go to the polls on a policy of disruption.
    Question put.
    The House divided:—Ayes 303; Noes 89: Majority 214.

    AYES.

    Acland, C. T. D.

    Cranborne, Viscount

    Agg-Gardner, J. T.

    Crawford, D.

    Agnew, W.

    Crompton, C.

    Allsopp, hon. G.

    Cross, rt. hn. Sir R. A.

    Amherst, W. A. T.

    Cross, H. S.

    Arch, J.

    Crossley, E.

    Armitage, B.

    Crossman, Gen. Sir W.

    Asher, A.

    Currie, Sir D.

    Baily, L. R.

    Curzon, Viscount

    Baker, L. J.

    De Cobain, E. S. W.

    Balfour, rt. hon. A. J.

    De Worms, Baron H.

    Balfour, rt. hon. J. B.

    Dillwyn, L. L.

    Balfour, Sir G.

    Dimsdale, Baron R.

    Barbour, W. B.

    Dixon-Hartland, F. D.

    Barttelot, Sir W. B.

    Douglas, A. Akers-

    Baumann, A. A.

    Duckham, T.

    Beach, right hon. Sir M. E. Hicks-

    Duff, R. W.

    Duncan, Colonel F.

    Beadel, W. J.

    Duncombe, A.

    Beckett, E. W.

    Edwards-Moss, T. C.

    Beckett, W.

    Egerton, Admiral hon. F.

    Bective, Earl of

    Beith, G.

    Elliot, hon. H. F. H.

    Bethell, Commander

    Ellis, J.

    Bickersteth, R.

    Ellis, J. E.

    Bickford-Smith, W.

    Esslemont, P.

    Biddulph, M.

    Evelyn, W. J.

    Birkbeck, Sir E.

    Everett, R. L.

    Blake, T.

    Fairbairn, Sir A.

    Blundell, Col. H. B. H.

    Farquharson, H. R.

    Bolton, J. C.

    Fergusson, right hon. Sir J.

    Borlase, W. C.

    Brassey, Sir T.

    Ferguson, R.

    Brinton, J.

    Field, Admiral E.

    Bristowe, T. L.

    Finlay, R. B.

    Broadhurst, H.

    Finlayson, J.

    Brocklehurst, W. C.

    Fisher, W. H.

    Brookfield, Col. A. M.

    Fitzgerald, R. U. P.

    Brown, A. H.

    Fitzwilliam, hon. W. J. W.

    Bruce, hon. R. P.

    Brunner, J. T.

    Fletcher, Sir H.

    Bryce, J.

    Flower, C.

    Buchanan, T. R.

    Forwood, A. B.

    Buckley, A.

    Fowler, Sir R. N.

    Burt, T.

    Fowler, H. H.

    Caine, W. S.

    Fry, L.

    Campbell, Sir A.

    Fry, T.

    Campbell, Sir G.

    Gardner, H.

    Campbell, R. F. F.

    Gathorne-Hardy, hon. J. S.

    Campbell-Bannerman, right hon. H.

    Gibb, T. E.

    Cavendish, Lord E.

    Gibson, J. G.

    Chamberlain, rt. hn. J.

    Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.

    Chamberlain, R.

    Gladstone, H. J.

    Chaplin, right hon. H.

    Glyn, hon. P. C.

    Charrington, S.

    Goldsmid, Sir J.

    Childers, right hon. H. C. E.

    Goldsworthy, Major-General W. T.

    Churchill, rt. hn. Lord R. H. S.

    Gorst, Sir J. E.

    Goschen, rt. hon. G. J.

    Clarke, E. G.

    Gower, G. G. L.

    Cohen, L. L.

    Grant, Sir G. M.

    Commerell, Adml. Sir J. E.

    Green, Sir E.

    Grenfell, W. H.

    Compton, Lord W. G.

    Grey, Sir E.

    Cook, E. R.

    Grey, A.

    Cook, W.

    Grimston, Viscount

    Coote, T.

    Haldane, R. B.

    Corbett, J.

    Hall, C.

    Corry, Sir J. P.

    Hamilton, right hon. Lord G. F.

    Courtney, L. H.

    1610

    Hamilton, Lord C. J.

    Mason, S.

    Hamilton, Lord E.

    More, R. J.

    Hamilton, Lord F. S.

    Morgan, rt. hon. G. O.

    Hamilton, Col. C. E.

    Morley, rt. hon. J.

    Hamley, Gen. Sir E. B.

    Mulholland, H. L.

    Hankey, F. A.

    Muntz, P. A.

    Harcourt, E. W.

    Newark, Viscount

    Hardcastle, F.

    Norris, E. S.

    Hayne, C. Seale-

    Northcote, hon. H. S.

    Heaton, J. H.

    Norton, R.

    Herbert, hon. S.

    O'Neill, hon. R. T.

    Hervey, Lord F.

    Paget, T. T.

    Hibbert, rt. hn. J. T.

    Parker, C. S.

    Hill, Lord A. W.

    Paulton, J. M.

    Hingley, B.

    Peacock, R.

    Hoare, S.

    Pease, A. E.

    Hobhouse, H.

    Pease, H. F.

    Holden, A.

    Pelly, Sir L.

    Holland, rt. hon. Sir H. T.

    Pickersgill, E. H.

    Picton, J. A.

    Holmes, rt. hon. H.

    Pilkington, G. A.

    Hope, right hon. A. J. B. B.

    Playfair, rt. hon. Sir L.

    Howard, E. S.

    Plunket, rt. hon. D. R.

    Howard, H. C.

    Pomfret, W. P.

    Hughes-Hallett, Col. F. C.

    Portman, hon. E. B.

    Powell, F. S.

    Hunt, F. S.

    Powell, W. R. H.

    Hutton, J. F.

    Price, Captain G. E.

    Isaacs, L. H.

    Price, T. P.

    Jacks, W.

    Pugh, D.

    James, rt. hon. Sir H.

    Quilter, W. C.

    James, hon. W. H.

    Rathbone, W.

    James, C. H.

    Reed, Sir E. J.

    Jardine, Sir R.

    Rigby, J.

    Jenkins, Sir J. J.

    Roberts, J.

    Jenkins, D. J.

    Roberts, J. B.

    Johns, J. W.

    Robertson, E.

    Johnson-Ferguson, J. E.

    Robertson, J. P. B.

    Robinson, T.

    Johnston, W.

    Robson, W. S.

    Jones, P.

    Roe, T.

    Kay-Shuttleworth, rt. hon. Sir U. J.

    Ross, A. H.

    Rothschild, Baron F. J. de

    Kenny, C. S.

    Ker, R. W. B.

    Round, J.

    Kilcoursie, right hon. Viscount

    Russell, Sir C.

    Ruston, J.

    Kimber, H.

    St. Aubyn, Sir J.

    King, H. S.

    Salis-Schwabe, Col. G.

    Kitching, A. G.

    Sandys, Lieut-Col. T. M.

    Latham, G. W.

    Lawrance, J. C.

    Seely, C.

    Lawrence, W. F.

    Shaw, T.

    Lawson, H. L. W.

    Sheridan, H. B.

    Lefevre, rt. hon. G. S.

    Shirley, W. S.

    Lethbridge, Sir R.

    Sidebottom, T. H.

    Lewisham, Viscount

    Sidebottom, W.

    Llewellyn, E. H.

    Sitwell, Sir G. R.

    Long, W. H.

    Smith, rt. hon. W. H.

    Lubbock, Sir J.

    Smith, A.

    Lyell, L.

    Smith, D.

    Lymington, Viscount

    Smith, S.

    Macdonald, right hon. J. H. A.

    Spencer, hon. C. R.

    Stanhope, rt. hon. E.

    MacInnes, M.

    Stanley, rt. hon. Col. Sir F. A.

    Maclean, J. M.

    M'Arthur, A.

    Stanley, E. J.

    M'Calmont, Captain J.

    Stansfeld, right hon. J.

    M'Culloch, J.

    M'Iver, L.

    Stevenson, F. S.

    M'Lagan, P.

    Stewart, M. J.

    Marton, Maj. G. B. H.

    Sturrock, P.

    1611

    Sutherland, T.

    Westlake, J.

    Swinburne, Sir J.

    Weston, J. D.

    Talbot, C. R. M.

    Whitbread, S.

    Talbot, J. G.

    White, J. B.

    Taylor, F.

    Whitley, E.

    Temple, Sir R.

    Will, J. S.

    Tennant, Sir C.

    Williams, A. J.

    Thomas, A.

    Williams, J. P.

    Tipping, W.

    Wilson, C. H.

    Tomlinson, W. E. M.

    Wilson, J. (Ednbrgh.)

    Tottenham, A. L.

    Winterbotham, A. B.

    Valentine, C. J.

    Wodehouse, E. R.

    Vanderbyl, P.

    Woodall, W.

    Vivian, Sir H. H.

    Woodhead, J.

    Walrond, Col. W. H.

    Yeo, F. A.

    Walsh, hon. A. H. J.

    Young, C. E. B.

    Wason, E.

    Watkin, Sir E. W.

    TELLERS.

    Watson, J.

    Marjoribanks, rt. hon. E.

    Watson, T.

    Wayman, T.

    Morley, A.

    West, Colonel W. C.

    NOES.

    Abraham, W. (Glam.)

    Leahy, J.

    Abraham, W. (Limerick, W.)

    Leamy, E.

    M'Carthy, J.

    Atherley-Jones, L.

    M'Carthy, J. H.

    Biggar, J. G.

    M'Donald, P.

    Blake, J. A.

    M'Kenna, Sir J. N.

    Blane, A.

    Marum, E. M.

    Boyd-Kinnear, J.

    Molloy, B. C.

    Byrne, G. M.

    Morgan, O. V.

    Campbell, H.

    Murphy, W. M.

    Carew, J. L.

    Nolan, Colonel J. P.

    Chance, P. A.

    Nolan, J.

    Cobb, H. P.

    O'Brien, J. F. X.

    Coleridge, hon. B.

    O'Brien, P.

    Condon, T. J.

    O'Brien, P. J.

    Connolly L.

    O'Brien, W.

    Conway, M.

    O'Connor, A.

    Conybeare, C. A. V.

    O'Connor, J. (Kerry)

    Corbet, W. J.

    O'Connor, J. (Tippry.)

    Cox, J. R.

    O'Connor, T. P.

    Crawford, W.

    O'Doherty, Dr. K. I.

    Cremer, W. R.

    O'Hanlon, T.

    Crilly, D.

    O'Hea, P.

    Deasy, J.

    O'Kelly, J.

    Dillon, J.

    O'Mara, S.

    Esmonde, Sir T.

    Parnell, C. S.

    Fenwick, C.

    Power, P. J.

    Finucane, J.

    Power, R.

    Flynn, J. C.

    Pyne, J. D.

    Fox, Dr. J. F.

    Redmond, W. H. K.

    Gilhooly, J.

    Reynolds, W. J.

    Gill, H. J.

    Rogers, J. E. T.

    Gill, T. P.

    Russell, E. R.

    Gray, E. D.

    Sexton, T.

    Harrington, E.

    Sheehan, J. D.

    Harrington, T.

    Sheehy, D.

    Harris, M.

    Stack, J.

    Hayden, L. P.

    Sullivan, D.

    Healy, M.

    Sullivan, T. D.

    Healy, T. M.

    Tanner, C. K.

    Hooper, J.

    Tuite, J.

    Jordan, J.

    Verney, Captain E. H.

    Kelly, B.

    Wilson, J. (Durham)

    Kenny, M. J.

    Labouchere, H.

    TELLERS.

    Lalor, R.

    Redmond, J. E.

    Lane, W. J.

    Sheil, E.

    Bill read a second time.

    Bill committed for Monday next.

LOSSES BY RIOT (COMPENSATION) BILL.— [BILL 209.]
(Mr. Childers, Mr. Broadhurst, Mr. Attorney General.)
LOSSES BY RIOT (COMPENSATION) BILL.— [BILL 209.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. CHILDERS): Sir, in rising to move that this Bill be read a second time I may mention that on the Motion for its introduction I explained its provisions fairly to the House; and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to make any further statement as to its nature. I was, however, asked one question, as to whether the Bill would be made retrospective; and, after full consideration, I have come to the conclusion that it would be right and proper to make the Bill retrospective to a certain extent. The clause which my hon. Friend has put down is one which I think we can adopt in its entirety, and I propose to accept it in Committee. The effect will be that if the Police Authorities outside the Metropolis think it right that compensation should be given in respect of riots that have occurred during the last 12 months they may make an order to that effect, so that persons who have suffered from such riots shall be allowed to claim compensation.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Childers.)
  SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH: Sir, I do not at all wish to delay this legislation; but I confess that, so far as my own county is concerned, I do not think there is any necessity for it. We had in Gloucestershire some little trouble at the last Election. A riot arose and some damage was done; but there was no difficulty whatever in assessing and paying such compensation as was found to be due. But I think the area of compensation was confined to the Hundreds; and I must say that I think it much fairer that compensation should be paid by a limited district than by the county at large. At present, as the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the area of Parliamentary divisions is much smaller than that of the counties, especially in the

  1613
  larger counties of England. The county area of compensation provided for in this Bill would, therefore, be very much larger than the area interested in an election riot, which does not seem to me to afford a very fair solution of this question. I think that the area in which the riot occurs should be the area to pay for the damage done, and not a district beyond, which has had nothing whatever to do with the matter. It is certainly hardly fair to levy the charge for compensation on the whole county. I merely throw out this now as my impression; but the matter is one which I think will have to be dealt with in Committee.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir CHARLES RUSSELL): The difficulty as to adopting the old Hundred as the area of liability is that, for any practical purposes, it is almost obsolete. Moreover, it corresponds with no police rating areas; and as the principle of the Bill is to recognize liability for defective police protection resulting in damage by riot, it has been thought better to make the area of liability correspond with the area of separate police districts. Further, the Hundred frequently cuts up towns and even villages, and suggests no practical basis. The suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman will, however, be carefully considered.
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Sir, speaking of my own county only, I may say that the Hundreds there are perfectly distinct and recognized divisions of the county, and we have Hundred rates there for various purposes—for gaols and for damage. In Lancashire we have never had any difficulty in assessing damage so far as the Hundreds are concerned. But with regard to this Bill, I see that the damage is all to be paid for out of the police rate. You are going to take the whole of this enormous county of Lancashire, which consists practically of several counties, and make it liable for the consequences of a riot that may occur in any part of it. Well, Sir, all I can say is that there will be a very great objection to the arrangement; and I cannot but think that the course which the right hon. Gentleman proposes will lead to considerable disturbance. However, I feel that the question is one which will have to be decided in Committee; and I only rise because I think
  1614
  the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department will have to give a little more attention to the point raised by my right hon. Friend before we go into Committee than he seems to have done already.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Sir, I doubt whether the wording in the Bill is in all cases quite distinct enough. The words "house, shop, or building" do not seem to me sufficiently comprehensive; because, for instance, a garden may be very much damaged in a variety of ways, and it would not be included in the words "house, shop, or building."
  MR. CARVELL WILLIAMS: I have to thank the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department for accepting the clause which will render the Bill in some respects retrospective in its character. I observe that the Bill requires the sending in of claims; but in the case of the borough which I represent the claims have been sent in already, and it would be a pity to impose upon the people concerned the necessity of going over the ground again. I hope that the clause will be so framed as to render that unnecessary.
  MR. CHILDERS: The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) is one of great importance, and I will look into it. One of the difficulties which will be found in carrying out the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion is that in some counties the Hundreds are altogether obsolete, and do not correspond with anything. With regard to the question of sending in claims afresh, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham (Mr. Carvell Williams), I propose to take power to relax the Rule in case of need.
  Motion agreed, to.

FRESH WATER FISHERIES BILL.
(Mr. Mandella, Mr. C. T. D. Acland.)
FRESH WATER FISHERIES BILL.

  [BILL 218.] SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. C. T. D. Acland.)
  SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS: Before this Bill is read a second time I should like to put a question to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Launceston (Mr. C. T. D. Acland). As far as I understand, the object of this Bill is simply to transfer all the duties of the Home Office, with regard to inland fisheries, to the Board of Trade. I know that for a long time there has been a great desire on the part of the Board of Trade that the Home Office should allow the Inspectors who deal with the sea fisheries to deal with the inland fisheries also, and I presume that this Bill is intended to provide that the one set of Inspectors shall deal with the two fisheries. Now, unless there is some strong reason to the contrary, no one wishes to add to the labours of the Home Office, or to keep in the Home Office work that other people can do as well or better—no one can wish to do that. So far as I have been able to observe from experience, the Local Authorities had much better remain where they are than go to the Board of Trade. The Board of Trade has a large mass of business to do, and hitherto the inland fisheries have been well attended to by the Home Office. Therefore, before the Bill is read a second time, I should like to hear some reason for the transfer, because up to the present none has been afforded. I have never heard any complaint as to the action of the Home Office, and I believe the Local Authorities would much rather remain with the Home Office than be carried to the Board of Trade. Of course I cannot speak again at this stage, and, therefore, any answer I may have to make to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Acland) I will reserve until Committee.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. C. T. D. ACLAND): Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite will recollect that about a month or six weeks ago there was a long debate on the subject of the concentration of the direction of the fisheries in England in one Office. I think that at that time it was fully understood that it would be better, and my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Mundella) undertook to do his best, to concentrate within the Board of Trade itself, if that should be the pleasure
  1616
  of the House, all the administration of fisheries of every description in England. As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Assheton Cross) is aware, the Board of Trade has at present an immense amount of work in connection with marine matters and with harbours and foreshores. As freshwater fisheries must, to some extent, be connected with the estuaries of rivers, it seemed to us that it would simplify matters if all the business connected with fisheries were intrusted to one Department. It is impossible for the Board of Trade to hand over the administration of the Mercantile Marine and of harbours and foreshores to the Home Office; and therefore the simplest and easiest, and the least expensive, method is to transfer the business connected with the freshwater fisheries from the Home Office to the Board of Trade. Of course, there will be full opportunity for explanation when the Bill gets into Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes it, we can defer the Committee until Monday, or we can take it to-morrow. [Sir R. ASSHETON CROSS: Not to-morrow.] Then we will put it down for Monday.
  Motion agreed to.

STANNARIES ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 203.]
(Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Courtney, Viscount Ebrington, Mr. Bickford-Smith, Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
STANNARIES ACT (1869) AMENDMENT BILL.— [BILL 203.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: The subject-matter of this Bill is one which only affects the two Western Counties, and, therefore, it cannot be expected to have any general interest to the House; yet it is only respectful to the House that I should endeavour, in a very few words, to explain what is the object sought to be attained by this Bill. The Bill arises from certain deficiencies which have been found to exist in the Stannaries Act of 1869, which regulates the proceedings of the Stannary Court, which Court, as hon. Members may be aware, regulates all matters connected with mining within the counties of Cornwall and Devon, and the Bill provides certain remedies which

  1617
  have been found necessary, especially in the interest of the working miners in Cornwall and Devon. The first few clauses provide that in all cases the wages of the working miners shall have priority over all claims on the mine itself. It was intended that that should be the case by the Act of 1869, which I myself had the honour of passing through this House; but it has been found that in certain cases, and especially in cases of bankruptcy where the Sheriff and debenture holders have been able to enter, miners have been ousted from their wages until the assets on the mine have been realized. That has been the result of a decision of the Stannary Court, and there have been cases in which the assets could not be realized, and the working miners have been kept for a long time without the money due to them. The effect of these clauses is, shortly, that in all cases, without exception, the wages of miners shall have a prior claim of anything else. The 9th clause—an important one for the miners of our counties—provides that the wages shall be payable at the end of 14 days from the expiration of the month in which the work was done. The present system is that the work which is done in one month—say, in the month of January—is paid for at the end of the second month—that is to say, at the end of the month of February. That has been productive of a certain amount of inconvenience. Those engaged in working mines, Companies, and adventurers, have found it possible to shorten the time by 14 days; and this clause provides that the miners shall be paid at the end of 14 days from the expiration of the month in which the work was done. It further provides that, at the end of 14 days from the beginning of the work, they shall be entitled to demand a certain amount of payment on account of the work already done, so that they shall not be kept without the moans of subsistence until the time when they are paid in the ordinary way. If there should be any dispute between the working miners and the owners or managers of the mine as to the amount which is due the miners are entitled to go before two or more Justices of the Peace, who will determine the amount and enable them to receive it in a summary manner. The 10th clause provides for the registration in the Stannary Court of
  1618
  "All mortgages, debentures, and other documents whatever, whereby power is given by any Company to any persons to take possession of any mining effects of or on a mine."
  At present these are only registered at the office of the Company. The office of the Company may be in London, and when that is the case it is extremely difficult for those persons in the county who are interested or who may have claims on the mine to ascertain what the debts and liabilities of the mine are, and it has been felt it would be more to the interest of all concerned if it were made compulsory that the registration of these debts and liabilities should be made in the Stannary Court. The 11th clause provides that a copy of all grants and licences for work shall be filed in the Registrar's Office of the Stannary Court; and by Clauses 14 and 16 it is provided that regular meetings of the shareholders shall be held at least once every 16 weeks, and that at these meetings all accounts shall be produced, and another clause provides that the accounts shall be absolutely accurate, and penalties are provided for any case of the falsification of accounts. Another clause provides for the amalgamation of Companies, having leases to work land adjoining by mutual agreement. It will be seen that that is a great advantage. Very often in Cornwall and Devon the lodes run through the country, as we call it. It would manifestly lead to a saving of expense—for pumping water, for instance—if the Companies whose lands adjoined were enabled to amalgamate for the purpose of working. For that a statutory provision is required, and that is provided by the 18th clause of this Bill. The 19th clause gives exclusive jurisdiction to the Stannary Court to wind up Companies in the counties of Cornwall and Devon in the Stannary Court. At present Companies which are actually worked must be wound up within the Stannary Court; but Companies which are only formed for the purpose of working can be wound up in London. It often happens that Companies are formed, but it is never intended to work them. Certain liabilities are incurred, and if the Companies are wound up in London and not in the county, those in the county who are interested, and who may be creditors, have no opportunity of knowing what is going on, and they cannot

  1619
  stop improper proceedings which very often take place. If Companies, whether they have been worked or only formed and not worked, are wound up in the county, everyone concerned will be able to watch the proceedings. The last clauses insure the registration of Mining Companies and Returns in the Stannary Court. By the Companies Act, 1862, the Board of Trade had power to name certain places for the winding up of these Companies, and accordingly they named the Stannary Court. For some years—the exact number of years I do not recollect—that has been done away with, and the Board of Trade revoked their Order. The consequence is that some of these mines are registered in London, and some in Truro. That is a great inconvenience also, and is productive of considerable loss to those interested in mines. Clause 20 provides that—
  "The Registrar's office at Truro shall be the sole office for the registration of Companies formed under the Companies Act, 1862, with the exclusive or primary object of working mines within the jurisdiction of the said stannaries."
  The House will see, therefore, that this Bill gives, in the first place, great protection to the miners themselves in respect to their wages; that, in the second place, it provides that they can demand payments on account; and that, in the third place, it provides additional and very proper security for the fair and honest working of all mines within the stannaries. The Bill has been prepared by those who are interested in mining in the counties of Cornwall and Devon, and I trust it will receive the approval of the House. I beg 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."—(Sir John St. Aubyn.)
  MR. BICKFORD-SMITH: I beg to support the second reading.
  An hon. MEMBER: I should like to know why the Bill should be confined to the two counties of Cornwall and Devon—why it should not be extended to the whole Kingdom?
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: It is only a Bill to amend the Act relating to the Stannaries Act of 1869, which applies to the counties of Cornwall and Devon; it is entirely a local Act.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Of course, a great deal depends upon the practice in Cornwall, and I have no doubt it is very desirable many of these changes should, be made; but the House should bear in mind the fact that this is a Bill which, besides dealing with mines in Cornwall, operates on the present system of Judicature. At the present time every creditor of a Company, under the Companies Acts, has a right to come to the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice, and have the Company wound up there. I was not able to follow the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn) sufficiently closely to speak with absolute certainty; but I understood the hon. Baronet to say that in the future it will be compulsory, in the case of winding up a Company working a mine in Cornwall, that the winding up should take place in the Stannary Court. This will completely oust the jurisdiction of the High Court in the case of this class of Company, and also, to that extent, diminish the privileges of the creditors of any Company of this kind. Moreover, it will be very necessary for any person interested in these Mining Companies to bear in mind that in future he is able to get no information in respect to such Companies from the Register of Joint Stock Companies in London. The Register of Joint Stock Companies is no longer to be a Register in which all Companies of limited liability can be found. These are provisions of considerable importance, going beyond the case of Cornwall and Devon. What I wish to know is, whether these questions have been considered by the Legal Advisers to the Government? I do not see the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General (Sir Charles Russell) in his place; but perhaps it may be in the power of some other Minister to give us the opinion of the Government with respect to the points I have raised?
  MR. CONYBEARE: It is rather late (1 o'clock) to enter upon the consideration of a Bill which raises matters of such importance as this Bill. I do not know that it would be wise for me to follow the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn) into all the details he has mentioned; but, indeed, I do not propose to do so. This is a matter of very great importance and interest to the mining division of

  1621
  Cornwall which I have the honour to represent. The Bill is introduced professedly in the interest of the mining population of Cornwall; but, strange to say, the mining population of my constituency reject it. It is impossible to say that the measure meets with anything like general approval or satisfaction amongst the population it is intended to benefit. There is one demand, Sir, which the miners whom I represent are strongly insisting upon, and that is that their wages should be paid fortnightly, and not monthly. On a recent occasion—at Easter—when I was in Cornwall, I was asked to meet a large number of gentlemen who are promoting this Bill. They formed what is called a county committee, and they consisted of landlords, bankers, smelters, agents, and others. They do not represent the bulk of the population or the bulk of the electorate; but they have constituted themselves into a sort of Select Committee to thrust on this particular bit of legislation. At the meeting of which I have spoken I pointed out what was very generally known—namely, that the miners asked very strongly that their wages should be paid once a fortnight instead of once a month; and I urged on the meeting that they should embody a provision of that kind in their Bill, if they wanted it to be of the slightest use to the working population. The meeting flatly refused to do anything of the kind. That is one, and the principal, reason why I maintain that my constituents are perfectly right in rejecting this Bill. This Bill, along with the Mines Bill which has been introduced into this House by myself and several hon. Members, has been fully considered and discussed from end to end of my constituency; and at every meeting where the matter has been taken into consideration the miners of Cornwall, inside and outside of my constituency, have rejected this Bill, and have authorized me in my place in the House of Commons to support and advocate their rejection of it. I have, therefore, no course to pursue but to object to this measure. I took what, a short time ago, appeared to me the best course under the circumstances—I put upon the Paper a Notice to the effect that the second reading of this measure should be taken on the 22nd of June, the day on which the Mines Bill is set
  1622
  down for second reading. I did so because I wished not to kick this Bill and the sister-Bill, which, I suppose, we shall discuss presently, ignominiously out of the House by putting down the usual Blocking Notice—I did not wish to treat a Cornish Colleague so disrespectfully—but because I thought it would save the time of the House to have the two Bills affecting the interests of the miners of Cornwall discussed together and at a proper time. I withdrew that Amendment at your request, Sir, because, as I learned, I had, in my ignorance, put down the Amendment in an unprecedented form. Under all the circumstances of the case, I think the best course for me to take is to move the adjournment of the debate, with a view of securing that the Bill shall be considered at a time when its merits and all the issues at stake can be adequately discussed. I have a great many reasons which, if there were now time, I could advance against the Bill. Of course, I am not saying there are no good points in the Bill; it would be difficult for an amending Bill not to have some features in it deserving of consideration, and which are meritorious in themselves. Looking to the scope and general policy of the Bill, and having regard to the history of the Bill, with which I shall not at present trouble the House, but of which I may be able to say a good deal on another occasion, I consider it would be unwise for the House to pass the second reading of this measure at 1 o'clock in the morning. I therefore beg to move that this debate be now adjourned.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to second the Motion.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: I am sorry to come in collision with my hon. Colleague on this occasion; but I must call his attention and that of the House to the fact that I myself represent a very large mining constituency, and that I have not had one word of complaint from any single miner in my constituency, nor has any sound of complaint from any miner elsewhere in Cornwall against the provisions of this Bill reached me. I perfectly understand that it is legitimate

  1623
  the hon. Member should wish to go farther in many respects than this Bill goes; but surely we may pass this Bill with safety, and carry further measures hereafter, if it is the general wish. If there had been such a unanimous feeling amongst the miners of Cornwall against this Bill as the hon. Gentleman says, I should surely have received some Petitions by this time from the working miners in my own constituency, and the hon. Member would have received several to present to the House from the working miners in his own constituency. There are others besides the hon. Gentleman and myself returned from Cornwall, and I am not aware that they have received any complaints against the Bill. I put it to the hon. Member whether he would not be acting with greater advantage to those whom he claims specially to represent if he allowed the Bill, which really has for its object a great amendment in the condition of the working miners, to pass the second reading, and reserve to himself full liberty to propose in Committee whatever Amendments he thinks necessary. The adoption of such a course would leave him full option to proceed with his own Bill and carry the Amendment further if he thinks proper.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GUILDERS): I cannot answer the question put to the Government by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) on the Motion for the adjournment of the debate. I appeal to the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare) not to press his Motion for adjournment. When the Bill was introduced I objected to its being read a second time suddenly, and I asked my hon. Friend (Sir John St. Aubyn) to postpone the second reading until to-day. I therefore think it would be unreasonable to reject the second reading now. I feel confident the hon. Member (Sir John St. Aubyn) will allow plenty of time between this and the Committee stage, so that hon. Members from Cornwall may be able to put down Amendments and the Government may be able to consider them. Of course, we are not able to consider Amendments until the Bill has passed the second reading, because Amendments cannot be put down until this stage has been agreed to. If my hon. Friend will give a fortnight, or some such reasonable
  1624
  time, for the consideration of the Amendments, I will take care that the Government will consider them well before the Committee stage.
  MR. CONYBEARE: Under the circumstances, I am willing to withdraw my Motion, reserving to myself the right to offer whatever opposition I think right on a future occasion. Perhaps I may be allowed a word of explanation in respect of what my hon. Friend (Sir John St. Aubyn) has said, and it is that I know of one place—St. Just—in his constituency the miners of which are of the same mind in regard to the Bill as the miners in my constituency.
  MR JOHN WILSON: I should like to know whether, if the Bill is read a second time, it will be competent in Committee to move that the general principle of the measure should apply to the whole of the country? There are many of us who think that whatever good there is in the Bill in the interest of miners ought to apply to the country generally, and not only to the counties of Cornwall and Devon. If it be competent to move that the operation of the Bill be extended, we should all the more readily agree to the second reading.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is quite competent for the hon. Gentleman to make such a Motion at a subsequent stage.
  MR. CHANCE: My Colleagues and myself are not very much interested in this Bill, because there are very few miners in our country; but we consider that in a matter like this we should be guided by the wishes of the Representatives of the mining districts. The Bill was introduced and read a first time when our minds were occupied by other and more serious matters. We now find, however, that some of the Representatives of the mining population wish to have the principle of the Bill extended to the whole of the country. It is possible we may wish such an extension in the interest of the few miners of Ireland. We would not, however, oppose the second reading now if we received from the hon. Baronet (Sir John St. Aubyn) who has moved the second reading an intimation of his intention to fix a reasonably long interval between this and Committee, say, at least, a fortnight.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Original Question put, and agreed to.
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: I propose to take the Committee stage upon Thursday the 3rd of June.
  MR. TOMLINSON: Perhaps, upon this Motion, the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary (Mr. Childers) may be inclined to answer the question I put to the Government.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GUILDERS): I do not know whether I should be quite in Order, but, if so, I would simply say we think that the stannary system should continue to apply to miners in Cornwall.
  Bill committed for Thursday 3rd June.

MINING LEASES (CORNWALL AND DEVON) BILL.— [BILL 204.]
(Sir John St. Aubyn, Mr. Courtney, Viscount Ebrington, Mr. Bickford-Smith, Mr. Seale-Hayne.)
MINING LEASES (CORNWALL AND DEVON) BILL.— [BILL 204.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Sir John St. Aubyn.)
  MR. CONYBEARE: I have a much stronger objection to this Bill than I had to the last. The Bill does not deal, I think, with a single one of the great grievances we in Cornwall complain of. The public of Cornwall are in favour of a far more direct and stringent reform of the laws relating to mining leases than anything contained in this measure. This measure has been condemned by the public opinion of the county as inadequate and useless to remedy the evils which are complained of. The people of Cornwall, taken as a body, are in favour of the establishment of a Mining Commission for the purpose of dealing with mining questions. The china clay industry, in particular, has been ostentatiously excluded from whatever benefit this Bill may give, and there is a very strong feeling against the Bill upon that ground alone. The question of dues upon profits,
  1626
  which is really the burning question in connection with the important mining industry of Cornwall, is not dealt with at all by this Bill; while questions connected with compensation for improvements, fines, and other matters of great importance to the adventurers and others concerned in the mines in Cornwall, are treated in the most inadequate fashion. It is perfectly well known that a measure has been introduced in this House to extend to the whole country, and to deal in a systematic and a thoroughly reforming manner with all the questions in which great interest is felt in every mining constituency of the country. The passing of this Bill would simply be used as an argument in favour of excluding Cornwall from the benefits of the Mines Bill when it comes to be passed in a future Session. This matter has been fully discussed throughout Cornwall, and the feeling has been most strongly expressed that while all classes are anxious for some reform it would be a very great mistake to rush through Parliament a very inefficient and inadequate reform this Session, thus depriving, possibly, Cornishmen of the advantages of a much more thorough-going measure of reform which may come next Session, or the Session after. I am speaking what is common knowledge in the district to which I allude, when I say that this zeal on the part of the landlords and other interested persons for a reform of the law regulating mines is perfectly new, and was never exhibited before my candidature for a seat in this House last year. Nothing will satisfy them now than to rush through Parliament a paltry Bill, in order to bilk a great measure which practically meets the wishes of all the Mining Representatives in the House of Commons. I have no hesitation whatever in moving the adjournment of the debate upon this Bill, as I did upon the last, but with this difference—that I shall now press it to a division.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I beg to second the Motion of the hon. Member (Mr. Conybeare). In my judgment, small reforms like this prevent the passing of larger ones. While, of course, it is very nice for hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway on the other side of the House to propose Bills of this kind, we should have great regard for the opinion of those who really

  1627
  represent the working miners. Practically it all amounts to this—where two-thirds of the landed class in this country want to let a mine, they can do so in spite of the other one-third. What possible advantage does that give to the mining population of the country? None whatever. What good is done to the great mass of people who want to be benefited by Bills of this class? I say none whatever. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his moderation in not opposing the Bill by a block. Hon. Members representing English constituencies make a great mistake if they suppose that because we have not many mines in Ireland we do not take an interest in this matter. We do take great interest in it, not only on account of our own few mines, but on account of the interest we take in the mining population of this country, who are displaying such marked sympathy with the people of Ireland at this time. We Irish Members, however, have, perhaps, no right to interfere in a discussion affecting the demands of a place like Cornwall; still, we feel it right to point out that these petty reforms, framed in such a manner as to enable the Government to accept them, often prevent much larger and more beneficial measures being brought forward and carried to a successful issue. These small measures receive the name of "reforms," which in reality they are not. They are intended to make the people believe that something is being done for them. This is only a small Bill touching the fringe of the question, and that is why hon. Gentlemen above the Gangway opposite accept it. We think that hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway are right in offering opposition, and if the hon. Member persists in his Motion he will get our support.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."—(Mr. Conybeare.)
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: If the hon. Member had given attention to the Bill he would not have said, as he did, that the clause which provides that two-thirds of the landed class can control the letting of mines is the only important clause in the Bill. There are other important clauses. I would point out——
  MR. CONYBEARE: I rise to Order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the Question before
  1628
  the House the Motion for the adjournment of the debate? The hon. Member has no right to go into the merits of the Bill.
  MR. SPEAKER: When the hon. Member is out of Order I shall stop him.
  SIR JOHN ST. AUBYN: I ask the indulgence of the House for a few moments in order to answer the hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down, and to answer the hon. Gentleman below the Gangway. The latter said the measure had been universally condemned throughout the county of Cornwall, and that he thought it was a landlord's measure. He must know that it is not a Bill drawn up and approved solely by the landlords, but by those whose interests——
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is now speaking to the Main Question, and not to the Motion for the adjournment of the debate.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 69: Majority 3.—(Div. List, No. 102.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: What day is the debate to be put off to?
  Debate adjourned till Thursday 3rd June.

MOTIONS.
  PARLIAMENTARY ELECTIONS (IRELAND) (CLERICAL INTERFERENCE).

    MOTION FOR LEAVE.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prevent Clerical interference before, at, and during a Parliamentary Election in Ireland."—(Captain M'Calmont.)
    MR. T. M. HEALY: Before a Bill of this importance is brought in we should have some explanation of its provisions from the hon. and gallant Member in charge of it. There is a Standing Order which says that Bills dealing—as I presume this one does—with religion shall be brought in in Committee. It may be said, however, that this Bill does not interfere with religion, but is only to prevent clergymen from interfering with elections. We know nothing about any such interference, and we doubt whether it exists. After this, we may have Bills brought

    1629
    in to prevent landlords interfering with elections, and then to prevent similar interference on the part of the agents of landlords, and so on. All these subjects are of importance, and it is perfectly monstrous to initiate this kind of legislation without a word of explanation. I shall feel bound, therefore, to oppose the introduction of the Bill, unless some explanation is given of the measure.
    CAPTAIN M'CALMONT: My object in wishing to introduce this Bill is simply to add to the purity of elections. I believe there is a certain amount of intimidation connected with elections in Ireland. The hon. and learned Gentleman below the Gangway says no information of interference with elections on the part of clergymen exists; and, if that is so, it cannot be said that I am interfering with the rights of candidates at elections. I am merely adding to the purity of elections by this measure; it would apply to clergymen of all denominations. I venture to hope that the House will consent to allow it to be proceeded with.
    MR. CHANCE: I am afraid the explanation of the hon. and gallant Member is hardly satisfactory. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot be aware that there is in existence a severe Act dealing with corrupt and improper acts at elections, which makes it penal for anyone to improperly "interfere" with an election. I think the introduction of a Bill of this character would throw serious aspersions on the character of the clergy of all denominations, not only in Ireland, but over the whole of England; and I think the House should hesitate before allowing such an intolerant measure as this to be brought in. I am not aware that it has been proved in any Court of Law that during the recent General Election contests were influenced or interfered with by the clergy of any denomination; and I think it would be an unfortunate state of things if we could not pass through the ordeal of a General Election without such a Bill as this. We know that through the interference of the political Party to which the hon. and gallant Member belongs we had contests all through Ireland at the last Election, a great many of them being vexatious and unnecessary; therefore, we may assume that the object now in view is to increase
    1630
    the chances of these Gentlemen of being able to find flaws in elections, so as to upset the return of Nationalist candidates. This Bill extends only to Ireland. We have, as I say, in that country had no interference by the clergy with elections on the National, or popular side. I believe, however, it may be said with truth that there was clerical interference on what I may term the unpopular side in England. It is a significant fact, therefore, that the hon. and gallant Member desires to impose such stringent measures upon Ireland, where the doctrines which his political Party hold are supported by so few members of any form of the Christian faith, whilst he would leave this country free—a country in which I say, without the slightest fear of contradiction, there was a considerable amount of clerical interference at the last Election. He proposes to leave English Members to the mercy of the Corrupt Practices Act alone. I think hon. Gentlemen will not be surprised if on this occasion we desire to secure for Ireland immunity from a law which will be a scandal and a disgrace to the Statute Book. For these reasons I shall vote against the Motion for leave to introduce the Bill. Another point is that whilst the hon. and gallant Member is anxious to interfere with Parliamentary elections, he does not make the slightest effort to interfere with municipal and other elections. We know there are other elections which are not under the Ballot, and that when we proposed to prevent intimidation or interference with these elections by prescribing the machinery of the Ballot it was the right hon. Gentleman's Party that divided against the Bill. Against what seemed to me the very evident sense of the House, they pressed the matter to a division. I do not think this Bill is a judicious one. It cannot be judicious to detract from a body of clergy against whom nothing has been proved.
    MR. DE COBAIN: As to extending the measure to Municipal and Poor Law elections, I think my hon. and gallant Friend would have no objection to do that in Committee. He would, I believe, be prepared to extend it to all elections. I would advise him to permit the provisions to be extended to all elections, because, certainly, clerical interference has extended to all elections in

    1631
    Ireland, and has been by no means confined to Parliamentary contests.
    MR. JOHNS: I beg to say that we have the Corrupt Practices Act, which deals with undue interference. I, therefore, regard the Bill as unnecessary; and unless it is applied to England I shall vote against it.
    Question put, and negatived.

POLICE FORCES (REMOVAL OF DISABILITIES) BILL.

  MOTION FOR LEAVE.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill for the removal of disabilities of the Police Forces to Vote at Parliamentary Elections in Great Britain."—(Mr. Tottenham.)
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Sir, the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) asks leave to bring in a Bill to remove the disabilities of the police in England in respect of Parliamentary Elections; the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) has given Notice of a similar Bill with regard to Ireland, although a Bill of the same nature relating to the two countries has already been brought in by another Member and rejected by the House. I ask, Sir, whether it is in Order for these two hon. Members, by bringing forward their Bills in this way, to act against the Rule of the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: There is no objection to the Motion of the hon. Member on the ground of Order. The Bill to which the hon. Member refers was not defeated on the Motion that it be referred to any Committee; it was upon the Motion that it be postponed to a very distant day. Of course, it is a matter for the discretion of the House whether there should be more than one Bill before the House dealing with the same subject.
  MR. DILLON: Sir, there is a Bill before the House on which the sense of the House has been taken; these Bills are supposed to do the same thing. As you say, Sir, that it lies within the discretion of the House to grant or refuse the introduction of a Bill, I think we are entitled to ask the House to refuse leave to bring in this measure. I point out that it is a great inconvenience and annoyance to hon. Members,
  1632
  after spending already much time in dealing with the subject in one Bill, to have two other Bills brought forward precisely the same in principle, and requiring the same amount of discussion.
  MR. BRUNNER: Sir, it was with regret that I felt myself compelled to vote for the postponement to a far-off date of the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for the Epping Division of Essex (Sir Henry Selwin-Ibbetson). I voted against him simply because he proposed, against the wish of the vast majority of Irish Members, to enfranchise the Royal Irish Constabulary; and I trust that Irish Members will not now oppose the giving of the vote to a very deserving class of men in Great Britain.
  MR. CHANCE: Sir, I am sure that we on these Benches desire to observe the wishes of English Members, especially of those who support us; but I wish to point out that there is a difficulty in allowing this Bill to be introduced as a Bill for Great Britain, and then finding that it is to be extended to Ireland. Such a transaction would be distinctly opposed to the law, and certainly to the spirit of Parliamentary Rules. As another argument against the introduction of the Bill, I would point out that there is nothing in the wording of the Bill to prevent this being done here or in "another place," and so, practically, take the consideration of this question out of our hands. We have had such tactics pursued already on this very subject; and I ask the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken to remember that the last Bill was introduced and permitted to pass the second reading on the clear understanding that it would not be extended to Ireland—or that the words "and Ireland" should be struck out, and the operation of the Bill confined to Great Britain. The hon. Gentleman knows very well what is the influence of the Front Opposition Bench in "another place," and what is possible within the Rules of Parliamentary warfare; and I regard the present proceeding as, perhaps, one of those Parliamentary manœuvres which are resorted to more often than they ought to be.
  MR. T. P. O'CONNOR: Sir, I frankly confess that I am against the enfranchisement of the police in England, Ireland, and Wales,

  1633
  If there be anything in the world prejudicial to the country I think it would be the transformation of the Police Forces into political bodies. I am a most earnest admirer of the Institutions of America; but I think the manner in which offices are given in the police for political reasons is a scandal to that country, and I should be very sorry to see the same principle in operation here. We should find hon. Members constantly getting up in this House and asking the Heads of Departments whether or not it is intended to increase the salary of officials in those Departments. I say that this is a question which should be left entirely to the Heads of Departments themselves, who are the only persons who can fairly judge of the amount of remuneration that should be given to public officials; but if you introduce the other principle you bring suspicion on the working of the Departments and their internal management, and therefore I say that to convert the Police Force of Great Britain into a political body would be the degradation of it. But my opposition to the enfranchisement of the Police Force does not rest on this ground alone. We should, if this Bill were passed, undoubtedly find that the Police Force would be used for Tory purposes. ["No, no!"] Why, every Civil servant knows that extravagance is the cry of the Tory Party. Seeing that they live on the public funds they have naturally a very considerable interest in increasing the establishments of the country. I repeat, that to enfranchise the police of any country, whether of England, Ireland, or Scotland, is, instead of making it an impartial body contented with the remuneration given by the Authorities, to transform it into a political body which will be using its interest at elections to get more salary. If this Motion is put I shall certainly vote against it. I warn my hon. Friend to be a little on his guard against so astute a political hand as the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. We had, with regard to the other Bill, pledges that it would not be extended to Ireland; but it was only by the exercise of Parliamentary adroitness that we escaped from having the police of Ireland changed into a voting body. Exactly the same course would probably be pursued by the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill. I feel sure that when the
  1634
  hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Herman) and the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) put down their several Motions with regard to the enfranchisement of the police they were acting in concert, and that their object is to get rid by a side-wind of the decision which this House came to 14 days ago—namely, that the 20th of August would be quite early enough to consider this matter with regard to both England and Ireland. I hope that this House will show its determination to keep the Police Forces of the country entirely as non-political bodies, and confine their action to the preservation of law and order.
  COLONEL KING-HARMAN: Sir, as far as my Bill is concerned, I may say that it is put down without concert with any hon. Member, and without reference to any other measure on the Paper. My advice to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Tottenham) was, that he should allow my Bill alone to remain on the Paper; and I can assure the House, so far as my intention and my action are concerned, that I shall be no party to the introduction of anything relating to Ireland into the Bill as suggested by hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway. With regard to this proposal, I cannot see why a class as capable as any in the country should not be allowed to exercise the franchise in the same way as the rest of Her Majesty's subjects.
  MR. SEXTON: Sir, our position with regard to the Bill is this—we desire that our opinion should prevail with reference to the police of Ireland. On the other hand, we think that the opinion of English Members—especially those for whom we have high respect—should be allowed to prevail with respect to the preliminary stage of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Thanet (Colonel King-Harman) has, I think, stated his position with great fairness, and he has said that he will be no party to the extension of this Bill to Ireland; and, therefore, considering that the introduction of a Bill does not involve any assent to its principle, but merely implies that the subject may be considered, I am of opinion that we may waive our opposition in the present instance.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Tottenham, Mr. William Hart Dyke, Sir Julian Goldsmid, Viscount Grimston, Mr. Biddulph, Colonel King-Harman, and Mr. Rylands.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 221.]

  PUBLIC PARKS AND WORKS (METROPOLIS) BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Bill for the transfer, to the Metropolitan Board of Works, and the maintenance of certain Public Parks and Works in the Metropolis, ordered to be brought in by Mr. Henry H. Fowler, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Leveson Gower.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Oxford University (Justices)* (119).
Second Reading—Crofters (Scotland) (No. 2) (95); West Indian Incumbered Estates* (115); British North America* (116).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Customs and Inland Revenue* (112).
Committee—Companies Acts Amendment* (82–121); Bankruptcy (Agricultural Labourers' Wages)* (70).
Third Reading—Incumbents of Benefices Loans Extension* (89), and passed.

CROFTERS (SCOTLAND) (No. 2) BILL.
(The Earl of Dalhousie.)

(NO. 95.) SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (The Earl of DALHOUSIE), in moving that the Bill be read a second time, said, that the subject was one of very great and very pressing importance. He believed that in one sense it was new to their Lordships' House, because it had never been formally under their notice; but in another sense it could not be regarded as new, because their Lordships could hardly be unaware of the discussions that had taken place in the Press and "elsewhere" upon this very delicate and difficult question. For some time past, as the House knew, the population in certain parts of the

1467
Highlands and Islands of Scotland had been in a dissatisfied and discontented condition—a condition owing, no doubt, partly to the distress arising from the natural poverty of the country, and partly arising from causes which Parliament might, perhaps, do something to mitigate. In March, 1883, a Royal Commission was appointed for the express purpose of inquiring into the condition and grievances of the crofters and cottars of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. That Commission reported in the month of April, 1884, and in summing up their Report they described the feeling which they found prevalent among the crofters in the following remarkable words:—
"The aspect of the present and the future calmly considered presents the following features:—The dissatisfaction of the small tenants in regard to their position is of native origin, but it is fomented by external influences. The land movement in the Highlands, even if it were not spontaneously maintained by the people themselves, would be aroused to action by other forces; it is impelled by the democratic and social aspirations prevalent among various classes at home, and will probably enlist the sympathies of Highlanders in all parts of the world."
The Commission made certain specific recommendations with a view to the mitigation and, if possible, the removal of the causes of discontent which were susceptible of being removed by legislation. They made recommendations with regard to land tenure, fisheries, and communications, education, with respect to some extent to the administration of justice, with regard to game and deer forests, and emigration. This Bill was partly based on the recommendations of the Commission. Matters connected with the improvement of the means of communication between the different parts of the Highlands and Islands, with education, and the administration of justice were not dealt with in the Bill because they had been already partly dealt with, and it was administration, not legislation, which was required for the purpose; neither was emigration for a reason he would explain by-and-bye if their Lordships desired. He did not say that the Bill contained everything recommended by the Commission; but it contained everything which, in the opinion of the Government, it ought to contain. It did not meet the extreme views of some advocates of the crofters' claims; but no legislation short of what
1468
was absolutely revolutionary, and not based on principles not a bit more applicable to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland than to any part of Great Britain could possibly satisfy them. But the Government thought it met the reasonable grievances and claims of the crofters so far as they could be dealt with by legislation. The Bill was mainly a Land Bill, and was intended to improve the status and condition of the crofters so far as could be done without inflicting injustice upon others. He wished to impress upon their Lordships the extreme urgency of passing this Bill without delay, if they approved it. Some legislation, it was agreed on all hands, was absolutely necessary. On that point there was a general consensus of opinion. The question was whether the Bill was right and proper and fitted to grapple with conditions of things it was intended to meet. If their Lordships came to that decision and thought the Bill should pass, he would ask them to come to this further conclusion, that it ought to be passed as rapidly as possible. The appointment of the Royal Commission in 1883, the general tenour of its Report in the following year, and, above all, the Resolution passed in the House of Commons in November, 1884, had led the crofters to form expectations—and they had been encouraged to form expectations—that it would result in some beneficial legislation on their behalf. That expectation had been fostered by political agitators for the last two or three years, until it assumed in certain parts altogether unreasonable proportions—proportions which he was afraid no legislation that Parliament would pass was likely to satisfy. The minds of the people were fairly unsettled. In many cases payment not only of rent, but of poor rates and school rates, was so much in arrear as to argue a condition of things, to say the least, extremely unsatisfactory. The Government were most anxious, as he was sure their Lordships were also, that a more wholesome and healthy state of things should be brought about. He was not exaggerating when he said that but for the length of time during which the expectations of the people of the West Highlands had been kept on the stretch—a fact which was very important in the case—the existing condition of things in certain districts would argue

1469
widespread demoralization of an alarming character. His Predecessor in Office (Mr. Trevelyan) three months ago expressed the following strong opinion:—
"It is high time the present state of things should stop. But it was high time that Parliament having expressed a strong opinion in favour of remedial legislation should carry its opinion into effect."
Since then matters had become worse. He asked their Lordships especially to pay attention to this, because it formed a strong argument in favour of legislation of some kind. In November, 1884, the House of Commons passed the following Resolution:—
"Resolved, that in the opinion of this House it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon the condition of the crofters and cottiers in the Higlands and Islands of Scotland; to apply such other remedies as it seems advisable. That this House concurs in the opinion expressed by the Commission, on page 110 of its Report, that the mere vindication of authority and repression of resistance would not establish relations of mutual confidence between landlord and tenant."
He would go further than Mr. Trevelyan, and say that, having so strongly expressed its opinion that legislation was required, it was impossible, practically, for any Government which was dependent for its power—as all Governments in this country were—entirely on public opinion, vigorously to enforce the law until the law was altered to meet the grievance which Parliament admitted to exist. It was absolutely necessary, for the sake of law and order, that either this Bill, or some other Bill, should be passed, and passed quickly, into law. He hoped their Lordships would see that it was his duty to try to persuade them that it was not only desirable to pass the Bill quickly, but, if possible, to pass it without mutilation of any of the more important provisions. If he might make a suggestion, he would like to say that their Lordships ought to remember that they were a House of landlords, and that it would become them well to take a generous view of things. He hoped they would not make more Amendments in detail than were absolutely necessary, because that might go a long way to rob the measure of its grace. Last year the Government introduced a Crofters Bill, and had they remained in Office they would doubtless have passed it into law; but the hanging up of the Crofter Question
1470
for another year was one of the minor results of the change of Government last summer. The Bill of last year was, however, in many respects less complete than the present Bill, for it proposed to give only fixity of tenure, fair rent, and compensation for improvements. But the present Bill provided also for increase of crofts, both arable and pasture, for loans to be advanced by the Treasury, through the Fishery Board, and for developing the fishing industry. That last point was very hopeful, and though that provision did not occupy a very large portion of the Bill, it was to his mind one of the most important in the whole measure. Formerly the manufacture of kelp was a very important industry in Scotland. About the beginning of the century the price of kelp was £20 or £22 a ton, and it was a means of livelihood for the crofters and cottars. The Western Islands produced about 20,000 tons annually of the value of from £400,000 to £440,000. When the abolition of the Salt Duties lowered the price from £22 to £2 a-ton the great industry was destroyed, and the condition of the people was very much and very suddenly lowered. That fact should count for something when considering the claims of those people. It was impossible for the people to foresee and provide for a contingency of that kind. The means of communication in that part of the country were very scanty; and it was, therefore, extremely difficult for them to adapt themselves to the industries that might be springing up. That one fact alone should at all events count for something when considering the claims of the crofter population to exceptional legislation; and he thought it was obvious if they could by any means facilitate the creation of a new industry that would take the place of the kelp industry they should be doing something to replace the crofters in the same favourable position which it was alleged they occupied in the olden time, and, at the same time, they should be doing a very laudable and desirable thing in itself, and from a public point of view; and, in regard to that point, the development of the fishing industry offered a prospect of very great hope. The development of the fishing industry was of great promise, and the fishing grounds in the neighbourhood Westward

1471
of the Hebrides were of unusual fertility and very valuable. In order that the fisheries might be properly worked and developed more boats were wanted; and the Bill proposed to advance money, through the Fishery Board, to the fishermen for the purchase of boats and gear. They were not without practical, and he thought very valuable, experience on that point. The Highland Fisheries Company was a Company formed a year-and-a-half ago for the purpose of advancing money to fishermen for the purpose of boats, and hitherto their experiment had been extremely successful. It was likely to be very much more successful when the means of communication had been further improved, and the Government had that point at this moment under consideration. That Company advanced money to crofters—men, of course, selected after due and careful inquiry—and they charged 3 per cent on the money advanced. Between January and July, 1885, money was advanced to 22 fishermen, and the total sum advanced was £4,027. Of that total sum advanced there was repaid up to the present time £2,694. That was to say, the average sum advanced to each fisherman was £183, and the average sum repaid was £122. These results were full of hope in the future for the fishing industry, and gave the Government good ground to proceed upon when they contemplated the advancement of loans for the purpose of developing the fishing industry. Perhaps the most prominent and important feature of the Bill was that which proposed to give more land to the crofters and prescribed the manner in which that was to be done. Much had been said on both sides as to the historical justification for the Bill, and especially as to this particular provision. It had been objected that there was no historical ground whatever for the exceptional treatment of the districts and holdings dealt with by the Bill. For his own part, he would be very sorry to push the historical argument too far; and he would only say in regard to it that although there might have been no legal rights of grazing which the clansmen in old days could enforce in a Court of Law, yet in those districts to which the Bill applied there was undoubtedly, speaking generally, an undisturbed exercise by the clansmen of the enjoyment
1472
of pasturage for their cattle. It must, of course, be admitted that in particular cases and in particular circumstances this enjoyment was sometimes interfered with by the chiefs of the clan. Yet under normal conditions the custom and practice of the country amounted to something very like practical continuity of occupancy. This Bill was intended to give legal sanction and efficacy to those previous customary enjoyments, and even to extend them where possible without injustice to other people. In some cases the sub-division of houses and the over-crowding of townships had been the work of the crofters themselves; but it had not always been entirely the work of the crofters themselves. In some cases it had been due to the action of the landlords. This Bill made it impossible that such action should occur in the future. The Bill gave facilities for the improvement of the condition of the crofters, and put it out of the power of owners to take any steps for sub-division prejudicial to the interests of the crofters. Of course it might be objected that this was very grandmotherly legislation, but a wise grandmother might do good. The question before the House was whether or not the Bill was suited to the circumstances of the crofters, and it seemed to him to be an absurd argument to say that the principles of legislation were equally applicable to all classes of society. It had always seemed to him absurd to argue that the same principles of legislation were equally applicable to all populations alike, no matter how widely they differed as to the stage of development at which they had arrived. He submitted that the history of the Highlands, the difficulty of access to some portions, the imperfect means of communication, and the peculiar difficulties against which people had to contend and struggle against for many years afforded an ample justification for the Bill, even if it were not necessary in fulfilment of the promise already given by Parliament and to set at rest the minds of the population, which had been recently so much exercised on the subject, in regard to the provisions of the measure. He admitted readily enough that the provision with regard to the enlargement of the crofters' holdings was a novel provision; but he submitted that it was absolutely necessary in the

1473
present state of things. If voluntary agreement would have sufficed for the solution of this question, the necessity for this clause would not have arisen; and for his part he hoped and expected that the application to the State would lead to many voluntary agreements being made, which would not otherwise have been made. In framing this part of the Bill the Government had constantly before them the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners, and had, so far as was possible, followed them. He did not wish to throw the responsibility for the Bill on the Royal Commissioners; but a presumption was raised in favour of this provision when it closely corresponded with the recommendations of the Commissioners, and when the view of Her Majesty's Government coincided with the view of the Commissioners. The working of this measure would be intrusted to certain Land Commissioners, three in number. They would occupy a position somewhat similar to that of the Commissioners under the Irish Land Act. One Commissioner must be a trained lawyer of eminence; the other two would, he supposed, be practical men, and one of the three must be able to speak Gaelic. These Commissioners would be intrusted with the power of fixing rent, the amount of compensation, and the powers requisite to give effect to the provision in the Bill with regard to the enlargement of holdings, as well as the power of determining summarily whether individuals were or were not crofters within the meaning of the Act. One other point he wished to draw attention to was that the Bill as it came to this House was substantially the same Bill as was first introduced in the House of Commons in the early part of the Session. Her Majesty's Government had been firm and consistent in adhering to the principles embodied in the Bill, and had resisted, and, on the whole, successfully resisted, Amendments, from whatever quarter, that seemed to trench on the lines they had marked out for themselves. He need hardly say, in the other House of Parliament the pressure was chiefly concerned in extending and enlarging the scope of the Bill in various ways, and he had had numerous communications and a variety of correspondence on this point, and in certain quarters there appeared a vague opinion that the Government
1474
might as well have done more for the crofters than they have done in the Bill. Suggestions had not been wanting that the Government ought to have been more generous in dealing with them; but this Bill was based upon a recognition of the peculiar history and circumstances of the crofter population, and if they deviated from it in the direction of what was called going further, they would have to proceed on altogether different principles. These principles, if they admitted them, would carry them very far indeed, and they would find themselves face to face with very large questions indeed—questions which had no special application to the Highlands of Scotland, but which were equally applicable to any other part of Great Britain, or, indeed, of the civilized world. On the other hand, it was absolutely necessary to go as far as the Government had gone, and he hoped their Lordships would not ask the Government to make any serious modifications in the measure. The Government were not infallible, and he did not assert in their behalf that the Bill was incapable of amendment in detail. Indeed, he himself intended to propose one or two Amendments—one rather an important one; but he did assert that, taken in connection with what had been, and, he hoped, might yet be done in regard to education, and especially in regard to improved means of communication, this Bill fairly met the requirements of the case of the crofter population. That was the population with which they had to deal, and on these grounds he hoped their Lordships would give the Bill a second reading.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a"—(The Earl of Dalhousie.)
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKsaid, he trusted that the position he had recently held in connection with this question as Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Crofters would justify him in submitting his opinion of the merits of the Bill now before them. The main provisions of the Bill were those relating to official rent, fixity of tenure, compulsory enlargement of the holdings, and State aid to the fishing industry. With regard to the first, he thought that he might affirm that the State, in interfering to assess the rental of land, engaged in an interference with freedom

1475
of contract and rights of property, which could only be justified by great abuse, or by the hope of doing a great amount of good. Therefore, it became very important to ascertain whether in the case before them there had been such a prevalence of excessive rent; and whether, in the proposed change, there was a prospect of the advantage he had indicated. In the evidence before the Royal Commission there were a great number of complaints as to excessive rent; but they were not pressed or urged in a very earnest or convincing manner; they were not presented with that persistency or passion which frequently accompanied the complaints in regard to the restriction of the area of the holdings; nor were the complaints as to rent supported by impartial or independent testimony, so as to produce any convincing impression on the minds of the Commission. They were informed that on some crofts rents had not been raised for many years; on some not for a whole generation. In other cases rents had been raised in the same proportion on the small holdings as had been the case in other parts of Scotland on larger farms, and in some peculiarly exceptional cases of excessive rent it was not shown that the increase had always been exacted. Under those circumstances, the Commissioners did not conceive that the complaint of excessive rent was one of a crying or urgent nature. On a general view of the whole question of rents in the Highlands and Islands, it did not seem to them that the case had been made out of a persistent and general abuse which would justify the intervention of the State with the rights of property; but if this innovation were inevitable, it would be at least consolatory if they could feel that the adoption of the system of official rents would involve any substantial or practical improvement. He could not entertain an impression that the great majority of the crofters paid rents varying from £2 to £5. Taking the precedent of Ireland, they might assume there would be a general reduction of rents to the extent of 25 per cent if the Scottish Commissioners were as liberal as the Irish; but even such a reduction of a £3 rental only would be 15 s—1–40th or 50th part of the aggregate revenue or earning of the family. Such a remission might diffuse a certain amount of gratification,
1476
and enable crofters to make some useful purchase of personal indulgence; but such remissions could not have the slightest influence in raising or elevating the social or economic condition of the crofter as a farmer, a mechanic, or a fisherman. In the case of a great number of crofters, though rent was abolished altogether, it would make no substantial alteration in the condition of the people. Referring to the depopulation which took place in the Highlands at the end of last and the beginning of the present century, he said that even in the case of the best-intentioned of the proprietors their action had not been justified by the change. The result of those unfortunate transactions had been the foundation in the country of a dark tradition and resentment amongst the people, and also, in some cases, it had led to positive distress. He thought the Government had acted wisely in dealing with the question of the enlargement of holdings. The opinion of all classes and conditions of men who gave testimony before the Commission agreed in this—that the existing holdings were too small. On the question of fixity of tenure, however, he had never heard on the part of any one of the Gentlemen with whom he was associated on the Commission any opinion in favour of fixity of tenure in the unqualified and extreme form in which fixity of tenure had been adopted in the Bill before the House; nor did he ever hear the principle of fixity of tenure in the same absolute shape recommended by any persons outside the Commission who were in an independent and impartial position. The general opinion regarding it seemed to be that the concession would be fraught with very considerable social and economic objections—that it might tend to confirm the national lethargy, attach the crofters more strongly to the soil, and increase the dangers of sub-division and squatting; so that the Commissioners did not feel themselves justified in recommending the principle of fixity of tenure, and to the resolution of the Commissioners on the subject he still heartily adhered. That opinion at the time was confirmed by the impression that as fixity of tenure was the negation of proprietary rights, so it would very likely become the negation of all proprietary duties. If that principle were applied to the whole population of the

1477
Highlands and Islands, they would run a great risk of depriving them of the counsels and control of the owner of the soil, which were so valuable, and abolish, so far as the law could do so, all that remained of mutual affection, good offices, and material assistance, which it was desirable to encourage instead of destroy. In destroying the proprietor as a moral agent, they destroyed a powerful instrument for preventing evil and promoting good. It would surely be better to preserve the proprietor, encouraging, enabling, and compelling him to do his duty. He knew that it might be contended that with a moderate official rent and fixity of tenure the occupiers would themselves undertake improvements, favoured by the stabilities of their position. He did not undervalue the benefits attached to a prolonged interest in the holding. Those benefits were apparent even under a terminable lease; they would be most apparent when connected with absolute property; they would still be apparent in the half-way condition of fixity of tenure, where such tenure was bestowed and enjoyed under favourable conditions. The small tenant on the mainland, or even in some of the Southern Islands, who practised a civilized husbandry, who was surrounded by good examples, who had access to the materials for improvements, to the great markets of purchase and sale, was suited for such a tenure and would profit by it; but the mass of the poor crofting population in Skye, in the Long Island, and along the shores of the North-Western Highlands would, he apprehended, be incompetent without the directions and contributions of the proprietor to contrive, undertake, and prosecute works of common or individual utility, which were indispensable to their higher welfare. It might still, however, be argued that fixity of tenure was necessary to prevent arbitrary eviction. That might have been a valid argument 60 years ago; but it was a valid argument no longer. There was no arbitrary eviction in the Highlands now. Eviction was only used, or only threatened, to enforce the payment of rent; and under the Bill it could still be used for that purpose, and would, perhaps, be used with greater right. It was only due to the honesty and candour of the noble Earl who moved the second reading to admit that
1478
in recommending the adoption of the principle of judicial rents and fixity of tenure he did not contend there was any abuse at the present moment, either with reference to the amount of rent or the practice of eviction. The last provision in the Bill which claimed special attention was the grant for fisheries. The sum was not large—he believed only £10,000—but of that he did not complain. The object was excellent, but it must be approached with great circumspection; and £10,000 tentatively applied, and applied with success, might do some positive good, and justify a more liberal appropriation hereafter. The greatest defect in the Bill—he meant the greatest want—was the absence of any provision for emigration under Government encouragement and control; for without some such measure all other remedies in the congested regions of the country would be ineffectual. He believed, however, that the noble Earl the Secretary of State for the Colonies (Earl Granville) had held out some hope that this question would be considered by Her Majesty's Government hereafter in another measure and on a larger scale. He agreed with what had fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Dalhousie) in respect to the question of enlargement of holdings. The Commissioners, proceeding on this evidence and on their own experience and observation, resolved that the first and greatest object should be the extension and the improvement of crofters' holdings by the various and complete methods and expedients which are embodied in their Report; and a majority of the Commissioners determined that among those methods should be included a power of compulsory extension, in the absence of spontaneous arrangements between the proprietor and the occupier. He asked whether the question of enlargement, as well as the questions of rent and of tenure, might not be left to free adjustment between the parties concerned? He hoped the claim to enlargement would be settled by free adjustment; but it appeared to him that in this case the power of compulsion should be held in reserve. There was not the least fear of rack-rents or of wanton eviction. The proprietors would in any case now treat their poor tenants with humanity and indulgence; but it was not so certain that the proprietors would, without

1479
some powerful impulse, undertake the rather difficult and complex task of enlarging and remodelling the smaller holdings. This was a case in which he thought the power of compulsion should be held in reserve. In this question of enlargement he thought that he, personally, could not be suspected of prepossession or prejudice. He had himself been a proprietor of land from his earliest years, and his interests and affections were identified with the land. It might be said that they conceded enlargement—they even conceded compulsory enlargement; but how would the small tenant be able to avail himself of the new privilege? Would he be able to occupy and stock his additional land? He was not very sanguine of great, extensive, and rapid social improvements by legislation. The labouring people must work out their own salvation by personal industry, integrity, and thrift. It would be idle to suppose that a poor crofting community, with a very contracted area of common pasture, would be able suddenly to take over a large farm, to take over the stock at a valuation price, and to pay the rent which was formerly paid by the sheep farmer in good years. It would also be idle to suppose that an individual crofter who, up to the present time, had paid a rent of from £2 to £5 a-year would suddenly be able to undertake a croft of the annual value of £15 a-year, and to do justice to the proprietor and to the soil. The method and manner in which additional land could be alone conferred with advantage on the small tenant was by the enlargement of the common pasture, by the appropriation of a portion of the adjacent land, together with some moderate portion of land susceptible of tillage, or susceptible of feeding stock. Regarded in this practical and moderate form, he believed that small tenants would be able gradually to occupy and stock these large holdings. He thought this concession would be very highly valued by them, and it would be very beneficial to them, on one condition, and that was that the evils of squatting and sub-division were prevented; and be thought that in that respect the provisions of the present Bill were very strong. He thought that the question of the enlargement of holdings could be better carried out in the absence of the provision for fixity of tenure, for this reason—that the
1480
proprietor in possession of his own prerogatives, who was well-intentioned by his tenants, would be able to use his authority, his control, and his advice in the recasting and remodelling of these large holdings, which he would not be able to do under the present system. That duty was, more or less, delegated by the Bill to Commissioners, who would not understand it so well as the proprietor; but he considered the enlargement of holdings was such an important question, that even under any disadvantage it was the principal object they should have at heart; and he could not help expressing his gratitude to Her Majesty's Government for having had the courage to embody this provision in the Bill. Up to the present time he had spoken in the interest of the crofters. He would leave to others—perhaps to his noble Friend on the Cross Benches (the Earl of Wemyss), or the noble Duke behind him—to speak in the interest of the proprietors. He might be permitted, however, to say that he did not think that the material interests of the proprietor were really seriously affected by the provisions of the Bill, as, in his opinion, the proprietor would not have got more from his land under any circumstances than he would get under its provisions. In his judgment, the Bill contained some provisions which were illusory, and some provisions which were even mischievous, as well as being pernicious. He was obliged to confess, with sorrow and confusion, that the very provisions which he deprecated were the provisions which the crofters had been taught to covet, and which the public in Scotland had learned to applaud. Those provisions might not be wise; but they were popular and acceptable, and he feared they were unavoidable. He could only express the hope that, if adopted, they might prove instrumental towards conciliation and peace; and that they might help to restore the population, who had many interesting and attractive qualities, to their normal condition of morality and order.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the noble Lord who had just spoken had apparently assumed that he was one of the few Members of that House who would speak upon that subject in the interest of the crofters, and had observed that he would leave to others the duty of speaking in the interests of the proprietors.

1481
He could assure the noble Lord that they on that side of the House, and on the other side as well, who were proprietors of land in the Highlands, were quite as anxious to assist the crofters as any of those demagogues who had been inciting them. They desired to see the crofters a prosperous people. They had worked for that end, many of them for years, and they would be very glad if the Legislature could see its way to pass any measure which would really have the effect of permanently improving their condition. His noble Friend (the Earl of Dalhousie) who had charge of the measure always dealt with every matter which was committed to his hands with singular judgment and discretion, and he was not sure that he had ever shown that judgment and discretion better than he had done that night. He spoke with great moderation and good temper on every point; but he skimmed with infinite agility over the thinnest ice. The Bill belonged either to the category of measures which they should discuss upon their own merits, or to the category of measures which they could discuss only with reference to the political situation in which they found themselves. He was bound to confess that he would not oppose the second reading of this Bill, not because he thought it was a good Bill on its merits, but on account of the position in which they were placed. He said distinctly that, on its merits, the Bill might be denominated by a new title. It would be no travesty of what he believed would be the effect of this measure to call it a Bill to arrest agricultural improvements in certain counties in Scotland. That would be an accurate title for the Bill. In order to show that he was not speaking vaguely or at random, or out of mere antipathy to any new principle adopted by Parliament, he would direct the attention of the House to one broad feature of the Bill, and of the speeches which had been made in favour of it. The Bill, as it had been pointed out to them, proposed to advance public money for the benefit of crofters as regarded their fishing avocations; but it did not propose to advance money to the extent even of a single shilling for agricultural purposes. He wanted to point out to the House the effect of that. Mr. Trevelyan, in his speech in "another place," dwelt at
1482
great length upon that point, and said he was not prepared to recommend Parliament to advance public money to crofters for agricultural purposes. The right hon. Gentleman said—and he (the Duke of Argyll) could not gainsay the argument—that he did not see why the small tenant on the West Coast of Scotland had more claim on the public purse than the small tenant in any other part of Scotland who might be suffering from agricultural distress, or, indeed, than the small tradesmen, who were now suffering great distress. Mr. Trevelyan put his foot down on that at once, and said he would be no party to the advance of public money for agricultural speculation of that kind; and it was surmised at the time that Mr. Trevelyan had in his mind, when he made that speech, other proposals which were likely to be before Parliament with regard to another country. He asked them to look at this Bill fairly and closely, and they would find that one of the clauses of the Bill distinctly deprived the crofter of his access to the capital of the landlord. They refused to the crofter one shilling of public money, and they put him under such conditions that he could not get one shilling from his landlord. Did they think that that was for the benefit of the crofter, and that it would tend to the improvement of land in Scotland? The 5th clause said that a new agreement might be made between the landlord and the tenant, but that the agreement would hold so long as one of the parties did not apply to the Land Court for a revision. Let him point out how that operated. Two years ago the tenants on his property in the Island of Tiree came to him and said—"Will you help us to drain and fence this land?" He said—"Certainly I will, if you pay me a moderate percentage on the outlay." In that Island, and in many parts of the Highlands, there were plenty of rocks but no stones, and the fences had to be made with wire at great cost. These poor crofters were not able to lay out that money; but they were perfectly willing to pay to the landlord interest on his outlay. He told those crofters he would be very glad to help them, and a year and a-half ago the work was done. This year they asked him to proceed with the work; but he said—"I am sorry I cannot do that, till I see what Parliament is going to do

1483
with my freedom of contract with you." If this Bill were passed he should have to say to these crofters—"My friends, Parliament has prohibited you from making any binding contract with me on that. You may promise your 4 or 5 per cent upon this outlay; but you cannot bind even yourselves, still less can you bind your successors in the farm." Under these circumstances he should be obliged to say—"I am very sorry Parliament has put you in the position of children or fools, and has put me in a position in which I cannot lay out any capital with any security. You must fence and drain the farm for yourselves." He would now beg the House to understand what was the experience of draining land in the West Highlands of Scotland. Sir James Caird was surprised when he informed him he could not drain land in the Highlands under from £12 to £15 an acre; but Sir James Caird was forgetting at the time that in consequence of the character of the soil they had to put their drains very thick, and largely to depend upon tiles and filling in. The tiles had to be obtained from Ayrshire, and therefore became very expensive in the West Highlands, and the result was that efficient drainage could not be done for anything like what it could be done for in the Lowlands of Scotland. That being so, how were the poor tenants, these crofters, to drain the land, because the Bill shut them out from the assistance of the State—because they said that these people should not have a shilling of money? In Committee he hoped the Government would be able either to insert a new clause, and so alter the 5th clause, so that after the tenant had been placed in possession of the increased croft he should be able to make a reasonable bargain with his landlord with respect to drainage and other matters. Without that this Bill, instead of improving the lot of these poor people, would immensely damage them. He agreed with his noble Friend that what these people asked for was more land, and there were two ways of increasing crofts where there was land available; but there were many townships in the Highlands in the midst of other townships, and in that case they could only add land by taking it from their neighbours. Another mode of increasing the size of the croft was to wait for accidental vacancy, and then to add to it the
1484
adjoining croft. When a crofter came to him and asked to have his croft increased, he said to him—"Well, which of your neighbours do you want to swallow up?" That puzzled him. When he succeeded, 40 years ago, to an estate which was managed on the old Celtic system, and was overcrowded with crofters, he gave instructions to his agent never to turn out a crofter except for bankruptcy; but when a croft became vacant never to let it again to any man outside certain close relations of the late tenant, but to add it to adjacent crofts. Taking advantage of these vacancies, he had gradually succeeded in increasing the size of the crofts, until now they were most of them of a comparatively good size, and the crofters were now in comfortable circumstances. Now, what would be the effect of the Bill in that case? The whole of the operations to which he had been trusting for 40 years for the improvement of these people would be absolutely stopped, because the Bill gave the smallest of these people power to leave their crofts not only to their sons, and he did not object to that, or to the croft being left to daughters who had married well, or to brothers; but they empowered a crofter to leave the croft to his most distant relation; and if he should leave no will, then the croft was to fall to the heir-at-law, who might be a man who had lived all his life in Glasgow, and came for the first time into the parish to take up the croft, thus preventing that increase of the size of crofts that added so much to the comfort of the people. That was a fault in the Bill which, however, he was afraid that no Amendment the Government were likely to accept would alter, though he had an Amendment which he should put down on the Paper, with the view of leaving to the township as well as to the landlord the right to object to a tenant taking possession of the croft on the ground that he was a stranger. In all cases where adjacent land was not available the Bill would damnify the position of the crofter. The acceptance of that Bill, with all the Amendments it was possible for them to put in it, depended entirely upon what he called the difficulties in the way. What was their position? what were the circumstances that compelled them to adopt some measure which he quite admitted was necessary? In the first place, they had the

1485
manufacturers to deal with, and in their part of Scotland they had the survival of a class, once universal over the whole country, of small crofters, who were disappearing. Concurrently with that they had a strong popular opinion in favour of small holdings. He believed that in many parts of the country consolidation had gone on to an inconvenient extent, limiting the class of farms to persons with large capital. He believed it would be better to have larger farms; but just now they had almost a mania for the adoption of a plan under which small farms could be established or thrive. Then there was a third point, which he would venture to call the Celtic mania. He himself was of Celtic origin—and as pure a Celt as existed—but the views upon that matter had gone to a most extraordinary extent. Now, if a man threatened another for telling the truth, if he seized upon another man's property without a shadow of reason and defied the law, if he refused to pay his portion of the rates, he was praised all over the papers as a hero, the only condition being that he should speak Gaelic. The Celtic mania had now to be dealt with, and, as far as it could be, reduced to reason. Fourthly, they had the contagion of the Irish Land Act. He had always said that Act had debauched the public mind in these matters, as he foresaw it would do; and a great deal of the agitation brought on in the Highlands had simply been the echo of the Irish Land Act. Next, they had an organized agitation to which his noble Friend the Chairman of the Commission testified in a most frank manner when he said that the Commission was preceded by an organized band of agitators, and the Petitions that were sent in were drawn up at Westminster, and forwarded through Edinburgh by persons, many of whom were decayed schoolmasters. The crofters were told what they were to say, and in many of the Petitions the same terms were used. Then there was the fact that Government had appointed a Royal Commission to inquire into the matter; and in the presence of his noble Friend the Chairman of that Commission he would say that the whole of that matter had been grossly mismanaged, and the Commission ought to have been of a different character. It ought to have been a regular Court of Inquiry, where the truth or the untruth of the statements made could have been
1486
ascertained before the Commission. Great falsehoods were given as evidence, and the landlords had not the means to disprove them. There was, however, one advantage in having as Chairman of that Commission a man like his noble Friend (Lord Napier and Ettrick).
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICKtook exception to the statement of the noble Duke, and pointed out that the Commission examined most carefully the representatives of the landlords.
THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that his noble Friend went to the Island of Tiree in such a hurry that a letter he (the Duke of Argyll) sent to him only reached him by the purest chance before the Commission sat. If they had known what was to happen they ought to have had an organized band of examiners sent round with the Commissioners to cross-examine the witnesses, or to see that they did not tell lies, because he knew that many falsehoods were told. Excepting the fact that his noble Friend had great influence upon the witnesses that went before the Commission, and impressed them with the fact that the Government really wished to hear their side of the question, he believed the Commission was an ill-advised one, and that its Report did mischief. Then there was the political situation. They had a vote in the House of Commons, about which he wished to say something. A discussion was raised upon a Motion that something should be done in the interests of the crofters, and it was brought on by a right hon. Gentleman who intended to stand for one of the crofter constituencies. Sir William Harcourt showed an anxiety to get rid of the vote, and he made a deprecatory speech upon the matter. When the vote was put many of the hon. Members rose and marched out of the House, showing that they were disinclined to resist a vote of the kind; and the fact was that in the face of a General Election all parties were powerless in regard to it. There was a moral cowardice on the part of all parties, and although the Government deprecated the vote it was allowed to pass sub silentio; but still it was a recorded vote of the House of Commons, and he was not surprised that his noble Friend and other Members of the Government should dwell upon it as an important factor in the political situation. Lastly, they came to the Executive duties of the

1487
Government, and he did not know that the House had the least idea of the real state of things that had arisen in the crofter districts. In the Isle of Skye it was a small thing to say that the Queen's writ did not run there. The Queen's Messenger had gone to the Island, and had been assaulted and maltreated to the serious danger of his life when administering the writ of the Court of Session. The poor's rates could not be collected at the present moment, and yet during the whole of the last winter the poor actually would have wanted the necessaries of life if the agents of the proprietors had not come forward to the banks and said—"We will guarantee this advance." That, he thought, was very handsome on the part of the landlords, who were not receiving their rents. At this time, also, they had the Sheriff of the county, Sheriff Ivory, representing to the Government that the state of things was intolerable; schools had been shut up, and unless the Government came to their assistance the poor would starve. He distinctly denied that any Government had the right to withhold the arm of the law from enforcing the law in such circumstances as these until the Parliament had been driven to the adoption of any particular measure. Still, they were bound to consider the state of matters, and he fully admitted the extreme importance of having this question, if possible, settled without the danger and risk of a rising and bloodshed. He entirely agreed with the statement that after all they were a very poor class of people, and that they had been misled by agitators into believing what was untrue; but the force of the law would have to be maintained sooner or later, and the sooner the better he said. Under all these circumstances, he could not deny that they were in a position that compelled them to agree to something being done; and if any measure of that kind had to be passed, the Government must draw up a Bill with the view of doing as much good and as little injustice as was possible. But he did not think they had entirely succeeded. Before sitting down he hoped the House would allow him to say a few words upon an important matter which his noble Friend had referred to. They would see the enormous temptation that a Government was under in these circumstances to invent
1488
arguments and history to support the Bill. They were driven to their wits' end to invent arguments, law, and history which had no foundation in fact, and these arguments would have a very bad effect on the country, and neutralize the Bill, because it would give a vague idea of ancient rights, which rights had never existed, and which the Bill did not sanction. He wished to point out one or two of these great historical errors to the House, which had been pressed into the service of the Bill—errors which had nothing to do with the case. One was the general impression that the old Celtic tenure of the country before the day of Charters was more favourable to the cultivating classes than they came to be under the Charters; but he contended that it could be proved beyond contradiction that under the old Celtic tenure the classes of cultivators were bound by harsh Celtic usages on the part of their Chiefs; and the first year of redemption to the Highlands and to the rest of the country was when written Charters were given. The same delusion had affected their Irish policy, where the land misery had not been due to English settlers. There was the direct mismanagement of the land by the old Celtic Chiefs; and the complaint against the English settlers was not that they had, but that they had not, introduced English law. It was exactly the same thing, only not so bad, in the Highlands. He would now allude to another historical error—that the old clans had rights of grazing. As a mode of occupation, let it be distinctly understood that the word crofter was not Celtic at all; and the custom of holding a piece of land, and a common grazing in addition, existed over the whole of Scotland and England and Europe. They could go back to a period when, in the immediate neighbourhood of Edinburgh, there were common grazings, and the place where the battle of Prestonpans was fought was a common grazing. The clans had been spoken of as if they were confined to the Highlands; but the whole South of Scotland had been occupied by clans on precisely the same footing. In Sir Walter Scott's Border Minstrelsy they would find the most interesting account of the state of society before the Union of the Crowns, where Sir Walter Scott talked of the Scotts, and the Elliots, and

1489
the Armstrongs, and the Johnstons as clans. They were all clans, just as the Campbells and the Frasers were clans. The mode of life was exactly the same. There was a third historical error of a most extraordinary kind. Mr. Trevelyan actually said that there was nothing in the Bill which had not hitherto existed. But they never had anything like fixity of tenure; and, what was more, they never had the grazings of the mountains. He would not trouble the House with quotations; but he had many of them from the works of the most eminent authorities on Scotch history to show that in the Middle Ages the tenure was one of tenancy at will, except in the case of those who had written leases, and written leases existed before the battle of Bannockburn. One of the most remarkable books dealing with these matters was called The Book of Taymouth, containing a large number of documents, which had been preserved, regarding the management of that great Highland estate, which was some 60 miles in length, and these papers contained a continuous history of the estate for 300 years. Those papers had been put into the hands of a most competent man, and the book showed that the landlord exercised the power of displacement, of removal, of plantation, of protecting deer, and of protection of heather burning, which the landlord now possessed. Refugees were very often taken in and planted on the land—refugees from broken clans—and they had the most minute directions as to their conduct and the conditions of their tenancy. In short, all the historical nonsense about private rights vanished the moment they examined those papers. As regarded tenants at will and removal of tenants, as early as the 12th century they had an Act of Parliament providing for the incoming and outgoing tenants precisely as they might have it now. When Mr. Trevelyan made such statements in the House of Commons, it only showed that he was absolutely ignorant of the ancient history of the country for which he proposed to legislate. In The Book of Taymouth they had the most minute directions for the protection of the red deer, from 1571 up to 1720. Then they had the Gordon Estates, extending in the year 1600 from the coast of Banffshire to the West Coast opposite, Skye; and
1490
Mr. Joseph Robertson and Mr. Cosmo Innes testified that over that vast tract of country there were no sheep; there was hardly any cattle; and the whole of the country was absolutely waste mountain. Instead of that they had now an enormous added wealth. There was another passage which he heard with astonishment, and that was the clearances and the stocking of the mountains with sheep was done for the benefit of the proprietors and not for the benefit of the public. Did Mr. Trevelyan mean to say that to change a whole country, almost waste except for a few glens, into a country where there were millions of sheep and tens of thousands of cattle was not a benefit to the country? He might just as well have said that there was no benefit to the country in the draining of the Bedford level, or the reclamation of England from wastes and forests. People talked about the diminution of population in the Highlands; but it all depended from what date they started. After the close of the Civil War in 1745 there was an enormous increase of population in the Highlands, quite out of proportion to the increase of the means of subsistence. That arose from four causes. First of all, there was peace, and one of the most prominent agitators in Scotland was so beset with sympathy for the crofters that he actually talked of the horrible outrages and massacres that went on before 1745 as a little wholesome blood-letting for the benefit of the population. When that little wholesome blood-letting came to an end there was an enormous increase in the breeding powers of the country. Then there was the introduction of the potato, and the introduction of inoculation. He mentioned the last fact lately in a speech in Scotland, and he had an inquiry from one of the most prominent physicians whether inoculation had been introduced into the Highlands. He was very glad to refer that gentleman to seven or eight extracts from the accounts of Ministers in the Statistical Account of Scotland, published in 1790, which proved his assertion. The truth was that in former times the Highlands were subjected to desolation, famines, plagues, and visitations of small-pox, which swept away thousands upon thousands, and very frequently there was a failure of the crops, followed by starvation or slow

1491
fever. The potato saved the Highlands from famine, and inoculation saved the people from small-pox. Then there was the manufacture of kelp, which led to the sub-division of the crofts, because there was plenty of occupation, and the population accordingly increased. That industry failed, and the Highlands were the only country he knew of where, when a great industry ceased, the people would not remove, but remained on the spot. The state of the Highlands was most extraordinary as to population. In the Island of Lewis in 1801 the population was 9,168, while in 1881 it was 25,487—a higher rate of increase than had taken place in the most populous city of Scotland. Those people, so far as he knew, were fishermen, and there was no additional means of support and subsistence. Those were the historical errors which had been stated by public men in favour of the Bill; and although the Bill passed into law to-morrow, it would be as useless as the action of the police in the Island of Skye, because they had to deal with moral force, and people ought to have the courage nowadays to speak a little truth and state their own opinions, There was another great fallacy with regard to the Highlands. There were a great number of people who thought that the Highlands had become the monopoly of large sheep farms, and there were no intervening farms between the size of a large sheep farm and a croft. There was nothing more absurd. He would venture to say that there was a better and more equal division of land in the Western Highlands than in any part of Scotland—certainly far better than in those parts of Scotland which showed the other day the most splendid agriculture in the Kingdom. In Argyllshire and Inverness-shire there were a large number of farms below £50, a large number between £50 and £200, and a very large number between £200 and £1,000, and the number of larger ones was very small. The responsibility for this measure rested with the Government and not with him; and he hoped they were very much encouraged by the success of the last Irish Land Act. It was perfectly clear that what were called judicial rents were not accepted by either party as judicial in the proper sense of the word, and caused both landlords and tenants to be discontented. The truth was
1492
that these matters could not be regulated and managed by Act of Parliament. They could not make a population contented by passing measures which attempted to do what in the nature of things was impossible. He thought that in the interest of justice and common sense he would have to move some Amendments in Committee. They were Amendments which he believed were not inconsistent with the principles of the Bill or the objects the Government had in view; and he was perfectly content, if they were accepted, that this Bill should be tried as an experiment to see if it would work satisfactorily.
THE EARL OF FIFE: This question of the Scottish crofters has unfortunately, like so many others connected with the land, been greatly complicated, as the noble Duke has very truly said, by appeals to class prejudice and popular ignorance on the part of those whose zeal for the Highland crofter is of but a very recent growth. I greatly fear that the condition of the Highland crofter is but the natural result of physical and economic causes which legislation is powerless to cure, and this is confirmed by the noble Lord (Lord Napier and Ettrick) who spoke second in this debate. The Royal Commissioners, whose Report I have carefully read, do not by any means suggest that the crofters suffer, on the whole, from rack-renting; but that their grievances result mainly from other causes. In an amiable desire to remedy matters, our legislators have endeavoured to rivet for all time to a barren soil populations which that soil is now unable to bear, and thus realize a graphic description of this Bill which I heard the other day, as one whose final end would be to stereotype barbarism. For what are the fundamental principles of this Bill? They are simply those of "fixity of tenure" and "fair rent," which we have heard so much of in an ominous quarter, and the application of which has not been attended with signal success. In that case—I mean in Ireland—those whom it was sought to conciliate were far from being conciliated; and in this case the self-constituted champions of the Highland crofter repudiate and refuse your concessions. Therefore, you are in this position—that, while you have set up in the British Isles principles opposed to your previous declarations and repugnant

1493
to all sound economic doctrines, you have not even secured the poor satisfaction of allaying the opposition of your agrarian agitators. But your Lordships are well aware that it is the custom nowadays to ask your critics to evolve an alternate policy; and my noble Friend will, doubtless, ask me what I propose to do to remedy the evils of which the crofters complain. Well, no insuperable difficulty seems to arise when large sums of money are required to solve difficulties on the other side of St. George's Channel. And here you have an exceptional case, in a small area, under circumstances which you say yourselves are entirely peculiar—of a small population, numbering, I believe, something like 40,000 families—and you hesitate to apply grants or loans from public money, which could not possibly be excessive, and which, if advanced to responsible persons, and with the co-operation of the landlords, might effect a material improvement in the condition of these people. Highland proprietors cannot be considered, as a whole, a wealthy class; and they are unable, therefore, to do what the special circumstances of the crofters make it desirable that they should do, either in the way of improving their holdings, or adding to their stock and implements. If, therefore, you are determined, or think you can improve their condition by exceptional legislation, such legislation should take the form of providing, by exceptional means, the necessary capital. This may not recommend itself to the sternest political economists; but it is surely better than to set up in the British Isles unsound principles, which may be claimed as precedents in the future, and which it is even now sought to extend far beyond the limits of crofting counties. If the rights of landlords are in your way when seeking to improve the condition of any specially impoverished class, by all means let those rights be removed, after due compensation given. There are abundant precedents for this. But on what principle are you acting when you wish a man to keep his land, and yet tell him, as you do in the 11th clause of this Bill, to whom he is to be compelled to let it, and at what price? Surely, if the position of the crofters is to be considered such an exceptional one as to necessitate the application of principles, the soundness of which you
1494
can hardly justify, it would have been wiser, and I am convinced much more efficacious, to have approached this question in a totally different manner—to have endeavoured to cure the root, and not the mere developments of this evil. If land is wanted to expand these crofts, let land be purchased compulsorily, in the usual manner, for that object; if loans are required for agricultural purposes, let them be provided at a low rate of interest to responsible persons; if harbours are necessary, as we know they are for the development of the fishing industries, let financial assistance be afforded under proper guarantees; and, lastly, let emigration, the only effectual remedy for congested, districts, be distinctly encouraged wherever feasible, instead of being entirely ignored as it is in this Bill. I am convinced that nearly all that is requisite to deal with this special grievance in a corner of Scotland might be done through the financial aid of a State guarantee. The sum involved could not assume extravagant proportions; but if it were ten times what practical men hold to be requisite, it would yet be insignificant in comparison with those enormous sums you propose to pour out like water, to propitiate Irish discontent, and buy off Irish opposition. Surely it would have been better for the Government to have reserved some of its lavish generosity for a small Scottish grievance, rather than introduce a Bill which contains the maximum of interference with other people's freedom, and the minimum of satisfaction to the grievances alleged. Although I have some knowledge of the populations in question, I am not personally affected by the provisions of this Bill; and as those who are directly interested in it, and who have more experience than myself in your Lordships' House, have not thought it necessary to take any steps in the matter, I shall merely content myself with entering my protest against this further violation of sound principles on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY (JUSTICES) BILL [H.L.]
A Bill to remove doubts respecting the sitting and acting of the Chancellor and other

1495
officers of the University of Oxford as Justices of the Peace—Was presented by The Lord Chancellor; read 1a. (No. 119.)
House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.